There's no fucking way I'll EVER vote for ..........

[Stinky The Clown]

There's no fucking way I'll EVER vote for .......... (insert name of the Dem politician you won't ever vote for here).

I see these sorts of posts with alarming frequency here on DU. And it makes me wonder.

It makes me wonder if such posts are made by rational, caring people.

We are five years into what will go down in history as the absolute worst eight years for our nation in its entire history. Worse than any of the war years (Civil, WWI, WWII, Korea, and yes, even Viet Nam). Arguably even worse than the Great Depression. Our republican administration more resembles the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pinochet, Pol Pot, and a whole host of lesser bad guys than the next worst of any of our past American administrations.

Yet, some would, for the sake of .... what? ..... principle? ... dogma? .... ideology? ...... personal conscience? ...... vote for a can't-win third party candidate, or even for the opposition, than even the worst Dem?

If this fits you, I have to ask ... are you fucking nuts?

Sure, we all find some of 'our own' odious. Sure, we all agree that this Dem or that has a horrible record on this issue or that. Sure, some of 'our own' have even come out in support of this or that as proposed by idiot son.

But come on .... are you really serious that if (X or Y or Z Dem) gets the 08 nomination you won't vote for him/her? Do you really mean you'd cast a vote that allows for the hand-picked successor to our most destructive, divisive, hurtful, criminal administration to win the presidency?

So I get back to my original question ...... are you fucking nuts?

If you answer this ... tell me why. Convince me that what I see as lunacy you see as somehow righteous. I'd love to read your answer. I'd love to share it with my kids. I'd love to be able to explain it to the people I care about more than I care for my own life.

Convince me that you're right and I'm wrong.

(Note to cut off the typical argument to this notion .... if you see me as a 'hated centrist' you would be wrong. If you see me as wishy washy and a former ABB voter, you would also be wrong. I have strong and deep convictions and I do NOT want us to be going center to win. But I am also a realist and know that first we need to win. THEN we can change who we are. I will be fighting in the primary season for my candidate of choice. But at the end of primary season, I will accept the choice of the party and, in party lockstep, work my ASS off for a win. The republicans MUST be defeated.)

[applegrove]

1. Vote for Nader. I'm sure he will run again. Went well in 2000 - just

2% of Dems voting for an independant and an election can be taken in the courts.:sarcasm:

[Stinky The Clown]

5. And what if that 2% that *might* allow things to go to court .....

would have been the deciding margin? And how the hell do you think we'd do in court? Do you recall 2000?

[applegrove]

19. I was being sarcastic.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Sorry

It is hard recognize sarcasm sometimes. I guess that's why DU has this smiley: :sarcasm:

But by way of a peace offering for misunderstanding you, here's another smiley: :hi:

[applegrove]

26. I misunderstand sarcasm all the time too. I should have used the

smilie. My fault. I knew better. I will change it.

[DaveinMD]

2. I will vote for

any Democrat against any Republican. Any Democrat is better than any Republican. Its that simple.

[babylonsister]

8. I'm with Dave. The Dem nominee

is the person I'll vote for. I'll be paying lots of attention, but that's the way it will go, and I imagine that's true for the majority here.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

42. Bayh vs. Snowe

Miller V. Paul

Lieberman V. Chafee

...

Not so simple.

[DaveinMD]

44. Dems appoint Democrats

Zell Miller isn't a Dem. He caucused with the Republicans. Lieberman has a better ADA than Chafee, who needs to be defeated four us to regain the Senate.

[VADem11]

46. Miller

isn't a democrat and Paul isn't a real republican. Even Nelson is better than Chafee.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

51. Any "D" vs. any "R" was the statement.

I just made an observation. Your subsequent observations just bolster my point.

:toast:

[Stinky The Clown]

50. No. It is VERY simple

Dem Pres = Demm pressures and special interest groups and playing to the Dem base.

Repub Pres = more of the same.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

53. Some Dems are not *gasp* good for America.

Some Pugs don't have their head up their ass. *gasp*

:shrug:

[Wabbajack]

114. Paul, Snowe or Chaffe will never be on the GOP ticket

[Midlodemocrat]

105. I am with you. I will vote for and support whoever is the candidate.

[rockymountaindem]

3. No argument here.

I'm with you. Centrism isn't the end of the world that a lot of people here seem to think it is.

[LiberalVoice]

6. I dont think Centrism is the problem...

Most examples of what Husb2Sparkly I think is talking about is the argument about Hillary Clinton being the Dem candidate. I dont care if she is a "Centrist". What pisses me off is the many DU members that actually believe she could ever win the presidency. It ain't happening an dI would give up on this country if people were actually dumb enough to believe she has a chance at winning.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. We agree on thsi point

I am not particularly in love with many of her recent positions, but neither do I find her distasteful.

She's just a triangulator. Like her husband.

But were the Clinton years bad?

I, for one, think they were great! Perfect? No. But very comfortable for most of us, thanks.

[LiberalVoice]

17. No they weren't bad.

But that really has nothing to do with it does it?

[LiberalVoice]

4. I agree with partof your last pargraph.

"I will be fighting in the primary season for my candidate of choice."

And should my candidate not win then I will support the Dem candidate that is chosen. However...If its someone like for instance Hillary Clinton I will put my vote in Nov. 2nd and get on a plane for Europe on the 3rd.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Fine .... just so you vote before you leave.

She's far from my choice as a candidate, but if she actually won, I would be dancing naked in the streets for a week.

[LiberalVoice]

11. So would I.

And I dont want anyone to think I wouldn't want her to win in a run Vs. whoever the Repugs throw out there. There is just no way she can win and I wont waste my time supporting a party that lieks to lose.

[eleny]

9. So, you'd vote for someone like Lieberman?

[Stinky The Clown]

16. In the primary? Never.

In the general, against a repug .... yes.

Even Joementum actually has a good record on most of our core values. Oh, to be sure, there are some very eveil points about ol' Joe, but he would be a SHITLOAD better than .... Santorum ..... Frist ..... Kid Bush the Smarter .... Allen ...... etc.

[eleny]

24. Right now I have a line in the sand I can't cross

And I believe that it's the way to get the attention of the Party. There is no way that I'd vote for Kerry again. Not after he curled up into a ball after this last election and literally rolled off into the sunset. And if anyone votes yes on Roberts, they're toast.

You see I have to face myself in the mirror each and every morning. As far as I'm concerned, certain elements of the Party have let me down. I have some serious decisions to make before the next general election.

[Jai4WKC08]

34. This is DU anathema

But yeah, I'd hold my nose and vote for Joementum.

I can't stand him, but I can't imagine there might be a Repub candidate I can't stand less. Even their "moderates" are worse than Joe (who for all his faults has some liberal positions on issues I think are important).

Butcha know... no moderate Repub can get their nomination and Lieberman won't ours. So WTF?

Point is, no, I would vote for any Dem who got the nomination, or more accurately against any Repub, as opposed to a third party or independent that has NO chance of keeping the Repubs out of the White House. ONLY if someone could convince me the independent had a reasonable chance of winning would I vote for him or her, and I just don't see that happening. Not as long as we have an Electoral College.

[babylonsister]

37. Jomentum will not happen so it's a non-issue. nt

[atommom]

10. With the Repubs marching in lockstep, I think you're correct.

Getting Dems to completely agree on a candidate is like herding cats. But we can't afford to get caught up in fighting with our own party, when the enemy is so fearsomely single-minded and efficient.

[rzemanfl]

13. I'm not fucking nuts yet, but there is a lot of Bushworld ahead of

me before 2008. May be batshit crazy by then. I could not vote for anyone who was hugged and/or kissed by the shrub and did not immediately kick his ass. I'd just take a pass. Short of that, I will never vote for a Republican ever again for any public office. To keep this vow I had to vote for a guy named "Bubba the Love Sponge" for Sheriff in 2004.

[eallen]

14. After 2004, I'll never say never. I'd have voted for a mangy yellow dog...

If I had thought it was the most likely way to defeat Bush.

[CTyankee]

15. So many of us feel

campaign fatigue. I guess if someone bows out of an election of Hillary Clinton and then leaves the country as a result, that is his/her choice. We are Democrats. We have strong emotions about our politics (I know I do!). As I posted elsewhere, Democrats fight and yell, Republicans shut up and vote. This is our common condition.

OK folks, is it better to accommodate and win, or hold out and lose?

[Swamp Rat]

88. No, it is better hold out and win.

We've already accomodated and lost.

Look where we are now.

[Son of California]

18. I think it is important

not to be so much of a team player that you forget that you are an American first before you are Dem, Progressive, Liberal (which ever you may prefer)....

BUT........ AS AMERICANS, THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN DO FOR OUR COUNTRY RIGHT NOW IS GET THE NEOCONS/GOP/RADICAL RIGHT/RELIGIOUS FANATICS OUT OF POWER -that is mission number one. If that means sending a few Dems up into Congress that maybe aren't the greatest example of a true progressive -then so be it! as long as they will at least do a good job of toeing the party line and battling the dark forces of the Right.

When the NeoCons are ousted, and we have a Dem Prez and Congress, then we can start splitting hairs about who is the Truest Bluest.

and by the way, lay off Hillary, ok. She's not perfect, She pisses me off sometimes too, but God damn it! would you rather waste time attacking her and helping the GOP pick up another vote in the Senate?
How does that help anything? NO ONE IS PERFECT, but we work with what we got to fight the good fight, and right now we should be fighting the GOP, not each other!

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Amen!

[SoCalifer]

21. There's no way I'd EVER vote for

- Joseph Leiberman (Pseudo Democrat)

- Dianne Feinstein (Let me pull out the knife she planted in my back)



There is a line that can be crossed and these two crossed it with me.

[Stinky The Clown]

27. And how do I explain that to my kids when

they're destitute from the robber baron republicans? Will your 'principled stand' help them get by? Can I say in my will for my wife to speak with you about why her Social Security was taken from her and what she might have inherited from me has been taken by the robber barons? Do I leave a time capsule citing you for principle, and hope that gets my great grandkids over anyother hungry day living in a cardboard box on land donated by the one robber baron with even the hint of a heart?

Oh no, Liebrman and Feinstein (and I would add Big Mouth Biden to your list) are NOT my candidate of choice and I will fight HARD against them in the primaries.

But in the generals ..... they get my support and my vote.

[SoCalifer]

36. How would I explain to my

kids, if I voted for a lady who attacked their father's livelihood because of the same robber baron corporations has her in the same pocket that they have the republican asses?

Are we to just allow the same corporate cancer that inflicts the republican party to go on and inflict our party too?

If so, better to just throw in the towel now than to waste all this energy chasing your tail fighting against something that you give the green light to when you vote guilty persons in just because they have a D next to their name, instead of what the substance of the person is.

Sorry Husb2Sparkly, I know the frustration you're feeling.....we all are feeling it too. But if we are going to make a difference and improve our lives and our children's lives, we can't afford to keep putting into office, agents of the corporations. We're rapidly losing control of our country because of that. It has to stop....

[Stinky The Clown]

41. Reality is a serial phenomenon

The reality in the primaries is one thing .... and there we fight and fight hard. In the generals, it is, sadly, often a chice between the lesser of two evils.

But given that second reality, I'll choose the Dem.

[SoCalifer]

48. Husb2Sparkly I understand

the reality of what you're explaining. I myself am only trying to point-out a couple of things.

First, what difference does it make if we vote in a Democrat who's history of voting, is voting for things that we have contempt for with the Repuke? Secondly, I am thinking more in the long term so that we don't have to choose between the lesser of two evils, because I agree having to vote in the generals for the lesser of two evils is a shit sandwich none of us likes to have to take a bite of. So in my humble opinion, the longer we continue to reward corporate whore Democrats, the more difficult it is going to be -and- the worse our suffering is going to be, in removing them.

P.S. You can take one thing to the bank...... I WILL !!NEVER!! punch a vote for ANYONE with an R next to their name.........!!NEVER!!... I'd rather die first..

I just wanted to make that clear...

[Auntie Bush]

134. So if Hillery or someone else you don't like gets the Dem nomination...

You won't vote!?!?! Tell me just how that will help us get control of our country? :shrug:

"We're rapidly losing control of our country because of that. It has to stop...."

[niallmac]

38. Agree.

When the 911 hysteria came down, along with our civil rights, there was only the Democratic opposition party to defend me. It was their job, their holy historical duty to me, the country, the constitution. They failed. They caved. Many continue to behave as if beholden to corporate America and that means selling out the worker at every turn.
There are some who are democrats in name only. Voting record does count. If someone sits on my side of the aisle and screws me every damn chance they get what the hell do I owe them? Why is the anger and discernment of those who say "no more" considered party treason? I don't get it.

[Adelante]

23. The Democratic nominee has my vote

No matter who it may be.

[Inland]

25. Haven't the luxury of withholding vote, will support nominee.

Whoever we pick, that's who we pick.

[ChiciB1]

28. Don't Know If This Is Only A 2008 Thing...

But I'll NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER vote for KATHERINE Cruella (blue eye shadow) Harris!

A real slime ball, snake, liar, PMSed WHINER!!

Get her OUT OF MY STATE!!!

[mom cat]

29. Maybe this kind of statement is made in the hopes of moving some of the

Dems away from Pol Pot-ism.We need to raise our collective populist vioce and bring "some of our own" back to at least the center of the party!

[Stand and Fight]

30. Hear, hear!!

I completely agree with what you just said. I have often run that same sort of dialog in my head when I see such post on here. The current incarnation of the Republican Party must be toppled. I'll be dammed if I'm going to waste my vote on some third party candidate that hasn't a chance in hell of winning. Come 2008 -- be it Bayh, Kerry, Clinton, Dean, Clark, Boxer, Conyers -- whoever wins the nomination will have my full support, because they're surely better than any of these neo-conservative nut-jobs.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[SamBass]

73. I agreed, in principle.

Until 6 years ago. But the current regime has skewed and screwed this country so bad, I wouldn't vote rethug with a loaded gun to my head. And I believe that votin' third party is an absolute waste.

Although . . . I live in Texas and I am SERIOUSLY considerin' voting for Kinky Friendman in our upcoming govener's race, even if I have to write him in.

Truth is, and I do follow what the "leading" Dems say, and especially what they do ~ I'm not breathin' heavy about any of 'em.

[Donailin]

32. Over 200 million registered voters, less than half bother to vote

This country gets what it deserves.

(yes, I'm in that kind of mood):mad:

[babylonsister]

45. This could be a whole 'nother thread, but my

educated sister-in-law voted for the first time last November, for Kerry, at the age of 50. Don't ask me why.

[Donailin]

112. as an aside

I live in Silver Spring Md, so if you need anything come the september 24th protest, count me in.

[DarkTirade]

33. I remember when I first turned 18 and could finally vote...

I promised myself I wouldn't give in. Wouldn't choose the lesser of 2 evils.
Then my first election was Bush vs. Gore.
Damn.
I either go with the democrat, who would run the country well, but stands for things like censorship and a few other little things that I didn't agree with... or Bush.
D'oh.
Until we get the religious whackos and corporate whores out of office, it will have to be the lesser of two evils unfortunately.

[brentspeak]

35. Answer: 1) Freepers, and 2) Naive idealists

There are Freepers who troll the boards posing as "real Democrats". These agents provocateurs attempt to persuade the DU community not to vote for various Democrats - thus ensuring Republican victories.

Also, there are some naive DUers who advocate a kind of "scorched earth" policy. They think, bizarrely, that positive change will occur if the nation is even more dominated by Republicans in office.

[Q]

60. Or...they just might be Democrats...

...concerned about the future of their party and country.

How arrogant of you to presume that only the 'naive' or 'agents' would object to a demand for blind loyalty.

[brentspeak]

64. That's "arrogant" of me?

Anyone who votes/doesn't vote in such a way so as to ensure Republican victory is either a not very bright Democrat or just not a Democrat in the first place.

[WildEyedLiberal]

39. Thank you

Just when I'd thought this place had lost all fucking sense.

[LWolf]

40. Sorry.

I don't fit the profile. I've held my nose often enough in the voting booth. I also don't see the choice to withhold a vote from a candidate you don't feel comfortable with as either righteousness or lunacy. I see it as a personal choice that each person has to make, and I respect your right to use your vote as you see fit. I expect the same respect for voting my conscience. Just because someone's conscience tells them something different from your own doesn't mean theirs is wrong.

I believe that the WIN FIRST, CHANGE LATER plan is fatally flawed. Once you win by abandoning the principles you wanted to begin with, I don't think they will be regained.

I think we have to be the change we wish to see; not be something else and wish we might actually do something to change at some undefined period in the future. That's my position, and it's going to be damned hard to generate any enthusiasm for being the opposition in order to get elected, at least with people like me. We may pull the lever for compromise in the voting booth, but we won't be passionately convincing anyone that they are voting for a change for the better. How could we?

Frankly, I haven't WON until I've won the changes I wish to see.

[Fovea]

55. I have two minds on this.

The first is right there with you.

The second bothers me, because I see a lot of former Dem voters who have been sitting the last two cycles out, or voting their heart for another party.

What worries me is that the DLC controlled Democratic party takes this as evidence that they should move farther away from the positions that stand a chance of winning these voters (and I think they are legion) back to the process. They do not vote because *neither* party is representing their views.

Worse, I think a significant number of labor voters have voted against what they see as the Democratic abandonment of the working class.
They vote Pug, because the Pugs call the Dems spineless, and that the alienated voters *can* agree on.

[Q]

62. "I think we have to be the change we wish to see..."

I wish more Democrats thought like this. Thanks for your post.

[Robeson]

137. I agree with your post....

...nicely said.

[stevedeshazer]

43. If said Democrat is pro-war,

Like, say, Hillary Clinton,

What have I gained, my friend?

[WildEyedLiberal]

47. Oh I don't know, a president who won't fuck up the environment...

..or worker's rights, or attempt to make abortion illegal, or give huge tax breaks to the rich, or try to destroy public schools, or piss all over the Constitution, or appoint wackjobs to a permanent place in the supreme court, or appoint wackjobs to represent the US in the community of nations.

Seems to me you'd be gaining a whole lot. But if you choose to be myopic and view the world through an Iraq lens (and if you think any Democrat save maybe Joementum would have invaded the way Bush did, you're just out of touch with reality), then fine... but the rest of us, who care about living our daily lives that are affected by all sorts of decisions that have nothing to do with war, will have you to thank for helping fuck things up.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[stevedeshazer]

57. Love you, too

:eyes:

None of what you mention, which I agree with, will happen with a pro-war candidate.

I agree that the US would not have invaded Iraq with a Democrat in the White House, even Joe.

But I'm not hearing many Democrats, certainly not the one who is touted as the leading candidate for the nomination, saying anything that would lead me to believe that the Democratic Party as represented by its current leadership wants to end the war.

Unfortunately, the Iraq lens you speak of distorts and controls everything, and until that changes everything else is on the back burner.

May we both live to see a Democrat we can agree on. Unfortunately, many Democrats continue to vote for war, for tax cuts, and against abortion, against schools, and for whack job appointees.

Peace.

[MH1]

113. Kerry called for pulling troops out starting this June.

He campaigned on a 4 point plan that started troop drawdown in June 2005. It was ambitious but we sure would have been closer than what has happened with *.

The morning of the day * gave his Fort Bragg speech, Kerry had an op-ed in the NYT, "The speech the president should give.":

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=241458

Among other things Kerry says:

"The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq."

I'm sure if you read it you will not totally agree with his measured approach, but it is indeed a plan to get our troops home, end the occupation of Iraq, and therefore end the war.

[stevedeshazer]

115. Hey, I was all for Kerry, he's not at issue here.

I beat the pavement all summer (2004) for the guy and made hundreds of phone calls. I believed in him, and I still do.

No one has yet convinced me that Hillary Clinton deserves my support, though. Say anything contrary here about her and you get whacked like I did.

If no one can make a better argument other than that Bush is worse, that's not much to hang your hat on.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. Hillary's husband did quite a few of those things

The sad part is that as bad as things like NAFTA and Welfare Reform were for workers and poor people, they were marginal compared to the crap that Bush is trying to pull.

Assuming Hillary were to govern like her husband, she's certainly still be an evil. But she would be a MUCH LESSER evil than somebody like Rick Santorum, George Allen, or Bill Frist.

[CTyankee]

95. Yes, yes, yes

You said it very well. What we are seeing now with this administration is more catastrophic than I could have imagined. I am truly frightened by this group of goons.

[greendog]

49. The candidate I vote for will be...

1. pro-worker
2. pro-feminist
3. pro-peace

A candidate who is all of the above will have no trouble defeating the neo-cons.

The DLCers who offer "kinder corporatism", are nominally pro-choice but have an undeniable record of approving neo-cons to the high court, and go along with the war every friggin' step of the way won't win whether I vote for them or not.

[az chela]

72. three years

We have one year to get Cindy prepared to run for office.She would make a great senator.California needs some intelligent people in politics.She is one of the most informed intelligent people on this planet and an extremely brilliant speaker.
She has proved that she has will go to the trenches for her beliefs.Think what a country we could have if we could clone her

[sendero]

52. I will vote...

... for the Dem that gets the nomination. But I hope it is a Dem that can win. Because I only have one fucking vote.

[NoPasaran]

54. No way I'm voting for liver and onions!

:puke:

[Q]

58. The Republicans always 'must be defeated'...

...because that should be the goal of any loyal opposition. But 2000 and then 9-11 changed everything...including many Democratic politicians. These situations also exposed the underbelly of the DINO/NeoDem 'network' working within the party to undermine our agenda and principles.

A vote for certain politicians would be voting to give more power and influence to the factions trying to transform the party into just another wing of the Republican party.

The answer could be to have a fair primary process and an even playing field for ALL candidates. There's nothing more UNDEMOCRATIC than powerful, well-financed factions of the party 'buying' and intimidating their candidates' way into the nomination.

[NinetySix]

59. I said something along the very same lines

during the DFA vs. DLC wars a week or so back, and got berated as naive or obtuse, and even was accused of being some kind of deep-cover DLC agent.

You make the same point I was trying to make: keep your eyes on the big picture. You can't solve any of your problems until the political atmosphere is changed to enable us all to seek solutions. The only way that change is going to come is incrementally. Hold your nose if you have to, but vote 'D'. We must have a modicum of unity if we are to defeat the lockstep of the Right.

[sellitman]

61. This is all Happy Horse shit.

Until we fix the voting system it

DON'T MATTER WHO YOU VOTE FOR!!!!!!!!


VERIFIED PAPER BALLOTS!!!!!!!

Geeez! When will you people ever get it? Did Andy die in vein?

[GreenPartyVoter]

70. Transparency.. people-owned voting machines, receipts, real OPTIONS

at the ballot box.

My God I can get a burger in a thousand different ways, a zillion options for bells and whistles on my car or stereo or computer, but I get two choices when it comes to building my government?

There has to be a better way: http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[autorank]

63. "any Democrat who voted to authorize Iraq" THAT'S F'ing RIGHT!

Not a one of them and I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat, always vote, always vote for a Democrat. But.....anyone who voted to authorize this travesty is a fool. I did vote for, work for, and give to Kerry and I'd do it again. Bush had to leave. In 2008, all bets are off. Another stolen election, DEMS DO NOTHING, deaths & injuries to our troops and Iraqis, DEMS DO NOTHING. They better get their act together.

And I'm talking about: Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Bayh, etc. all of them. It's time to take a stand. They should repent or resign. They should never be allowed to have our parties nomination.

[Stinky The Clown]

66. autorank, you and I are usually within 2%of total agreement on lotsa stuff

So please clarify ........ we will be in full agreement if you mean that you'll work hard **in the primaries** for someone other than the ones you named. But on the off chance one of these bozos gets the nom ... you'll work to get them elected?

Or ... do you really mean they'll never get your vote under any circumstances? Even in the generals?

(ps: we both know we're riding the same horse for the primaries :) )

[autorank]

69. ah F$%# it! I agree but if it's one of "them," I want pennance!

:evilgrin::spank::evilgrin:

[Stinky The Clown]

75. Dominus vobiscum

There ya go ... in Latin ..... from Bishop Stinky of the Great Church of the Clowns.

[eridani]

65. You are talking about general elections, I presume?

We're allowed to have tougher standards in the primaries--that's what they are for.

[Stinky The Clown]

67. You Betcha! I want a bloodletting in the primaries if need be

The primaries are **exactly** where we should be fighting and kicking ass.

But when its over, we should all come togther.

[Q]

68. You're asking us to vote for the status quo...

...in a party badly in need of changes.

[Stinky The Clown]

71. I'm not asking you to do anything. But I am suggesting we have a

rough and tumble primary (for the very soul of the party, probably), but at the end, to come togther to GET RID OF THE REPUBS.

[Q]

96. Whoa...sounds like you want to give someone a fair trial...

...and THEN hang them.

The problem with the primary process is that it's rigged to produce a certain outcome. That is...the nomination will go to the favorite of the 'party bosses', lobbyists and wealthy 'special interests'. Candidates against a perpetual war, corporate accountability or tax cuts for the rich need not apply.

It's no longer about choosing the best leader for the party and nation. It's no longer about choosing someone that will do what's right for the American people. It's about the wealthy, connected factions within the Democratic party threatening and smearing anyone that thinks that the primaries should provide every candidate an equal opportunity to become the nominee. But the writing is on the wall: in 2000, 2004 and 2008...the nominee will be whomever the 'new' Democratic leadership forces upon the party.

In 2004 this particular faction of the party was actually producing a smear campaign against other Democrats. They actually helped the Right character assassinate certain Democrats to keep them from gaining a popular following.

The Democratic party needs to wrestle with the reality that there will be no more ABB voting. Many, many Democrats will be voting FOR a candidate as opposed to voting against the GOP. No more lemming mentality when it comes to voting for public servants.

[eridani]

83. The only way to change the Dem status quo--

--is to start building farm teams of local officeholders who are progressive Democrats. Until we get that done, we can't knock off any of the sellouts without damaging ourselves. Even the most conservative Dem is still going to block some of the worst of the Repub initiatives.

[Pirate Smile]

74. I have felt the same way you do reading those comments. Thanks for the

post. :hi:

[ronnykmarshall]

76. Hitler

[Stinky The Clown]

80. ?

?

Did you post to the wrong thread?

[Telly Savalas]

99. Perhaps that was just in anticipation of a DLC v. DFA flamewar...

and rather than having 100 posts of increasingly heated attacks, it just cuts to the chase.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. Hillary will have to EARN my vote if it's Hillary vs McCain

Kerry didn't have to earn my vote. Bush vs Kerry was pretty much black and white. Although Kerry wasn't my favorite person, the difference was clear enough that I knew I would be voting for him no matter what. If it's Hillary vs McCain, Hillary will have to earn my vote. I don't like McCain's ass kissing of the Bush, but frankly it's nothing more than opportunism and right now, Hillary is being the queen of opportunism herself. If it's Hillary vs Santorum, that's unfortunately another no brainer. As sad as I would be to see such a race, I wouldn't have to even think about that one.

[Ride_The_Lightning]

79. Hilary Clinton

Simple as that.

[Stinky The Clown]

81. That's a real nonsequitor

Were you making a point? If so, I missed it.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. Please, elaborate! n/t

[VOX]

89. Do tell us more!

And enjoy your stay at DU, however brief that may be.

[NaturalHigh]

82. I will not have either party telling me how I must vote.

I absolutely will not vote for Hillary Clinton. I absolutely will not vote for Tom Delay. I will vote for a third-party candidate if I feel he or she is the best candidate (and it's beginning to look more and more likely that is going to be my best option).

Why does either party think that it has the right to tell me I must vote for the candidate that its power structure anointed?

[Ron Mexico]

102. This is the way I feel and why I don't post all that often. In 2000 and

2004 I voted third party because I absolutely detested both candidates each time and didn't believe a word either one said. I voted straight ticket Democrat outside of that, but I live in Virginia, so...

If we run a real candidate, I will vote for him. If Hillary runs, I will vote third party. We've reduced to picking between two jokes since Clinton had to step down, and were at that point for years before that. I have decided that never again will I merely vote against someone, I have to be voting FOR someone - and mere party affiliation means nothing if I don't believe a word that's being said.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[Stinky The Clown]

85. How do you know I have no idea?

Do you have any idea what the Civil War was like?

What the Pelopensian War was like?

What Hannibal faced crossing the alps?

By the way, welcome to DU and thanks for posting to my thread. :hi:

[CTyankee]

109. Loved your reference to the Peloponnesian War

Boy, do I have info about this war. It has great parallels to the Iraq War. If you would like to PM me, that would be fine. It is a very interesting look at what happened, and what doomed, the world's first democracy, and an empire, to utter defeat because of the use of offensive war.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[Totally Committed]

92. Self-deleted

Posted in the wrong place. Sorry

[Caleb]

90. I will vote for ANY Dem over a Repub

I've seen a lot of Lieberman bashing around here? Why? Because he's not the perfect liberal?

If you ask me, I would rather have a President Lieberman right now than a President Bush or President McCain.

[Douglas Carpenter]

91. I might hold my nose and vote for them...but

I agree that the current Republican leadership is something straight out of a Kafka novel. And when all is done and said--I will almost always vote to defeat the most awful candidate--unfortunately, in these trying times that may mean voting for almost any Dem. in a general election.

But, it is not ideologically dogmatic to oppose dangerously irresponsible militarism that threatens the future of humanity. Nor is it insistence on philosophic purity to be outraged with economic and trade policies which transfer wealth from the most powerless to the most powerful--wrecking the lives of ordinary Americans and plundering the third world--enriching the most privileged while driving the desperate into hopelessness.

It is simple intellectual honesty to oppose such madness--even when it is being promoted by some Democrats.

But, as I said, I will in final analysis vote to defeat the most awful-when that is the only option left.

__________________________


_______________________________________________________


A True Voice of Opposition
--A Voice for Working People
--Not the Elite--
http://www.bernie.org/issues.asp

Who is Congressman Bernie Sanders?

Read this article and watch the short video clips:

[drfunk]

94. Worst time in US history?

I dont think so. Things are pretty bad at the moment because of this administration but i'd say the depression was worse than what we have today (i'd say this administration is the worst administration in US history though and they have contributed greatly in turning a time of prosperity and progress into stagnation). The difference is though the people had hope then and they had a great leader, however in our uncertain times the US gets a lameduck president who opens the doors for greater corporate control.

I think the real problem is that things arent looking better in the future, where in the past we could always look to a future that was more prosperous. Even if a democrat gets back into power i dont think its gonna change the outlook or make the future a brighter one. There are few democrats with the kind of will and integrity that is needed to fight back against corporate control of governments and the religious nuts out there.

Wouldnt it be great if Bernie Sanders went for prez as an independent and won (with independents controlling house and senate)? now that would be a future to look forward to ;)

thanks,
drfunk

[Totally Committed]

93. The problem with painting with a large brush,

is that painting the delicate parts becomes nearly impossible. Since this post was "painted" this way, I am left with all the delicate parts of my story, my reasoning, and my opinion spattered and painted over without so much as a second thought. I'm either of the same opinion as the writer of the OP, or I am "fucking nuts".

Without going into WHOM I will never EVER vote for, I will say there is someone in that category for me. After supporting him for decades, I have come by my conviction to never EVER vote for him again the hard way. He has EARNED my scorn. He has EARNED my disrespect. And I will never EVER vote for him again. Never ever. No how. No way. Under no circumstances. And, no calling me "fucking" anything will change that.

Even given the fact that I have felt nothing but affection and respect for Husband2Sparkly up to this point, I resent with every fiber of my being that he feels this makes me "fucking nuts". But, epithets aside, such an opinion (even coming from someone I like) will never change my mind. I feel it is as tyrannical to bully someone with toughly-worded challenges as it is to forbid someone to vote because you disagree with their choice. I am disappointed that this tack was taken at all, but it is his opinion, and I believe he has the right to express it. What's next, "... vote for this person, or you're 'fucking nuts'"? It's a perverbial slippery slope, if you ask me.

Life is hard enough these days. My heart fails me, but I still breathe in with a modicum of freedom in this increasingly UNfree country. While I have the freedom to vote, and to think, and to feel any damned way I feel is right for me, I will do so, thank you. I will not be bullied (not even by someone I like) by being painted with that huge "fucking nuts" brush that was used to paint all of us who are simply doing that which is still guaranteed to us under the ever-shrinking Constitution of the United States of America.

"Fucking nuts"? I have been called worse before. Just as I defy anyone to tell me whom NOT to vote for, I will defy anyone who tries to tell me I must vote against my conscience. And, I don't give a rat's petoot what anyone thinks about that. My vote is MY vote and I will cast it (or not cast it) as I see fit.

[CWebster]

97. So long as there is mileage to be had from this argument

where is the incentive to ever change?

The Democrats could be infiltrated and dominated by the Right in a coup of sorts but they could angle for your vote by perrenially using this argument and continually enabling the Right.

Where and when does it end? The worst eight years you say, so why would we want to reward the (D) politician who did and said NOTHING to stop it, rather claimed to do it better?

Talk about being real.

[Q]

98. This is exactly the point...

If we continue to vote for anyone with a (D) attached to their name...without holding them to the basic standards of Democratic values and principles...the party will eventually become a mirror reflection of the GOP.

This type of voting mentality is literally assisting the formation of a one-party state.

[rhett o rick]

100. Good question. Forgive the extreme example but say Hitler

was running against Mussolini. You would say we should vote for Mussolini because he wasn't as bad as Hitler. I would say, neither. If the Demo Party would run a candidate that will stand up for the middle class, I would vote for them. But I am convinced that the same Big Money that owns the Republican Party also has huge influence in the Demo Party. How do u think Hillary got such a big jump on the candidacy. Not from grass roots support. Someone with money is supporting her. If it is the same Big Money (same corporations), then they don't really care if she wins, in fact they prefer a Republican, but should a Demo win, they want to own them also. In other words, Big Money would rather have a Demo candidate they control than one that will win. As long as we let that go on, I can understand people not voting or voting for a third party. Many third party supporters voted Democrat last election to no avail. But, you say, it was sooo close. Yeah, just as close as Charlie Brown comes to kicking the football.

[MadHound]

101. No, in fact this is the sanest I've felt, vis-a-vis politics,

In a long while.

I've been playing the political game for over thirty years, and despite expressing my opinions loudly, despite being a faithful contributor to the Democratic party, both financially and of my time and effort, the party has gone increasingly rightward, leaving us leftists, populists and progressives in the dust. While our issues are ignored and even ridiculed, when are still browbeaten come election into putting aside our fears and complaints and rally round the party. Been there, done that, and have nothing to show for it.

In fact the last so-called Dem in the White House governed more like a Republican. Cutting welfare, allowing further media consolidation, increase the severity of the War on Drugs, thus reducing our civil liberites, promoting NAFTA, at the expense of unions and the working man nationwide. Clinton did all of this and more. Meanwhile, our so-called Democratic reps in Congress are showing an alarming lack of spine, caving into this administration time and again. Voting for an illlegal, immoral war, helping to enact the Patriot Act, the Bankruptcy Bill, and many other odius pieces of legislation too numerous to mention. And yet these are the people that are supposed to represent me, my views and opinions? Geez, I'd almost rather have Republicans, at least they're honest about their dislike for the left, for the working man.

Sorry, but I cannot bring myself to support a candidate or a party that no longer represents me or my opinion. The Democrats are in the final stages of selling out to corporate America, and quite frankly it is because of that that I no longer feel welcome within it. I believe in well paying jobs, social justice, equality, and helping out your fellow man, among many other things that were once the hallmark of the party. Apparently no more, as the party continues to pay lip service to the left, but continues to cater to corporate America.

Thus I will be going Green nest election cycle. The Greens take no corporate lucre, and their views are very much in synch with mine. While pundits in the Democratic community continue to laugh and lambast the Greens, I think that they had better start to take them seriously. There is a major schism coming within the Democratic party, as many leftists like myself are fed up with being left out in the cold, and are going to go elsewhere. If the Democrats don't pay some attention to their base, then they will be doomed to the ashheap of history much like the Whigs, and the next, new, truly left party will take their place, the Greens.

Another reason for going third party is to indeed influence the Democrats. It has been proven time and again that if the threat from a third party is too great, one of the two majors will make concessions to the members of that party in order to get votes. The most famous example was during FDR's first re-election. He was facing some very stiff competition from the Socialists, who had enough votes to throw the election to the 'Pugs. Well FDR nicked a couple of the Socialists most important planks and made them his own, and we are still living with those planks today, Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. Going third party is one way, a drastic one granted, of getting that kind of compromise and attention. And sad to say, the left has been forced into that position.

Not to say that there aren't Dems that I will support, there are. I will support any Dem, like Kucinich, who refuses to take the corporate lucre. But those people are few and far between, sad to say. Thus, if the Dems want my continued support, then they need to start paying real attention to the left, and most importantly, repudiate their current corporate masters, stop taking the corporate lucre, and become a real party of opposition again. Otherwise they will go the way of the Whigs.

There is one definition of insanity that goes like this: Continuing to do the same thing over and over, yet expecting a different result each time. That is how I feel about my relationship with the Democratic party, especially over the past fifteen years. Well, no more insanity for me friend. I'm going to where my voice and vote actually mean something, and I'm not going to participate in that Democratic insanity anymore, at least not until they clean up their act.

So no, I'm not fucking nuts, I'm the sanest I've been in a long while, and from the view outside here, it is the Democratic party and its participants that seem quite insane, but hey, I guess your going to have to step outside and verify that one for yourself.

[Pewlett Hackard]

103. NAFTA

that one really threw me for a loop. who needs a repuglican prez when you got a dem who signs NAFTA?

but realistically the Democratic party is the only one with a chance to beat the repus, so voting for 3rd party is a wasted vote.

[MadHound]

123. Yes, but if we keep buying into that meme,

Things in this country will continue to get worse. Rather than continue to buy into the "lesser of two evils" crap, vote your conscience, vote FOR a candidate, rather than simply AGAINST one.

The lesser of two evils is still evil, and our country, our society is in decline because we have bought into that false meme for entirely too long. The only way to correct these problems, the only way to bring good back into the political process is by using the same criteria we use for any other moral decision we make in our lives, our conscience.

Hell, if everybody who said "I like X candidates, but I'm not going to vote for them becaause I don't think they can win" would actually vote for those candidates, guess what, they would win.

It is time to discard this false notion that we only have two real choices to vote for, evil and more evil. It is time that we started voting with our conscience in order that we see real change in this country.

[justinsb]

121. Sorry, but no DLCers, no Republicans with a capital D

I won't vote for anyone I don't actually support. The lesser of two evils is not good enough.

[welshTerrier2]

125. just wanted to say: THANK YOU, MADHOUND ...

i'm wrestling with the issues you wrote about and your thoughts were very helpful ...

[Vinca]

104. If the Green Party could pull off a win, I'd consider defecting, but

they can't and I won't. Unless they put Charlie Manson up as the candidate, I'll vote Democratic.

[Catchawave]

106. I wish the Greens would merge with the Dems....

I love their platform:

http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/intro.html#998247

[Stinky The Clown]

107. A blanket reply to those who disagree with me .......

I had intended to respond one by one, but in reading the replies that disagree with me, it occurs to me that my answer to most would be pretty much the same. So with all due respect - and thanks - to those who took the time to post and with all apologies to those who I did not answer personally, here goes ........

My OP was strongly worded and painted with, indeed as one pointed out, a broad brush. If you follow any of my posts, you know this is fairly typical for me.

I am hardly unaware of nuance, however. So let me make clear my original posit:

In the general election in 2008 for President of these United States we will have several choices. There will certainly be candidates from the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. So too is there likely to be candidates from a host of minor parties. The simple reality is that one of only two people will be the next President. It will be the Democrat or the Republican. No minor party candidate, no matter how spectacularly well they do as compared to minor party candidates of yore, will get the win.

So back to the choices: Vote for a major party candidate or vote for a minor party candidate. To do one is to affect the result. To vote the other is to make a statement that will be forgotten on the day after the election. (Yes, I know all about the vote count meaning something with respect to funding, debates, etc.)

If you choose to stay with the major parties, then the choice is to vote for the Democrat or the Republican.

Please notice that this is about the presidential election only. Voting for any other office is not part of my original posit. I just want to be clear on that.

There was also some debate as to just how bad things are in this country right now. I made some specific comparisons and some took issue with my posits. Can we all agree that things are terrible? And on a path to getting worse? I should think there's little to no debate on that point.

Given that the country is in terrible shape, it seems to me that we have little choice as to which way to vote.

Vote for the Democrat and get a chance (at the very least) for improvement of the national weal.

Vote for the Republican and see a continuation of the completely odious policies about which we rail daily.

Vote for a minor party candidate and effectively reduce by one vote the tally for the Democrat.

As do many of you, I have some Dems in mind that I would have a terribly difficult time supporting. Naming them is of no value to this debate; suffice to say they're known to me. But can I say that I would not support them if the Republican alternative were even worse?

In a word: No.

I also think that there's little chance a Zell Miller type would ever get our nomination. So there's little chance that any of our possibles would be awful. To be sure, we may not be thrilled with the nominee, but I am sure we could find some reason to support almost any one of the now-known potentials.

As I see it, the country - and to an even greater degree the left side of the population - is flat out desperate for a change in leadership. I don't know where the tipping point is, but if this Republican domination (and that is EXACTLY what it is) is not checked, we may not have another chance in our lifetimes.

So ..... while some of you may have found fault with my suggesting that you might be "fucking nuts" can anyone disagree that we are in terrible straights right now? I don't think we have the luxury of voting conscience in the next general election.

Now ..... the Primaries ..... that's a WHOLE different story. And that's where our conscience matters a lot. Even in the face of all the DU rants about focusing on 06 and not talking about 08, we all probably have our minds made up, at least preliminarily. Here I encourage voting your heart, your mind, or your ass. If blood must be let, so be it. THIS will be the fight for the party.

But once a nominee is selected, I would absolutely hope all will be united. We can't afford not to be.

[saskatoon]

108. that goddmn turncoat Leibermann

I hate that bastard as much as I hate Bush. Everytime there was a photo op that shit grinning face would be Democrat was right at Bush's shoulder to get his mug in there.

[JackDragna]

130. Apparently, you still live under the illusion..

...electing capitulator Democrats will change anything. It won't. Again, a question I ask of all who say we must support Democrats in elections, no matter their stands: at what point does a Democrat's positions differ so much from good policy that one does not vote for that Democrat?

[lojasmo]

110. I will vote for no democrat who....

Approved the IWR, the patriot act, and NCLB.

So sue me. Might as well vote for a republican if you're going to put a democrat up who enabled these horrible pieces of legislation.

[Cascadian]

120. Hear Hear!

Wake up Democrats! Stop supporting the Democrats who enable the Bushites and their neocon agenda and start supporting Democrats who are going to fight them all the way! YOU HAVE THE POWER!

[lojasmo]

127. Quite the sig line. LOL EOM

[JerseygirlCT]

111. I agree with you, although

with one caveat. I WOULD vote against a very conservative Dem if a liberal GOP was a better choice. I keep using this example, but I voted for Weicker against Lieberman and I'd do it again. More fight for what's right in Lowell by a long-shot.

But generally -- hell yes. I think we totally shoot ourselves in the foot when we start getting nasty about less than ideal voting records (ideal in a liberal world that is). We've got to give our guys some room to maneuver (which may mean appearing to be more centrist than we might like). Otherwise the evil ones stay in power. (Which, with Diebold, etc. they may do anyway)

It's not bad to hash out positions and ideas and not at all wrong or bad to communicate our feelings and passions to those who would ask for our votes and support. But when the time comes, we need to get used to closing ranks and supporting our candidates wholeheartedly.

[election_2004]

116. Yep!

And it's my right as a voter to refrain from voting for someone whom I find to be morally and ethically reprehensible - - yes, even if they have a "D" after their name.

There are very few Democrats who I could see myself voting against in 2008 (for the presidency)...but if one of the few Democrats whom I despise gets the nomination, they will not receive one iota of my support.

I don't apply strict litmus tests to candidates either; I may be socially-liberal, but I would be fine with supporting a candidate who is socially-moderate as long as I believe that person is genuine.

Votes are earned, not entitled.

[Qanisqineq]

117. a republican (eom)

[personman]

118. I couldn't agree more.

I think any reasonable democrat is a yellow dog democrat.

When you don't vote because you didn't get the candidate you want, you not only hurt us, but you help THEM. If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.

They remind me of a particular burnout anarchist type guy I know "I don't vote, they are both the same, my vote doesn't matter." etc., which IMO is a copout. When you say "they are both the same so I'm not voting", what you mean is "I didn't bother to educate myself about the candidates views on the issues, or form my own opinions about the candidates based on those opinions, but because I don't want to face up to my ignorance, I'm going to place the blame on society and lift myself up above all of that. So I can feel superior while simultaniously being part of the problem."

Atleast that's the case with the more uninformed "They are both the same" crowd.

The kind this thread seems to be about though, are the ones who know the differences between the parties and candidates, but they didn't get who/what they wanted, or they think the democratic candidate is just as sold out to the corporations as the republican candidate. Maybe they are, who knows. That's no reason to cop a Bush-esque "I didn't get what I want, so I'm going to take my ball and go home" attitude. The democratic candidate is STILL going to be more in line with our views. The differences, minor or not, are still worthy of standing up for, IMO.

-personman

[Cascadian]

119. Let's see....Republican or Republican Lite. Hmmmmm....

If these are the choices that we are left with then I am sorry then democracy in this country is a joke. I got suckered into casting my vote for Kerry and look what happened. He was not even my first choice. I am not going to make that mistake again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. This time I am going to vote for a person that is not afraid of taking on the Neocons regardless of whether they are Democrat or not. Any so-called Democrats. Those who are Neocon enablers and those who act like Republicans are not going to be in my voting plans. It's as simple as that!

Won't get fooled again!


John

[Q]

122. What you're saying is that we should keep the ABB status quo...

...without acknowledging that this is what got us into trouble in the first place. But NOW is the time to start voting FOR candidates that represent what's good about America...not AGAINST the fascists in power. Nothing has changed and the problem remains: vote for fascism or those who enable fascism.

Could it be that MILLIONS of Americans don't bother to vote anymore because they're tired of voting for the 'lesser of evils'? Give them a REAL CHOICE and watch as they return to the voting booths and participate in Democracy again.

[welshTerrier2]

124. "just going along"

i hope there can be an honest discussion in this thread without all the usual name-calling ... wouldn't it be nice, just for a change, if we could just share our thoughts without making personal attacks on those who disagree ...

so, in that spirit, here are my thoughts on the intra-party squabbling ...

first, do we all agree that every single Democrat, regardless of left, right or center, should have a very real opportunity to have their voice heard ... i would like to see reforms in the party that put much greater emphasis on making the party more democratic than it is ... does anyone have a problem with that?

second, there are many in the party who do not feel represented ... only as an example and not to argue the specific issue, i saw a poll taken last year that said 56% of Democrats think we should withdraw from Iraq even prior to "stabilizing" the country ... the point is NOT whether you agree or disagree with this majority ... the point is that most of our elected Democratic representatives do not agree with the majority in their own party ... is this acceptable? it's made worse by the fact that there is very little opportunity for most of us to speak with our representatives in regular, public forums ... perhaps if we could hear the details of their thinking, we might become more supportive ... perhaps if they could hear from many of us, they might become more supportive of how we see things ... the distance, especially with most Senators, between them and their constituencies is very unhealthy for democracy ... do you agree this situation needs to change?

third, absent improved dialog between constituents and their elected reps, deep differences fester ... that's where many are today ... many, and i include myself, do not believe the party represents us and we believe we are the majority especially on issues like Iraq ... again, the point isn't whether we are right or wrong, the point is that we feel unwelcomed in the party except, of course, for our campaign work, our campaign funds and our votes ... we do NOT feel our ideas are welcomed ...

so, what are we to do ... what i did last year was abandon my deepest beliefs to fight for Democrats ... i worked very hard for the Party last year and donated some serious money ... while i criticized Kerry intensely on DU (Iraq), i never did so when talking to undecided voters or republicans ... while I was only supporting Kerry as an ABB voter, I made forceful arguments in support of his candidacy when it counted ... i did not argue that i was only supporting Kerry because bush is hideous when speaking to uncommitted voters ...

but that was last year ... and what happened ?? did the Party show any appreciation for the support it received "from the left"? no ... they didn't ... was there a new unity formed so that those on "the left" would have a better opportunity to share their ideas and find some common ground and compromise ... no ... there wasn't ... and so what message did that support send? i'm afraid it did nothing but reinforce the idea that the left has nowhere else to go and that most of us, even if we complain, will ultimately just go along no matter what the direction of the party is ...

well, folks, let me say as clearly as i can, I AM DONE WITH THAT ... no matter what views are presented by those who are apparently more content with the party than i am, it does not make any sense to me to be asked to support candidates who don't agree with my views on major issues ... let's say that again ... it does not make any sense to me to be asked to support candidates who don't agree with my views on major issues ...

so, if you want to make arguments to me that i should support the ultimate Democratic nominee regardless of their views, take that into account ... tell me how i can make sense out of what you're saying ... because right now, it sounds like the height of madness to me ...

finally, and i want to be very clear on this point, this is not some kind of argument for purity or any of the other condescending terms used to suggest each Democrat does not have the right to determine whether a candidate does or doesn't represent their views ... this is not about purity ... i've said nothing about an unwillingness to be flexible or find some common ground ... when voters feel abandoned by their own party; when they feel the party doesn't represent them on key issues; when they feel they really don't have a say, i believe the party runs a risk by not reaching out to these voters ...

and something like 50% (is that about right?) of voting age Americans don't even vote ... so we not only have a problem with those Democrats who feel disenfranchised, we have evidence of tens of millions of others who apparently feel the same way ... demanding loyalty to the party, regardless of where it stands, is clearly not an effective political strategy ...

and it doesn't have to be this way ...

NOTE: of all the posts in this thread, I'm afraid my position will eventually have to evolve to the position stated above by Madhound. To put a twist on Groucho's famous quote: "why would i want to belong to any "club" that doesn't want me as a member?"

[Totally Committed]

126. Clearly, this is the Post of the Week:

At least from where I'm sitting. My favorite excerpt (I could have written it myself if I'd been so talented):

so, what are we to do ... what i did last year was abandon my deepest beliefs to fight for Democrats ... i worked very hard for the Party last year and donated some serious money ... while i criticized Kerry intensely on DU (Iraq), i never did so when talking to undecided voters or republicans ... while I was only supporting Kerry as an ABB voter, I made forceful arguments in support of his candidacy when it counted ... i did not argue that i was only supporting Kerry because bush is hideous when speaking to uncommitted voters ...

but that was last year ... and what happened ?? did the Party show any appreciation for the support it received "from the left"? no ... they didn't ... was there a new unity formed so that those on "the left" would have a better opportunity to share their ideas and find some common ground and compromise ... no ... there wasn't ... and so what message did that support send? i'm afraid it did nothing but reinforce the idea that the left has nowhere else to go and that most of us, even if we complain, will ultimately just go along no matter what the direction of the party is ...

well, folks, let me say as clearly as i can, I AM DONE WITH THAT ... no matter what views are presented by those who are apparently more content with the party than i am, it does not make any sense to me to be asked to support candidates who don't agree with my views on major issues ... let's say that again ... it does not make any sense to me to be asked to support candidates who don't agree with my views on major issues ...

so, if you want to make arguments to me that i should support the ultimate Democratic nominee regardless of their views, take that into account ... tell me how i can make sense out of what you're saying ... because right now, it sounds like the height of madness to me ...

finally, and i want to be very clear on this point, this is not some kind of argument for purity or any of the other condescending terms used to suggest each Democrat does not have the right to determine whether a candidate does or doesn't represent their views ... this is not about purity ... i've said nothing about an unwillingness to be flexible or find some common ground ... when voters feel abandoned by their own party; when they feel the party doesn't represent them on key issues; when they feel they really don't have a say, i believe the party runs a risk by not reaching out to these voters ...

Yes, indeed. What a post!

[Pithy Cherub]

129. Your eloquence and grace capture my FIRM stand

on MY vote never again being relinquished to go along to get along. Or because an indidvidual feels they have the right or the might to bully or banish others. It is a disgrace to state that a singular opinion of one's own is the only way people should vote. It is contrary to the ideas and ideals of democracy and decency. So let the words of those who would choose to bully others rather than using the more difficult methods of persuasuion that requires talent and leadership skills, be hung around their own necks as albatrosses of their thinking patterns.

My vote is mine to do as I see fit and I don't vote on command for anybody who doesn't respect democracy as an ideal!

[Q]

136. You're right...it doesn't have to be this way...

...but let's not allow ourselves to be fooled into believing that it's 'this way' by accident. The 'party bosses' were very bold in the way they ordered the rank and file to shut up and hand over the cash for their chosen one's campaign. With a wink and a nod they informed us that they intended to take our votes for granted as they bartered away our values and principles in order to woo the so-called 'swing' voter.

I've been watching, participating and voting as a Democrat for over 30 years now and I've never seen the party in such a sorry state. It's in a sorry state...not because of losing elections...but because our leadership sold us out in order to win and STILL lost.

But the hypocrisy didn't end there. A 'conservative' agenda was forced down our collective throats while teams of Third Way propagandists pushed the idea that the Democratic rank and file didn't really know what they wanted. The New Party Bosses stood up to tell us how it was going to be. They told us that we really didn't want unions and worker's rights afterall. Nor did we want a separation of church and state. Or public schools. Or women to be masters of their own destiny. Or government/corporate accountability. Or free and fair elections. So many things we were told we'd have to do without so that THEY had a chance of winning.

[noonwitch]

128. Kwame Kilpatrick, Sharon McPhail, Barbara Rose Collins

Three totally corrupt democrats, one of which is the current Mayor of Detroit and two who are current city council members.
I no longer live in the city, but if any of them ever runs for state-wide office, I would vote for a republican over any of them.

Kwame-he is running the city into the ground, while using police officers as his personal security staff at stripper parties and while visiting other cities. He also used police funds to lease a Lincoln Navigator for his wife.

Sharon McPhail: Ex-wife of former superintendent of the Detroit Public schools. They used school resources for their wedding reception. Also while he was superintendent, the state had to take over the schools because money was missing and there wasn't even toilet paper at some schools. She also accused Kwame of trying to electrocute her.

Barbara Rose Collins: As a congresswoman, she was about to be indicted for violating the franking (free stamps for newsletters to consitituents) priveleges. She place race-baiting games and really is only holding office because men think she's cute.

[VIHMH5L50P]

131. NOT VOTIN FOR NOBODY NO MORE, I PROMISE, ELECTIONS ARE FIXED

I finally figured out that my vote doesn't make any difference and won't, because this is a dictatorship not a democracy. Elections are rigged, and it's worse than anybody suspects. The final real vote doesn't matter, the winner has been pre-determined by a sort of political mafia.

But to not vote is to make a loud statement, that they're all illegitimate, and if enough people do it, it'll create an unbearable tension and shift the focus on why people think our leaders are crooks. I'm telling everybody I ain't votin and hope you consider not voting either, and tell your friends too.

This country's really a one-party dictatorship state, the only difference in the two parties is the rhetoric which both sides use to raise our passions, to polarize everybody agaisnt each other and keep us distracted from the fact we're getting screwed repeatedly. Both parties do pretty much the same when they get elected.

Kerry was a mirage because behind his smooth talk was Skull & Bones and he and W are truly blood brothers. He only looked great because Bush was so unbearable. Gore is bought and paid for too, and I forget what secret society he's in, but it's affiliated with Bush's. They're all part of the New World Order scheme. I saw Gore taling about things that sounded like a one world government in a New World Order conference in Switzerland about a year ago. The other panelits all internaitonal big shots in NWO really had great chemistry with Gore, and he with them. Gore would have launched 911 too if he had not been screwed in 2000. Sorry that's the rotten truth. 911 was being planned way before Bush got appointed President.

And Nader shows flashes of independence and brilliance, but so what? Later even though he's so smart he always stabs you in the back. One time I can understand, but two in a row? Sorry. With Nader it isn't an ego trip like he pretencs (it's his only logical potential excuse), it's that he's a sellout too, a real clever one, and does what he's told. He can be counted on to backstab you when the invisible rulers decided to appoint a Republican, and when for that to happen the Democrat vote needed to be split (Ralph to the rescue). Nader can be afford to be real honest since his following is still so small.

[roguevalley]

132. this remark

It makes me wonder if such posts are made by rational, caring people.

That's disturbing. Can't express an opinion around here without having your soul critiqued. I guess this is not as open and free as I have believed. Personally, discussion is good. You don't have to agree. But discussion is good.

There is sort of an implied assumption that when the candidate shakes out, people -even those who said they would never vote for that person - won't vote/work etc for them. I would have NEVER voted for Kerry and during the run up, that was my position but I voted for him and I worked for him because the pigs had to go.

The implication otherwise is offensive. People should talk and discuss but I know in crunch time, there is no alternative. They will do the right thing. They will do what I did and hold their nose when they mark the ballot.

[VIHMH5L50P]

133. Thank you

When you said: "They will do what I did and hold their nose when they mark the ballot."

You proved one of my points precisely. What does it say about our candidates when you have to hold your nose to vote for them? It says they're not much different than Bush. How about a real choice? And I observed in our country election after election we aren't given that choice.

But you didn't deal with other issues I raised like don't you know our elections are rigged? I do, and I only asked what's the point of voting when the result is already decided?

By voting when you know your vote won't be counted, you become part of the problem because you enable the problem to continue. It's a statement that "I trust the system" which is why I'm voting."

I've done a lot of research about Skull & Bones (and the issues I discussed) and based on your post I don't think you are aware of what they really are, not really, not even 10% of what they really are.

One small example is that it appears Dean did really win in Iowa but S&B was behind caucus counting manipulations that stole it for their man Kerry, and Dean never knew what hit him, nor did most of his supporters (his dumb scream came after the ripoff and without it would not have come about).

And because Kerry was S&B means the real winner in the "election" would be S&B and explains why Kerry didn't expose voter fraud of his S&B, the ones who made him what he is, filthy rich and a Senator. Of course to get all that he had do his part of the bargain all these years, of playing the part of our caring friend. If you're S&B, you can't be caring or a friend of the people.

I realize I expressed a lot of unpleasant facts that many aren't ready to deal with, because if true (and they are) they would shatter some myths about those we put our trust in, meaning we've been betrayed a long time and are screwed. Nobody wants to believe that.

But the only way to deal with these problems is to deal with them.

[sakabatou]

135. I won't vote for Feinstien

[ripple]

138. Great post

I fully agree! :bounce:

Attacking each other and dems in general is the most counter-productive thing any American can possibly be doing right now.