Electability makes me barf

[Gadave]

The press (CBS) is harping on the exit polls that state people are voting on "electability".

If we are so concerned about electability as the most important trait then lets nominate GW Bush, since if we do that, we are guarenteed to win.

[The Magistrate]

1. Enjoy Losing Elections, Do You, Sir?

"Moral victory is a synonym for defeat."

[Gadave]

8. Then let's nominate the republican

If both parties are for the same person, then we will never lose because there would be no competition.

Political support should be based on something more substantial than candidate A is winning.

[The Magistrate]

13. Nonsense, Sir

The conviction candidate A will likely beat candidate B, and candidate C will not, is an excellent reason to support candidate A, if one is interested in defeating candidate B.

The idea there is no difference between Sen. Kerry and the reptile currently ensconced in the Oval Office is drivel, not really worth a serious response.

For the record, Sir, my own prefered candidate is Gen. Clark, but my most earnest desire is the rout of the criminals of the '00 Coup at the polls this fall.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Gadave]

15. Its not that clear cut

We don't know who is electable. Dean was the unstoppable presumptive nominee a month ago. Now he care barely win 10 percent.

When we vote according to electability and not issues we are voting like high schoolers electing class president.

[The Magistrate]

16. Gov. Dean's Ascendancy, Sir

Was mere puffery, as it was not based on a single vote cast.

It is true that convictions one person will be prefered by the electorate over another are a species of fortune-telling, but we all get through our lives in a great degree by making such assesments of people around us, and their possible actions and strengths, relative to others and ourselves.

"The future is hard to predict, because it hasn't happened yet."

[Gadave]

17. Puffer smuffery

If the Iowa and New Hampshire elections were held a month earlier then Dean would have won big. Kerry is suffering from the same puffery Dean was, he just got lucky that the puffery came at the right time.

[The Magistrate]

21. But They Were Not Held Then, Sir

They were held when they were held. Your belief an earlier balloting would have had a different result is also a mere supposition. It seemed that the thing tightened up as the time to actually cast ballots drew near, and that might have occured at an earlier date, as well. Sen. Kerry's current position is based on having won the most votes in contests, the first of which he was not expected widely to win.

[wyldwolf]

23. Exactly... Kerry began rising in the polls just before Iowa...

... if I remember correctly.

Also remember that Dean made some serious gaffes right before them - that he wouldn't proclaim bin Laden guilty until after a trial and that Iraq wasn't better off without Saddam.

now, the question here isn't the right or wrong of Dean's positions there but rather did they conflict with what most voters in Iowa and NH felt?

[CWebster]

43. If those were gaffes

then it would be possible to pick anything out of thin air and make it a gaffe. Who does it serve to portray them as gaffes and whose agenda does the media promote by portraying them as such? people respond to how the media spins it.

[wyldwolf]

63. Like I said...

...I'm not judging the right or wrong of his comments but pointing out his descent in the polls began when he made them. It seems obvious that the country is pretty much convinced of bin Laden's guilt and, at least at that time, Bush got a bump in his approval after Saddam's capture. Obviously many people disagreed with Dean.

Yes, they were gaffes but the focus of this thread isn't on how the media spins things. THAT is part of the process. Though not referring to you specifically (because I don't know you), many Dean supporters are new to the process and have been completely surprised at how the media can help turn and twist things.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Correct....

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good...

[loudnclear]

55. Is "electability" the Dem answer to "gravitas?" We know what happened

with "gravitas" --- we got Bush and Cheney!

[GreenArrow]

62. you can't buy back your soul

An immoral victory is a synonym for becoming what we abhor in our enemies.

[AnnitaR]

2. If it were really about "electability" we would NOT

have Kerry as our nominee.

I hate to say it... but they are gonna kill him in the fall. They are drooling over his voting records as we speak.

He's a good guy and all but people are not understanding that the Shrub bunch are gonna be pretty happy running against a long-time Senator from New England.

[BootinUp]

69. We need a cartoon of that image!

It was great...republican wolves looking at Kerry's voting record like it was the dinner menu. Beautiful.

[krkaufman]

3. "electability" makes the media's job easier

It's about profits and laziness. Spouting the "electability" theme without getting into what constitutes electability in the voters' minds is negligent on the part of journalists, and just plain frickin' lazy.

The media *should* be polling to break down "electability", and then analyzing each candidate's record, experience and platform against these criteria. Instead, all we get is "who's in first, who's in second, etc." and electability becomes the perception of which candidate has the highest popularity.

[bornskeptic]

81. Sounds good to me.

The media *should* be polling to break down "electability", and then analyzing each candidate's record, experience and platform against these criteria.

Bring it on.

[Bucky]

4. I hate breathing oxygen. Oxygen is dumb. Why do we have to breathe?

And what's with this crap about walking on two feet? Why should I walk on two feet? I want to have four feet, a furry striped coat, and a big tail that twitches when I stroll thru the savannah.

Why oh why must we live in the world as it is? </poetry>

We must live in the world as it is. Electibility matters. This year, more than ever before, winning matters.



.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

5. Polls show Kerry would beat Bush in a head to head contest

And people are not saying electability is the MOST important issue. As I recall, the economy was first, and health care was second. There were several factors, and electability was only one of several voters considered, and it wasn't THE priority.

On the other hand, I hope you are not suggesting we pick a candidate that has no chance of beating Bush in November. The point is to beat Bush, not so a few people can feel good about the nominee for a few months and have it all be a waste of time come November.

I want someone who can beat Bush!

[JailForBush]

9. Beating Bush isn't the point.

The goal should be to beat the corporations that support Bush. If we replace Bush with an "electable" candidate who turns around and sucks up to the very corporations that enthroned Bush, then what have we gained?

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

14. Beating Bush IS the point

Rome wasn't built in a day for crying out loud.

None of the candidates are going to rid the politcal system of corporate influence overnight, that's just naive. That is going to take YEARS of work, perhaps decades, and will be next to impossible without Democratic majorities in Congress.

Having a Democrat, any Democrat, will at least stop the forward motion of the damage that is currently being done by this administration. The damage so far is already devastating, another 4 years of this will be catastrophic.

Electable is not a dirty word. You are making the assumption that indicates someone unqualified for the presidency - it doesn't.

And I sure as hell don't want someone nominated who is UNelectable.

[JailForBush]

28. Take another look.

"Rome wasn't built in a day for crying out loud."

We aren't talking about Rome; we're talking about the United States, and George W. Bush has done a great job of destroying it in a few short years - with a lot of help from Democrats.

"None of the candidates are going to rid the politcal system of corporate influence overnight, that's just naive."

Who said otherwise? We need a candidate who can at least get us started in the right direction. Electing an "electable" candidate who does nothing but keep Bush's chair warm for four years - until another Republican gets elected? - is foolish.

"That is going to take YEARS of work, perhaps decades, and will be next to impossible without Democratic majorities in Congress."

So what's your point?

"Having a Democrat, any Democrat, will at least stop the forward motion of the damage that is currently being done by this administration."

ANY Democrat? Do you think Joe Lieberman would stop our fall if he was still in the campaign? And if Big Business wants to invade another country a couple years from now, would President Kerry offer a repeat performance and vote with the majority?

"The damage so far is already devastating, another 4 years of this will be catastrophic."

I think most of us are aware of that.

"Electable is not a dirty word. You are making the assumption that indicates someone unqualified for the presidency - it doesn't.

"And I sure as hell don't want someone nominated who is UNelectable."


Take a closer look at the way the word is being used. Disparaging the word "electable" doesn't mean we want someone who's UNELECTABLE. It's all about superficiality, propaganda and manipulation. Seattle's last mayoral campaign focused on electability, and we wound up with a crook who lost or stole over a billion dollars. By the way, he's a Democrat.

[wyldwolf]

20. For three years we screamed that we had to beat Bush!

Now that some people's preferred candidate might not be the guy we send into battle, they're saying beating Bush isn't the main objective. :eyes:

[Democat]

24. Beating Bush isn't the point? Where am I?

We need to beat Bush first, we can do all the rest after that.

Without getting Bush out of office, nothing else will get done. Maybe it won't get done even if we do get him out of office, but at least we have a chance once he's gone.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Ending the war, bringing the troops home, and abolishing PATRIOT Act

Kerry will not end the war. Kerry will not bring the troops home. Kerry will turn a Republican war into a Democratic one. Kerry will not repeal PATRIOT Act.

For those that do not understand the meaning of repeal:

: to rescind or annul by authoritative act; especially : to revoke or abrogate by legislative enactment.

[bowens43]

34. None of the candidates would bring the troops home

immeadiately. It's not going to happen anytime soon. The US destroyed Iraq, the US has the responsibly to rebuild it before leaving. The Patriot Act will sunset. Most Republicans and Democrats want it to go away.

For those who do not understand how our government works: The President cannot repeal a law passed by Congress.

[revcarol]

71. Most of the Patriot Act will NOT sunset,

and DK would have the troopsd out within months and most out within 6 weeks, replaced by UN Nato etc troops.

Next straw man!!

[JailForBush]

32. You just answered your own question.

Of course, we need to beat Bush, but beating Bush isn't the MAIN POINT.

For the last three years, liberals have been so obsessed with beating Bush, they've ignored other election campaigns, other issues, other causes. As a result, we've been getting our butts kicked since 2000.

Now we've nearly painted ourselves into a corner, and people are still so focused on one man, they're losing sight of the big picture.

No one hates Bush mnore than I do. I'm the webmaster of Jail4Bush. I ran for office last year and made Bush a campaign issue - more than any other candidate in Seattle and probably in Washington State.

But I would never let my hatred for Bush blind me to the bigger picture. We're at war with our own government, and we can't afford to make careless mistakes.

[Democat]

40. I don't disagree with you, I just think Bush if the first step

I agree with you that there is much more work to do than just beating Bush in the election.

I beleive that the number one priority besides beating Bush should be to try to find a solution to the problem of the media being so biased toward the right. Even if a Democrats were to get elected, the media would immediately set out to undermine and destroy him, even worse than what they did with Clinton.

When the media supports one ideology so strongly over the other, then it will be very hard to make progress on the our side. No matter who we have in office, without some sort of balance in the message that the American people get every day, we will always be at a major disadvantage.

We need to get a left leaning mainstream media machine to offset Fox for starters. After that, I'm not sure how to counter the right wing bias from all of the other networks, papers, and radio. If we had at least one loud voice in the media, I think it would help things a lot.

[Bucky]

11. No, you NEED someone who can beat Bush. (and welcome to DU)

Always glad to see a newbie! (Especially a newbie who can type out the whole word "Bush" instead of just using the asterix)

[LiberalVoice]

12. Polls are, for the most part a bunch of crap.

[progressivebydesign]

90. Today.. he would beat Bush. What about November?

I just wonder how bright it is to try and guess who would beat George Bush. An unexamined candidate with name recognition, a strong jaw, and medals will beat Bush in a poll, today. What will our candidate look like in November? I'm afraid Kerry probably has enuff unexamined material to give Rove lots to do in the next 6 months. Then.. we'll see who is or was electable. We're stupid to try and guess who could go against Bush... We should simply elect the nominee that represents our Party in the truest sense. Kerry couldn't get 5 people on here that said anything nice about him a year ago.. now I'm to believe that all DUers should buy into the myth of electability, and therefore move aside for Kerry to take the nomination? What have we become?

[morgan2]

6. electability is just a way

to write off candidates the media doesn't like now.

[JailForBush]

7. Amen! Winning is important, but getting your candidate elected isn't

necessarily the same thing as winning. In fact, it can be a great way to lose in the long run.

I think the original poster is using "electability" as a synonym for "superficial." People had better start asking some tough guestions now before it's too late.

[Gadave]

10. Yeah, I think you understood my point

Sometimes you need to sell your product. We have to stop looking only for low hanging fruit. To often electability means "he hasn't done anything to offend me".

[IndianaGreen]

18. "Electability" came out of a DLC focus group

Al From has been harping about it for at least two years. According to Al From, to be "electable" one must support PATRIOT Act and the war in Iraq.

The only monkey wrench is that no one bothered to ask the Iraqi people what they thought about living under an American jackboot.

Here is the Left's response to the DLC's "electability" mantra:

Global Day of Action on March 20 to mark first day of Iraqi invasion

On March 20, 2004, protests will take place all around the world on the one year anniversary of the U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq. People are organizing on a global scale to demand an end to the occupation of Iraq and an immediate withdrawal of U.S. military forces from the country.

Since the invasion began, hundreds of U.S. and British soldiers and unknown thousands of Iraqi people have been killed. The Iraqi people have clearly stated that occupation is not liberation - that they want the foreign soldiers occupying their country to leave not tomorrow, but today. Growing numbers of U.S. soldiers and their families are calling to bring the troops home now. Increasing numbers of people in the United States are helping to build a movement against the occupation as they fight cuts to education, healthcare, job programs, housing and other social service programs.

http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/m20/index.html

DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=4583

[wyldwolf]

22. nah

The term "electability" has been used at least since the 1976 campaign (the first presidential race I clearly remember.)

[IndianaGreen]

25. The pernicious influence of the DLC must be defeated at all costs!

Al From and Evan Bayh are the leaders of the Fascist cabal that have turned the Democratic Party into the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party.

The pernicious influence of the DLC must be defeated at all costs!

Aiming At The Wrong Target
Best of 2003

Robert Borosage is Co-Director of the Campaign For America's Future, and he has written on political, economic, and national security issues for publications including The New York Times and The Nation.

Editor's Note: Originally published August 6, 2003.

The cankerous sectarians of the Democratic Leadership Council are at it again. While the entire base of the Democratic Party focuses on the threat posed by George Bush and the radical right that drives his administration, the DLC aims its guns once more at liberal Democrats.

<snip>

The Democrats are “at risk of being taken over by the far left,” whined DLC Chair Sen. Evan Bayh. DLC honcho Al From declared the DLC is fighting for the “heart and soul” of the Democratic Party. Like an ideological commissar, he is exercised not about the party’s direction, but about ideological deviations from DLC doctrine.

<snip>

But the DLC wants to stigmatize those Democrats who voted against the Iraqi war—a vote that looks better and better with each passing week. They would denounce the majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress and the majority of Democratic voters who opposed the war.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8551/view/print

[wyldwolf]

27. At all costs? Even 4 more years of Bush? wow!

The wording of that editorial is mindblowing...

The cankerous sectarians of the Democratic Leadership Council

...whined DLC Chair Sen. Evan Bayh.

I prefer this one...

WITH THE Democratic front-runner in High Howard mode, his gaffe-a-week campaign is giving his party pause and his opponents ammunition. So much so that Dean, after having spent a year unfairly flaying his rivals as craven cave-ins to George W. Bush, is now crying foul because they are finally returning fire. And issuing not so oblique threats that if he's not made the nominee, he'll take his supporters and go home.



it surprised Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, to see Dean seem to suggest in a recent speech that the Clinton administration was more about limiting the damage Republicans inflicted on working families than real progress. Actually, as From points out, Clinton, who chaired the DLC before he resigned the post to run for president, realized many traditional Democratic objectives by pragmatic means.

Certainly it's hard to argue with the New Democrat success at the presidential level -- particularly given what had come before. Founded in 1985, a year after the Democrats nominated Walter Mondale and suffered a devastating defeat with a candidate who proved less than the sum of his interest group parts, the DLC picked up electoral steam after the party nominated another liberal -- and lost again -- in 1988.

Clinton's legacy as the first successful Democratic president since JFK should have put any lingering resentment about the DLC to rest. But this year the doctrinaire left has persuaded itself that a new, solipsistic paradigm obtains: One can win merely by energizing the base.

Actually, that's an old, discredited theory, the same argument once offered as a quadrennial losers' lament: The nominee could have won if only he had sailed more resolutely to port. The only difference is that this year, that argument is proffered not to defend an unwillingness to change course but as an excuse to revert to form.

Now, in this year's fractured Democratic field, tacking left may be the easiest path to the nomination. But neither history nor logic suggests it is a winning course for the general election, a contest where swing voters will prove as important as ever. This election will be won -- or lost -- among moderate, independent-minded members of the middle class, a group defined less by anger toward the current administration than anxiety about the future.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/12/31/dean_errs_in_battling_the_new_democrats?mode=PF

what is comes down to is this - you want the DLC defeated. I want Bush defeated. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Kerry will not end the war. Kerry will not repeal PATRIOT.

And we will be demonstrating against a warmongering and imperialistic Kerry Administration just as surely as we did against Bush.

I will even bet that Kerry won't do away with Bush's First Amendment Zones!

On edit:

Kerry told the Washington Post that as President he will give the Miami Cubans veto over US policy towards Cuba.

I suppose a President Kerry would have supported the kidnapping of Elian Gonzales by his crazy Miami uncle.

:puke:

[wyldwolf]

31. Well, since your have you crystal ball out, please tell me if I have...

...the winning lottery tickets.

[IndianaGreen]

33. Kerry himself said he is not repealing PATRIOT

Kerry wants to "change" some parts of it, but he is against its outright repeal. Kerry also opposed, by his own words, an end to the occupation of Iraq, preferring instead to keep the troops there until there is a stable pro-American government (it will never happen!).

[wyldwolf]

36. I agree on the Iraq part, and even Kucinich said that the troubling part..

...of the Patriot Act was the "sneak and Peak" portion.

So, how about those lottery numbers?

[IndianaGreen]

38. Keeping troops in Iraq is the same as telling a rape victim...

that she will feel better if she spends some more time with the rapist so that she "gets over it!"

That's the fallacy of the "we broke it, we fix it" mantra that far too many Democrats have deluded themselves into thinking that it is true, just as they deluded themselves into thinking Saddam had WMD.

[The Magistrate]

37. End Which War, My Hoosier Friend?

Even the current administration is seeking to cut its losses now, under smoke-screen of a U.N. sanctioned and nominally Iraqi government, with a greatly reduced U.S. garisson. It is more a question of whether the Iraqi resistance will allow this, as such a puppet regime will be its leading target, and a damned broad one to boot. Any Democrat elected will certainly attempt to turn the tar-baby over to a U.N. authority, as quickly as possible. Little more can be expected of any mainstream political figure, and those are th only ones that can be elected President of the country.

The war against the radical Islamic fundamentalists who have taken up arms against our country must be prosecuted, and to the fullest conceivable extent, without sideshows like the foolish invasion of Iraq.

[IndianaGreen]

39. Iraq is one chapter in a war of global domination

While our troops are getting shot in Iraq, we have troops in the Philippines trying to prop up the corrupt and undemocratic regime of Arroyo. We also have troops doing the same thing with Urribe in Colombia.

Where in the world is Otto Reich?

Clinton began Plan Colombia, a counter-insurgency program disguised as a drug interdiction program. I don't expect Kerry to end it. Kerry will send troops to defend the ruling classes in Colombia, Philippines, and elsewhere.

[bowens43]

30. That was true several months ago

but GW Bush is behind in all of the polls now so nominating him would guarantee a loss. We should stick with someone who can win.

[Iverson]

35. get with the times, dude

"Electability" is like so 2003. Anyone can be electable, but it takes a special candidate to be chosen as more electable than the others.

Electachoosability is, like, it. Rilly.

[CWebster]

41. Bush has over 100 million dollars to market his "electibility"

So don't get too cocky, he has yet to rev up his bandwagon. Remember they successfully derailed Dean as "too angry" to be electible, and we have good reason to be angry, right? They haven't laid a finger on Kerry yet, but they are sitting on a goldmine and setting their sights. Don't say you couldn't see it coming.

[IndianaGreen]

42. Kerry won't be able to keep the Left together

The Left is not about to work for the election of another multi-millionare warmonger.

[The Magistrate]

45. That Is Up To The Left, My Hoosier Friend

If persons on the left are serious about defeating the most reactionary elements of our polity, they will act effectively against the criminals of the '00 Coup, for these are, without doubt, the worst of the reactionaries, and must be broken from power. Cadre ought to show some self-discipline, and do the best that can be done, rather than turning wrecker to the benefit of the worst elements of reaction.

[Iverson]

46. no

The responsibility for holding a coalition together does not rest solely with one party. The assertion that it does is more likely the hubris of the party with the temporary advantage. Coalition members are not supplicants.

Those things that make the left left cannot be blithely dismissed without imperiling the coalition that the centrists purport to want. For example, you cannot argue "Bush is bad. Therefore, tolerate his war." That is not credible to the left.

I'm sure you know this.

[The Magistrate]

48. Coallition, Mr. Iverson

Rests on calculation of one's own best interest. It is in the interests of persons with even exteme left and progressive views to break the worst elements of reaction from office; no item of the left and progressive agenda can be possibly be advanced in any way while these are in office, and the longer they are in office, the less possible evicting them will be, the further the country will move from any left identification, and the more harm will be done to the people.

Suck it up, Sir, and do what has to be done; what is necessary does not have to be enjoyed....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[HFishbine]

51. Calculating one's interest

One can make the "calculation" that, if the country is still not ready for a truley progressive agenda, then maybe four more years of Bush is what's required for the democrats to understand that a coalition of the mindless muddle which rejects the left is a losing strategy.

[The Magistrate]

53. That Calculation Would Be A Grotesque Error, Sir

The idea that the way to make things better is to see them first made much much worse has been the curse of revolutionary romantics throughout the twentieth century. It has been a complete failure. Allowing the right to consolidate power has in all cases prevented any resurgence of left revolutionary activity. It is time to put this tired old dream away with all the other things of childhood; it is not a practical policy, but a recipie for disaster.

[HFishbine]

56. Who would be making the error, ma'am?

Your grasp of history comes up a little short. All the great progressive achievments of the past century were in reaction to intolerable abuses of power.

[The Magistrate]

66. You Will Have To Be A Little More Specific, Sir

Noteable failures of the "make it worse to make it better" school include the Comintern policy of destroying the Social Democratic Party in Weimar Germany, in the belief Nazi accension to power would trigger a worker's revolution underCommunist leadership, and the Red Brigades in Italy, who believed that by provoking the government to show its real "fascist" face, they would recieve tremendous revolutionary support. There is not time, space, or need, for a thorough catalogue of the failures of this tendency.

You speak of intolerable abuses of power as if these were unusual, but of course they are not; oppression is a constant in human affairs, and the occassions on when it is resisted at all, let alone successfully, are the remarkable things. The question is one of method, and the progressive triumphs of the last century, such things as labor and civil rights, were the result of broadly supported movements on a Popular Front line, that aimed directly at reform, and at no greater goal. Splinterists generally denounced these as not going far enough, and as mere swindles that would blunt the edge of revolutionary organizing. This is not, Sir, a new debate....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[lifelong_Dem]

93. "Let's let the National Socialists win!"

Then we'll really clean up in the '35 and '37 elections!

[Iverson]

54. "more matter with less art"

Coalitions rest upon people with similar interests working together. If a coalition member gets treated like a supplicant, that is a recipe for disaster as well. Ignore that point at your peril.

Your advice is like the advice of the clergy who wrote to Martin Luther King telling him to be more moderate. From that came Letter from the Birmingham Jail. History has shown us which argument was more compelling.

It is no doubt seductive to sneer at the left by terming them "extreme" or "revolutionary romantics," but deep down I bet that you too don't believe in killing civilians or invading other countries. Asking others to pretend not to believe in that so that one day - one golden moment in the future - such obvious core values may be safely revisited, well, that's asking too much. "Getting" those bastards does not admit of becoming them so that we may unbecome them in the "later" that never arrives.

Indeed, do what has to be done. This includes dealing with others as equals. Suck it up, as you say.

[The Magistrate]

67. Again, Sir

The eye must be kept focused on the actual interest; if the alliance can bring more benefit than working alone, it ought to be hewn to, regardless of atmospherics.

If you seek some complete alteration in human ffairs, so that, for instance, no country ever invades another, and no civilian is ever killed in a war, you will pine past your dying day. If you feel that a political tendency without mass following will ever wield signifigant power in its own right in a democracy, you are not realistic but wishful in your analysis of the situation confronting you. If you feel the best way to oppose the worst elements of reaction is to subtact your weight from effective opposition against them, you assist them in maintaining power, and act to postpone any achievement of what you claim to support. That last is a pernicious tendency, that will do real ham to the people and the country, and those who follow it cannot be counted among those who seek to aid the people or love the country.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Iverson]

74. a pernicious tendency

If you seek to restate another's position in absurd terms and expect not to be called on it, that too will be a grievous error. The florid register does not obscure the dodge to the trained eye.

While more politely crafted than "I ain't doin' nuttin' for ya an' ya can't make me," it is reducible to the same thing. That is no more honorable than the thing you purport to oppose. Perhaps I am not the only one in need of reminders about human nature. Strange that apologia is the first impulse rather than egalitarianism, and yet your argument anticipates persuasiveness.

When those who want equal treatment are tarred as extremists, then the best we can hope for is additional practice in Cassandra advising Polonius.

[The Magistrate]

78. A Pernicious Tendency, Mr. Iverson

Your "I ain't doing nuthin' for ya and ya can't make me!" is the cry the splinter raises in this instance, and for raising that cry, expects reward. It will have none. It is not argument, Sir, but reality that holds persuasiveness, and you have been at this long enough to know the real target is not the person addressed in an exchange such as this, but the many more who read such exchanges and think themselves about the points made. Those who are committed to factionalist wrecking cannot be persuaded, at least not by any means available here, to alter their views.

"If a man will continue to insist that two and two do not make four, I know of nothing in the power of argument that can stop up his mouth."

[Iverson]

80. reward? simply no.

What a sad time it is when expecting absence of derision is thrown back in one's face as an expectation of reward.

It is neither radical nor factionalist for partners in a coalition to expect to be partners and not supplicants.

True, I cannot argue anyone into fairness or civility, but I have a professional and scholarly obligation to try. If you say that the left deserves no better than being hectored into obedience, then we'll just have to disagree. They used to say the same sorts of things to suffragists, integrationists, and so on, and there's also the earlier referenced example of Letter from the Birmingham Jail that passed unnoticed.

Oh well. Don't say you weren't told.

[The Magistrate]

86. Reward, Mr. Iverson

The splinter left declares it will not join a Popular Front, and demands as the price of this intransigence the selection of the Party's nominee, stating if it does not get this, it will aid the worst elements of reaction, by subtracting itself from the weight of effective opposition against same.

As your reference to that letter has no bearing on this matter, it was let pass, since the only sensible comment that could be made on it was that you are simply raising without thought a totem you feel will sanctify a foolish political line. It does not.

You continually recur to the word supplicants, and it seems from your usage of this that the problem is more one of affronted pride than anything else. Pride is a poor councilor, and prone to urge, in those captive to it, disregard of uncomfortable realities. The fact is that splinter left has no positive power; it has only a small chance for wrecking. Nihilism has its dark charms, but again, is a damned poor guide to action....

[Iverson]

88. irony

Projection of the sort in which you have just engaged is also a damned poor guide.

If you don't discern the relevance of the example of the misguided (and proud) moderates in the face of principle, then no wonder you eagerly dismiss it.

In any case, your assessment of my motives is dubious at best. Perhaps a centrist will agree with me that hectoring the left isn't unbearbly wonderful an idea, and then it will be safer to accept.

[IndianaGreen]

47. The Left is issue-oriented, and is not bound by political tribalism

which is what this rally around the "R" or the "D" flag is all about.

The Left's response to Bush, and to the Bush enablers in the Democratic Party (including Kerry), will be on March 20. I would not be surprised if a President Kerry keeps us penned up inside First Amendment Zones so that he doesn't have to hear our demands for a total US withdrawal from Iraq.

March 20: The World Still Says No to War

MOMENTUM BUILDS FOR GLOBAL DAY OF ACTION OUTREACH

Momentum is building around the world for the Global Day of Action against War and Occupation on March 20, the one-year anniversary of the U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq.

On that day, people on every continent will take to the streets to say YES to peace and NO to pre-emptive war and occupation. Joining with growing numbers of military families and soldiers, we will call for an end to the occupation of Iraq and Bush’s militaristic foreign policies, and highlight the linkages between the occupations of Iraq and Palestine. March 20 will be the first time the world's "other superpower," as The New York Times described us, will take center stage since February 15, when more than 15 million people across the globe expressed their opposition to Bush's looming war on Iraq.

The March 20 Global Day of Action has been endorsed by the Global Assembly of the Anti-War Movement and the World Social Forum, and a vast and diverse array of organizations worldwide are hard at work mobilizing for the day.

In the United States, there will be a massive protest in New York City plus dozens of local and regional demonstrations across the country.

Politically, the U.S. protests will also take on the domestic impact of Bush's foreign policies—what some people call "the war at home." We will express the growing opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act, which has authorized political arrests, indefinite detentions, domestic spying, and religious and racial profiling. We will call for an end to the mass detentions and deportations of innocent immigrants in the name of fighting terrorism. We will say no to massive military spending amidst vast cuts in vital domestic social and economic programs.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=sub&sub=45

[The Magistrate]

49. You Know Better Than That, Old Friend

The left is simply its own tribe, with a full panoply of totems and shibboleths and rituals defining who is in and who is out.

The question is a simple one: do you want the worst elements of reaction to maintain their grip on power, or do you want the worst elements of reaction out of office? If you want the worst elements of reaction to remain in power, then by all means, cling to the tribalism of the left, and reject alliance with anything that is not up to the full standard of the tribe. If you want the worst elements of reaction out of office, then align with their less reactionary opponents, even if these are not quite presentable in your club, and will not do everything you would want done if in power.

[IndianaGreen]

50. Trotsky was right, having to choose between reform or revolution

I choose revolution! Looking at issues through the prism of partisan elections misses not only the forest, but the entire planet as well.

Roots of the crisis

It is an illusion to believe that the issues confronting working people can be resolved simply by the removal of Bush. The Bush administration is, in the final analysis, the political expression of the desperation, disorientation and recklessness of the American ruling elite as it confronts a systemic social and economic crisis for which it has no rational, let alone progressive, solution. There is no question that Bush and his associates represent an especially foul, reactionary and even criminal element within this elite. But even if they were to be removed in November, their replacement by the candidates of the Democratic Party would not substantially alter the violent and destructive trajectory of American capitalism, either within the United States or internationally.

In the event of a Democratic Party victory, the campaign promises would soon be exposed as cynical exercises in electioneering demagogy. A new Democratic president would remain subservient to the same corporate interests and pursue the same imperialist strategy of world domination.

A fundamental and progressive shift in American policy requires not merely a change in the ruling personnel, but rather a social revolution that puts an end to the domination of the American people by corporate interests, massive private wealth and the profit system itself.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/stat-j27.shtml

[The Magistrate]

52. Trotsky Is A Poor Idol, Ma'am

First, his political judgement cannot be taken as too astute; he lost, after all, and badly, in the political struggles among the Bolshevik leadership.

Second, his doctrine of permanent revolution was an abject failure. It produced no new revolutions, and where there were attempts to apply it to Communist governance, as under Mao, the result was chaotic failure.

Third, his doctrine of war-time Communism led to the most brutal exploitation of the Russian workers, as bad as anything Stalin ever managed. Indeed, his policies in the latter stages of the Civil War and the consolidation of the Bolshevik victory served as a model for much of Stalin's later system.

The schism between revolutionist and reformist is an old one on the left, dating back into the nineteenth century. The reformists have succeeded in gaining some power and influence, and some improvement of the people's condition; the revolutionists have failed.

[Monte Carlo]

58. And that is EXACTLY why it is politically impotent.

United we stand, divided we fall. That's what the issue-purity gets the left come election time.

[Iverson]

61. "issue-purity"

Centrists need to learn some trick other than sneering at the left. Maybe, just maybe, there are good reasons not to issue a weak "me too" to an illegal invasion.

Nahh, couldn't be; it's simple "purity."

:eyes:

[The Magistrate]

70. It Is Rather The Purist Left, Sir, Needs To Learn A New Trick

The course of splinter faction does nothing but strengthen the hand of the most extreme reactionary elements; indeed, it is something these count on in planning towards their success.

You cannot achieve the slightest progress towards any left or progressive program while the most reactionary elements of the polity hold office; all that can be done while they do so is to posture and preen in splendid and impotent isolation. Desire to do so is not a good motive for engaging in radical politics....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Iverson]

75. preening yes, but by whom?

Style alone cannot persuade one to adopt positions diametrically opposed to one's interest, and neither can insult.

That should be obvious.

[The Magistrate]

79. How Good Are You At Calculating Your Own Interest, Sir?

It is not so easily done aright as many suppose....

[Democat]

57. The left will work for Bush's election instead?

Wake up and face reality.

If it's Kerry vs. Bush, then we either support Kerry or let Bush win.

If you help Bush get another four years, I hope you can sleep at night.

[Iverson]

60. this kind of thoughtlessness is the problem

"Reality" is not the sole province of one candidate's supporters. Demanding that others fall into line will do far more to alienate them than to rally them.

So will sanctimonious twaddle about sleeping at night.

[IrateCitizen]

64. It is this kind of either/or thinking that is the problem

The left is not enthusiastically supporting the Democratic candidate. Therefore, the left is supporting Bush.

As someone who has had to come to grips with an emerging pacifism over the past five years while in the midst of being an officer in the Army Reserves, this kind of false dichotomy sounds eerily similar to the ones I have had to consider regarding war and peace issues.

It goes a little something like, in the event of some kind of strife somewhere in the world, there are only two options: to use violent military force, or to stand aside and do nothing. The question does not even consider the very real alternatives of nonviolent intervention. Therefore, it is a false dichotomy -- meant only to satisfy those who live in a world completely devoid of imagination or creative thought.

Your question is much the same, Democat. It makes the false assumption that the end of Bush's term will be an end-all, be-all -- and that the vast majority of our ills will immediately dissipate. I would say, quite the contrary -- almost all of our ills will still remain, and continue to further cement ourselves in our national psyche, if at a slightly reduced rate.

THAT is why some of us, while we recognize an importance attached to getting Bush out of the WH, do not attach the same overarching "the sky is falling" theme that some of you prescribe to it. We recognize that the sky will CONTINUE to fall if, say, John Kerry is elected -- just at a slightly slower speed. There is much more that needs to be done besides just electing a Democratic President.

This is what Dennis Kucinich is talking about when he holds out his hands and says, "These are healing hands." Despite how much many people like to make fun of him about this, it is just too true.

[The Magistrate]

68. It is Not A False Dichotomy, Sir

Even to slow the rate at which the sky falls is a material benefit, and a person who will not act to do so aids the sky to fall at the more rapid rate. Such a person is rightfully charged with assisting the disaster to its soonest fruition, and cannot be counted among its real opponents.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[quaker bill]

44. The thing that bothers me about electability

Is that the term is nebulous and speculative. Electability, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is like a dot com marketing brochure from the late 90's. What seems 'electable' today could seem like a very poor choice tomorrow.

Electability is the thinnest and least durable excuse to select a candidate imaginable. If we select a candidate on this, we will be just one solid scandal from having the entire electability meme flushed.

Were Bill Clinton only selected because of his 'electability', Jennifer Flowers would have stopped him. In fact the scandal made him seem less 'electable' but people stuck with him because he had a strong ability to relate to the voter and people believed what he was selling.

The polling indicates that on the issues alone, democrats would select another candidate. A candidate selected because of strong agreement on issues is far less vulnerable to attack. Our candidate will be attacked.

[democratreformed]

59. I agree, it is speculative and subject to perception

Unfortunately, many people's perceptions are largely dictated by the media.

[Snivi Yllom]

65. true

It's important, but it's not the most important factor in selecting a nominee.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. Electability seems to make most of DU barf so I suppose I should resign

myself to 4 more years.

[Iverson]

76. not necessarily

However, if "electability" functions to the exclusion of ideas, then the predictable thing will happen. While you individually aren't browbeating others into accepting "electability" as the beginning and end of allowable considerations, surely you can see some room for improvement over that tactic.

[The Magistrate]

82. Nonesense, Mr. Iverson

You are being opposed, and you must accept that many do and will oppose your views. When they do so, they are not browbeating you: you repeat the same arguments, and so are met with the same arguments, as you show no sign of shifting. You have not, in point of fact, raised any objection to the charge that the course you advocate will work to the benefit of the worst elements of reaction; you have only stated that you do not think it worth supporting less reactionary elements against the worse reactionary elements. But you have as yet provided no reason why this choice of yours will bring any benefit to the people and the county capable of outweighing the undeniable harm that continuing the worst elements of reaction in power is sure to cause them.

[Iverson]

84. zen and the art of diversion

My single point to NSMA was that surely she can see room for improvement over a noxious tactic.

You have called it nonsense.

That's nonsense.

[The Magistrate]

89. Wear It In Good Health, Sir

You will continue to cling to a course that will materially aid the worst elements of reaction, viewing the doing as somehow a vindication of left principles, and other matters require my own attention just now....

"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disasterous and the unpalatable."

[Mobius]

87. I just want to reply to you to see you call me Miss Mobius

:7

[The Magistrate]

94. My Pleasure, Miss Mobius

"I am a man of principles, Ma'am, and chief among them is flexibility."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

83. Oh sure.

But there's NO room for dialogue with ONE party in control. I've participated in your discussions in the past on this matter and we came to lagerheads over a fundamental difference. I hope I don't mischaracterize it but the fundamental difference is that you seem to think it is possible to divide up the numbers on the left versus the right and still prevail over them..I don't think it is.

The issue I have is that it is getting harder and harder in this forum to even express ideas, especially regarding the guy that is in front right now without having his entire record distorted. Kerry has been an advocate of alternate energy sources since the 70's. He is on OUR side in the global warming debate and while there are SERIOUS issues with trade I get a bit frustrated at some of the opinions expressed that believe other less developed nations should NOT get to live with similar comforts and privileges to ours.

Sme are painting Kerry as the PNAC candidate when nothing could be futher than the truth. He was AFTER Elliot Abrahams who got a pardon from Poppy then returns in his latest incarnation. Same with Otto Reich. I have a hard time balancing the logic on this board when the guy who UNCOVERED their deeds that LED to the convictions in Bush sr's admin is then FRAMED as ONE OF THEM!

It is a bit disenchanting to know I am arguing trade matters with people who are completely ANTI TRADE and even beginning to sound a bit protectionist while we both post on the internet and use up more BTU's in an hour than some villages around the world use all month!

[Iverson]

85. in that case ...

That would be exactly a reason to pursue dialogue as opposed to polemic. Giving up after a handful of primaries does not seem like a good way to go, regardless of the extent to which you and I might agree.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

91. I salute you in your patience in that matter

When we both go back and forth with facts and credible references it is possible.

I certainly suggest no one give up after a couple primaries. Only 9 states have voted. That would be the most UNDEMOCRATIC alternative.

What I am presenting that seems to get ignored (at least amongst the Dean VS Kerry crowd) is a guy that HAS a record of promoting issues many GREENS can be proud of versus a guy that claims he has had an epiphany after promoting issues in a manner very close to the manner in which the DLC boogeymen did it.

Go figure!

[Iverson]

92. a mix of issues

So far, all well and good.

My comment went more to you than to candidates, but in either case giving up now seems kind of silly to me, as does a bitter rivalry and acrimony between centrists.

What started this all, though, was the notion of electability. I see it as an impoverished idea in service of an impoverished political strategy, especially, especially in the primaries. That strategy I summarize as the expectation of mute obedience from the left for a centrist to be named later. You've seen the strenuous resistance to my calling that unpersuasive.

As far as Kerry goes, his overall career reveals a legislative record that is at least slightly more liberal than the other centrist candidates (i.e.- not Kucinich or Sharpton). However, you will also find that some of his positions will be poison to most Greens. I have until now avoided bringing the Green Party into this discussion, since the merits of electability don't rely on party affiliation.

If you will continue to be a voice for credible facts and references, then you are likelier to get the kind of discourse that I think we both want.

[oasis]

77. Fortunately, "most of DU" makes up less than .001% of voters.

[oasis]

73. 4 more Bush years make me barf. 4 more rightwing Supreme Court judges

make me barf.