Why are the Democrats willing to continuously compromise their beliefs?

[Meldread]

One of the many things that has gotten under my skin during these primaries is the perceived aura of "electability". Why are Democrats so willing to compromise their values in order to "win"? The question must be asked: Are we really winners if we are compromising all we hold dear to win? How does that separate us from the Republicans?

I am under the impression that most of the ABB crowd would vote for a Hitler/Stalin ticket if it had a "D" next to it in the voting booth. Doesn't this frighten anyone else, and doesn't anyone else see the road this is taking us down? Is anyone looking past this election -- is anyone thinking about the future of our party and our country? What difference does it make if we win the battle against Bush only to lose the War because we lose what makes us Democrats?

It isn't just the voting populace that has been willing to sacrifice their values to win -- it's the elected officials as well. The Iraq Vote, the Tax Cuts, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Patriot Act -- those were "strategic" votes. The DLC believed by supporting Bush they would have been able to position themselves where they could beat him in 2004. They saw that strategy fall flat on its face in 2002 when we got our asses kicked and gave the Republicans control of all three branches of our government.

Our whole government is built on the premise that the elected officials will represent the will of the people. When is the last time -- Republican OR Democrat -- represented the will of the people? It has been quite some time. Over the last several years we have watched our politics corrode more and more as special interest money flowed into Washington and Values and Integrity flowed out.

How much longer until America wakes up and sees where we are heading? How much longer until our elected officials wake up and realize that the world still goes on after election season?

I am horribly disappointed in many of my fellow Democrats on this board. I have been a member of this community for a little over a year and a half, and this primary has brought out the worst in many. It's not just the constant fighting. I've witnessed people constantly back tracking on their previous beliefs in order to defend or support their candidate. Why? I support Howard Dean but I don't agree with him on everything. I believe Gay Marriage should be legalized. I wish he would make a stand on that. I believe in stronger gun control laws. Just because I support Howard Dean doesn't mean I support everything Howard Dean stands for, but for some people I've noticed that they have been willing to change their entire outlook on the world.

I wish the Democrats would wake up. I wish that this whole 'electability' nonsense would just go away. I happen to think Howard Dean has the best chance of beating Bush because he's strong where Bush is strong, and will take the fight to Bush. It is Howard Dean who has shaped this debate, and therefore it is because of Howard Dean that Bush's poll ratings have dropped. He's exposed him for what he is when others would not. However, I think most of the Democrats we have presented are electable compared to Bush. I think some have better chances than others, but I believe ultimately they can beat Bush in November.

So can someone please answer my question: Why are Democrats willing to continuously sell themselves out to win elections?

[Frances]

1. I take offense at your question

[blm]

3. Same here.

.

[Meldread]

14. If you take offense to the question, then you must be guilty.

Perhaps you should consider that.

[blm]

31. No. Offended that you ASSUME those who disagree with you are guilty.

See, I think YOU are the one supporting a corporatist and who has compromised much to accept his corporatism and centrism.

I am a liberal who hasn't compromised at all to support Kerry or Kucinich because they both have lifetime records that match their campaign voices and I am comfortable even with their differences, because I trust their sincerity.

But, I don't post a lengthy thread calling you all out on your compromising ways just to glorify myself.

[Foswia]

40. Tell it like it is! Great job [nt]

[Meldread]

52. It wasn't directed for any single candidate.

It was directed at those who support candidates simply on the basis of electability.

[Foswia]

38. Change guilty to terrorist why don't ya? Everyone is guilty but you? [nt]

[D G]

2. Because I'm ABB, I'd vote for HITLER?

Now I've seen everything. Thanks for your confidence vote in my intelligence :eyes:

Many of the current Democratic candidates represent my values enough to be worthy of my vote. Am I just lucky?

[lancdem]

6. I agree

Good rebuttal.

[Meldread]

12. You are taking that out of context.

It was an obvious exaduration. I was simply drawing the comparison -- that a large majority (certainly not all) are willing to vote for anyone with a "D" next to their name. I find that disconcerting, and if you don't find that to be a problem as well... then you are most certainly contributing to the problem. (And yes, it is a problem.)

[D G]

22. It was an obvious insult.

I am under the impression that most of the ABB crowd would vote for a Hitler/Stalin ticket if it had a "D" next to it in the voting booth.

You are under the wrong impression. (Do we need to do another poll?)

A large majority are willing to vote for the lesser of two evils, if it comes to that. I think that's what "ABB" means. However, I think that in the primaries, we at DU are all smart enough to find the candidate (or candidates) that embody what is important to us.

And it's OK for us to change our minds for whatever reason. That does not mean we are compromising our beliefs.

[stickdog]

67. So, you're really ABBorH?

;-)

[D G]

71. No, as stated in another poll

I'm truly ABMC (Anybody But Miss Cleo)

NO PNAC-ENABLING PSYCHIC WILL GET MY VOTE!

[poskonig]

4. What are we selling?

It seems to me you're rationalizing Dean's imminent loss.

[Meldread]

18. It has very little do to with Dean.

My points could be made about just about any candidate. Kerry was perceived as unelectable when Dean was the frontrunner. He was perceived as unelectable because he did the things I've described above.

It has very little to do with any of the candidates -- it's a much broader issue.

Of course, if you are like the guys above and are "offended" by my asking of the question, then you might be guilty of selling yourself short as well.

[Dookus]

5. believe it or not...

Your belief in your guy really isn't more sincere than my belief in MY guy.

I wonder why so-called progressives are willing to compromise THEIR beliefs to support a pro-business, pro-NRA, anti-environment centrist. :shrug:

[Meldread]

21. I'm not calling the belief in Clark into question.

It has very little to do with the candidates. (Although it is relevant seeing as how we ARE in a primary.) It is a much broader issue.

[Dookus]

24. but the assumption is that unless

you support Dean, you're somehow compromising your principles. I don't think Dean supporters compromise their principles ANY LESS than the supporters of other candidates.

And you know what? EVERYBODY compromises their principles when it comes to politics. The only person who agrees with me on everything is me.

If you purity, get a dog. If you want to win elections, you'd best pick someone who can beat the other guy.

[janx]

47. Wait wait wait. I don't think that this was part of the original post

at all. Don't be so quick to be partisan, Dookus.

Dean supporters happen to believe that he is best at beating Bush*. I certainly believe that. You no doubt believe that Clark is the best to that purpose, and I'd have to agree that Clark is a brilliant man and a formidable opponent. I respect him beyond measure.

But it comes down to more than that. We're seeing the media and the status quo that helped to get us into this Bush* mess begin to take advantage of it. That's what irks me and so many other people, including many supporting Clark.

[Meldread]

55. It isn't ABOUT Dean or any other candidate.

It was about those who make huge sacrifices of their morals and values in order to win. It was mainly directed at those who support a candidate based simply on the fabled electability.

For example why would someone who attended anti-war protests and who was against the patriot act vote for John Kerry? Why?

It's one thing to support someone in the general election. It's another to start jumping on an imaginary bandwagon created by the DLC and the Media.

[Democrats unite]

7. Here is some support for you

I cannot live voting for someone that voted for IWR or the Patriot act, plain and simple. Then to come out and say you are against the MA Supreme court ruling was just rubbing salt in a already open wound. We are still in the primary stage and I will do what ever it takes to get the right person nominated.

I take offense at people that took offense of your post. I, as you seem to be are people of conviction.

If I were any other way I wouldn't be a true Democrat.

[poskonig]

9. Why the lecture on being a "true Democrat" ??

You recognize you're a Clark supporter, no?

[Democrats unite]

16. So whats your point?

Go on say it, you know you want to.

[poskonig]

17. "True Democrats" don't vote for people like Nixon and Reagan.

Part-time Democrats do. :beer:

[Dookus]

19. well

good luck winning an election with only the votes of the "true democrats"


I swear, this must be a lot of people's first election.

[poskonig]

23. I'm not the one giving lectures on true Democrathood.

Clark supporters demanding litmus tests is one of the most absurd things I've seen in a while.

[Democrats unite]

29. What test did I give?

I said I. What part of that do you not understand?

On edit: so is it safe to assume that you don't like what I said and are for the IWR & partiot act?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Democrats unite]

37. And who are you supporting? May I ask?

[poskonig]

43. The nominee.

:evilgrin:

I loath the "I'm a *true Democrat*, but I won't vote for one" b.s. I'm seeing from many lately. Sorry if I'm a bit testy.

[Dookus]

28. I'm certainly

not demanding a litmus test.

This ain't my first day in the big city. I've been voting since 1979 - I know that no candidate matches my views 100%. The only way to get one is to run for office myself.

[wyldwolf]

32. Says who? Where is that written? Is there a DNC rule that stipulates ...

...who one may vote for?

I totally reject your point mainly because you have not been appointed the keeper of the Democratic party's sacred scrolls.

[kalian]

63. Then to be fair..."true repukes" don't vote for Clinton or anybody

democrat either... :eyes: Goes both ways....

[Dookus]

8. well...

Adlai Stevenson
Walter Mondale
Hubert Humphrey
Michael Dukakis
etc. etc. etc.


All great candidates who were unelectable. What good does it do us to ignore electability as a criterion? A noble defeat? Fuck that.

[Democrats unite]

13. I am a Gay man who has been beat upon long enough

I don't care about electabilty, I care about who will stand up for me!

[DrFunkenstein]

41. Clark's Stand On Gay Rights (Esp. In Military) Is Not Very Strong

Unless you mean "happy."

[Democrats unite]

64. What other candidate has come out & said this?

By Wesley Clark

The ink was barely dry on the Massachusetts State Supreme Court's gay marriage decision, and the Republican Party was trying to use it as an election year issue to divide Americans. But this issue should not be a polarizing one. There's no reason why we shouldn't treat all Americans equally no matter what their race, religion or sexual orientation. That's why I welcomed the Massachusetts court decision with open arms.

I remember a conversation I had with a fellow Army officer a few months ago. He hadn't thought through my position supporting equal rights for gays. I asked him, "If you had a gay child, would you love that child as much as your other children?" And he said, "Yes, of course." And I asked if he would want his child to have the same rights and opportunities as every other child. And again he said, "Yes, of course." When we look at it in human terms, we recognize that this issue is about how we want our children to be treated. In America, every child should be equal in the eyes of the law, period.

Throughout the course of American history, too many groups have struggled for equal rights and opportunities. Growing up in Little Rock in the 1950s, I saw first-hand how wrenching the fight for civil rights was. In fact, I went to school for a year in Tennessee because they had closed the schools in Little Rock.

In too many ways, the struggle for equal rights is still on-going. Today, one of the frontlines in the civil rights struggle runs through the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. We must always stand by the principle: every American should enjoy the exact same rights as every other American.

http://clark04.com/articles/013/


P.S. Would you like to claify your statement now?

[maddezmom]

110. *chirping*

that's all I hear. Thanks for posting :)

[anti-NAFTA]

10. I agree, but all this talk of

electability is just sheepish acceptance of the fact that the corporations have decided who the candidate should be.

Fuck the American system. America should be a MULTIparty PARLIAMENTARY republic with parties represented according to percentage of the national vote. Like France, a true republic not like this joke of a country we're living in where the people still need the permission of "delegates" to elect a president.

[lastknowngood]

11. conditioning we try to make things better by trying not to harm

others. I've grown beyond that, now I'm in my "gutem with a dull deer antler" phase. I won't back down or apologize for anything to a repugnant.

[DuctapeFatwa]

15. Politics is not about issues or ideals or principles. It's about winning

and money.

[Meldread]

30. ...and that's why we are where we are today. -nt-

[Foswia]

48. ... And better off than we were pre DLC [nt]

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. Good government isn't a function of your beliefs or mine

The issues you are raising are issues of policy. Policy that would NOT be policy if we were the controlling party.

Frankly, the I WON'T COMPROMISE and TAKE NO PRISONERS attitude of a polarized electorate has brought us to this.

I'm all for progress one step at a time.

STEP ONE: EVICT BUSH

[Meldread]

33. I am not talking about minor compromises.

I'm talking about MAJOR compromises. Civil Rights, Healthcare, the Economy, the ability to go to war. Those are NOT "compromises" those are throwing away your beliefs.

[D G]

42. You are assuming that your interpretation of the world is the only one.

You are incorrect in your assumption.

[kalian]

65. Step two: then what?

.... :shrug:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

103. We're not really organized enough for step two

Remember Rick Kahn at the Wellstone memorial?

YOU'VE GOT TO ORGANIZE.

YOU'VE GOT TO ORGANIZE.

YOU'VE GOT TO ORGANIZE.

YOU'VE GOT TO ORGANIZE.

YOU'VE GOT TO ORGANIZE.

YOU'VE GOT TO ORGANIZE.

YOU'VE GOT TO ORGANIZE.

But I would follow the same roadmap the right did. That is through the use of progressive organizations and coalitions in communities with like minded parties such as Greens, reasonable libertarians and progressive Dem groups, organize around the states and target districts where we may begin to swing congress.

The problem right now is that our interests are all over the map...they pretty well have one main interest...money and control. Many states have "safe disricts" due to the maps drawn out during the census, but if they get one more election...kiss the supreme court goodbye.

That is my main issue with all the moralizing about candidates, values etc...it is GREAT FOR THE BIG PICTURE future. In the SHORT term, it seems to be a recipe for disaster.

NO president is going to stop NAFTA, GATT, WAL-MART, reverse the lost civil liberties, approve gay marriage, create alternative energy sources, redesign our relationship with Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, reverse the budget deficit and fix every other ill in our society in one term.

Shifting just OUR national conversation from the WAR MODE in and of itself will take time.

If you are in the desert, dying of thirst, you don't go in search of a fine restaurant with a 9 course meal...you LOOK FOR WATER STAT!!!

We need to take a bit of responsibility that we didn't come to this overnight...but we came to this over 30 years in the big picture and over 6 since the Gingrich revolution.


Follow THEIR map. Change the conversation.

Right now all we can do is POLARIZE to take one office and possibly a senate seat or two if we don't blow it and lose more.

(anyway..it's late on Friday night. If you had asked earlier...I might not have meandered all over the place)

We first need to come to some consensus on what REFORM we can all stand for. IF you read this board, there isn't much.

The ONE THING the majority of people here CAN stand for is getting rid of Bush.

[MoonRiver]

25. You are WAY out of bounds. I don't feel like I'm compromising

one iota, FYI. How dare you assume that you know why Democrats are backing the different candidates. I am a Clark supporter, but I am also very comfortable with Kerry getting the nomination. I will support whomever gets the nomination as I prefer any of them over the vile resident in our White House. Are any of them perfect? NO. But are they acceptable alternatives to His Lowness? Yes siree. Please try to understand that YOUR little idiosyncratic ideas do not equate to universal truth or even a majority of Democrats' opinions.

[anti-NAFTA]

34. You are compromising.

Wall Street owns both parties, and I refuse to vote for a candidate who isn't as as leftist as the political system will allow (i.e. Gephardt, Kucinich).

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet (or shitty).

If you think that because the next president may have a D next time his name that guy will be guaranteed not to have neocons lurking in the Pentagon and Wall Street breathing down his neck on trade policy, then you're dead wrong. Fuck the two-party system.

[D G]

39. You are assuming that everyone shares your values.

So is the original poster. You're both wrong.

I do not deny you your right to support the candidate of your choice. I tend to get a bit crabby when others imply I am ignorant for supporting my candidates.

[MoonRiver]

45. Maybe YOU are compromising but I AM NOT!

NAFTA is not high on my list of priorities. And it doesn't worry me if someone has done well on Wall Street. I have many more pressing priorities such as universal health care, global warming, and education. MY roses smell sweet btw. Perhaps you should start watering and fertilizing your own.

[kalian]

61. So, your priority is just to get shrub out of the WH....

:eyes:
That's grand. We'll just be voting another S&B that will continue the
same policies under a different banner.
Carry on citizen...

[MoonRiver]

88. That's YOUR opinion. I think the situation is much more dire.

But a lot of whiners probably didn't want to stop Hitler before it was also way too late. Alas, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[Duncan Grant]

26. Meldread, no good deed goes unpunished.

And you're sure to be punished for your heresy here in GD Primary. :spank:

Unfortunately, this forum has more "Cheerleaders for Jesus" than anything that would pass for an exchange of ideas. I appreciate your post and 'feel' your goal is admirable.

It would be interesting to hear the perspective of a few academics on this phenomena of 'electability'. Do any DUer's know of any social scientists or anthropologists (no pundits, please) who write about the Democratic party. That could be informative.

And, just who are the political gatekeepers of the party anyway? :shrug: The argument would be that it's the voters but I suspect it's much more complicated than that.

[Meldread]

46. Well my fear is...

Well my fear is that once Democrats start falling down the slippery slope of electability, that we will eventually lose the soul of what makes us Democrats. Over the years we've moved considerably further and further right with each passing election cycle. Why? To win.

Although the problem doesn't really manifest until you figure out who determines who is more electable. There are many behind the scenes goings on during the elections. The DLC has its own agenda that it wishes to push. The Media has theirs. The RNC has theirs. All these different agendas eventually culminate into what the voters perceive as "electability".

It's a well known fact that if you repeat something often enough that people eventually start to believe its true. That's been a Republican strategy for a long time. (That's how they've made the word liberal a dirty word.)

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

27. I'm not compromising or sacrificing my values a bit

For your to suggest people who don't choose YOUR candidate are doing so is insulting.

I believe Kerry is the best candidate to hold the office of President. I really, really, really do not like Dean. I never have. I have made an informed choice.

This insistence that Dean is the only one that can beat Bush is not supported by the facts. He has not won a single primary; in fact, he's done poorly in most of them. In a head to head poll match with Bush he loses. The numbers simply so not support your insistence that he is the only one who can beat Bush. Dean's vast support was an illusion. It didn't materialize into votes.

Democrats are awake. The turnouts thus far at the primaries have been in record numbers. There is a decided determination in the country that Bush needs to be shown the door. And I think we just might be successful in doing that. Kerry will make an excellent President.

[adadem]

36. Excellent post

in response to an insulting thread. Democrats are awake now...just as I figured would happen after the first of the year. That they are marching to the polls in record numbers says something.

[Meldread]

49. This thread has nothing to do with Dean.

It wasn't even meant to be a pro-Dean thread. Quite simply I am trying to point something out that goes beyond ANY single candidate. If someone is voting for Dean because they feel he is more electable then they are WRONG. The same goes for Clark, Edwards, Kerry, or any other candidate.

*THIS* is what I was focusing on. People who are supporting a candidate simply because they think they have a better chance of beating Bush. People who are willing to sacrifice their morals and values simply to win.

[D G]

51. I think you will find few such people on DU

i.e. "People who are supporting a candidate simply because they think they have a better chance of beating Bush. People who are willing to sacrifice their morals and values simply to win."

It's a bit late to clarify on that point when you said "Democrats" in your original post.

[Meldread]

58. It is a broad issue.

It covers the entire party. It isn't JUST about voting in the primaries. It's about the elected officials making "strategic" votes in Congress to help them better win elections. (Then consequently we turn around and support them for basically screwing us. We send the message that it's okay to continue that type of behavior. Thus we go down a horribly destructive path.)

[kalian]

62. That's how they're perceiving it....

and its proving your point rather blatantly...

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

74. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but

in reading your original post again it seems to have everything to do with Dean. It's framed on the premise that Dean is the only possible reasonable choice as far as you are concerned.

You go further to assume that if one supports Kerry, it's because they are compromising their morals and values and making a sacrifice for some shallow perceived desire to chose someone "electable" whom they don't otherwise approve of. I'm telling you that is incorrect, insulting, and damned arrogant of you to suggest.

Here is what I'm suggesting you consider. Kerry supporters are not an inch deep. The American public examined the records and the history of all of the candidates, looked them over and made a choice. More of them chose Kerry than the other candidates. They really like Kerry. They really don't like Dean. It's as simple as that, and you don't see it, or refuse to accept it.

Don't assume people who vote in primaries are all idiots -- they are usually more informed than those who vote only in general elections. The majority just don't happen to agree with your choice. I don't have a problem seeing why people prefer Kerry over Dean. Their records don't compare. But you and I disagree.

I'll tell you this though. If Dean should somehow, by some miracle, pull this out and start winning some primaries and win the Democratic nomination, I will compromise my morals and values, hold my nose, make the sacrifice, and vote for him.

[Meldread]

78. Let me frame it this way then.

If you didn't support the War in Iraq, if you didn't support the Patriot Act, the no Child Left Behind Act, and the like -- these major anti-Democratic bills -- then why support a candidate who did? It is one thing to support a candidate who believes gun laws should be left up to the states. It is one thing to support a candidate who believes that gay marriage should be left up to the states. It's another to support someone who is willing to give away your rights, to send fellow Americans to die, and to destroy American children's education. Those are anti-Democratic values.

If it seemed that it was some how anti-Kerry and pro-Dean it's because I *DO* support Dean over the other candidates, and because I believe that the Iraq War and Patriot Act were immoral and wrong. Polls conducted here at DU had at least 95% people agreeing. Thus I bring up this issue.

I also brought it up because a vast majority of DUers are willing to compromise their MAJOR beliefs to support a candidate who they believe is more "electable". I believe it's important to ask why? I also believe it's important that people know what shapes "electability".

Frankly, I am in favor of the voters deciding. However, it is very clear that a large majority of the voters are voting on who they feel has the best chance of beating Bush. Therefore it is important to bring this up. To put it bluntly, I am in favor of letting the voters vote for a candidate and forcing everyone else to butt the hell out.

I don't look favorably on the media and the DLC who are pushing the electability issue.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

98. I appreciate your thoughtful reply

I didn't support the War in Iraq, The Patriot Act, or the No Child Left Behind Act. However I don't characterize them the same way you do.

For the sake of brevity, I'll just use the IWR as an example. I KNEW, I mean, I KNEW, before that vote that god damned Bush was going to have that war come hell or high water. I was posting on another message board at the time, I can't recall the forum, something like the Bush Administration, and Dem's and Repubs alike posted there. Boy did I take a beating....

As I recall, when this issue first came up, the Bush admin initially took the position that they didn't even need the approval of Congress to go to war with Iraq, and that their authorization lie within enforcing one of the UN resolutions, or maybe it was retaliation for 911, or a combination of both. My memory is not clear on the exact details, other than I KNEW in my heart that Bush was going to have his fucking war whether Congress approved of it or not.

With the IWR came some conditions that BUSH agreed to abide by, namely to allow the inspection process to work and to work with ally nations. THAT is what Kerry and other Democrats agreed to, and war was the LAST RESORT. Who could have possibly guessed that Bush et all would piss off the entire world and thumbed his nose at every one of our allies and start a unilateral war? I sure didn't expect that. Nobody could have anticipated that.

Nor do I think anyone expected, Congress included, that Bush would so quickly run roughshod over the inspection process so quickly and dismiss it. I recall the news stories at the time because I read several news sources and opinion pieces every day.

To suggest that Kerry and the others who voted for the IWR are pro-war is a gross mis characterization. Bush is the one who lied and deceived the public, not those who voted for the resolution. Do I wish the Democrats would have stood together as a Party and voted no? Of course I do. But I recognize that would have been political suicide at the time. The patriotic fervor at the time made it politically impossible. I remember the atmosphere well, because I got my feathers singed and butt chewed on many an occasion for opposing what Bush was doing.

So the Dems did what they had to do to survive. It's a Republican controlled Congress. It wouldn't have mattered anyway and by voting for it they took the issue away from Republicans to use as a weapon against them. Our Democrats in Congress do us no good if they all get voted out of office over one vote, so there is something to be said for compromising sometimes for the longer term good. The war was going to take place with or without the vote anyway.

As far as the rest of your post, I simply do not agree that:

a vast majority of DUers are willing to compromise their MAJOR beliefs to support a candidate who they believe is more "electable".

Again, I think this boils down to the difference between choosing Kerry and Dean and I have already addressed that.

In addition, I don't completely discount the concept of elect ability either. I want our nominee to count, goddammit! I sure as hell don't want to go through this primary process to nominate someone who makes a minority in the Democratic Party feel good so that the overwhelming majority of voters come November sends him packing and leaves us with another 4 years of G fucking Bush! What the hell good does it do to have someone nominated that can't win the damn election?? What's wrong with elect ability anyway? It IS a big deal.

Electability need not have such a bad connotation either. Electability to me means someone highly qualified and appropriate for the position of President of the United States. You are using the Republican definition of electability as some dumb fuck like George Bush who just has to show up and read off of cue cards.

I can't change your mind about Kerry, but I disagree with your characterizations that the media has chosen him. In my view the media chose Dean for the better of the past year and the discriminating voting public DID NOT let the media decide for them and voted otherwise. Kerry's good press did not come until AFTER he started winning. Winners get good press. That what has ALWAYS happened in EVERY primary.

[Foswia]

44. Ha!

Republicans credit Reagan w/ the 90's growth and Clinton for Bush’s mess. You chose to credit Dean w/ the win if we beat Bush, because he shaped our debate? I don’t see the belief in either.

[Taeger]

50. If you compromise

If you compromise and win, you get part of your agenda.

If you refuse to compromise and lose, you get nothing. In fact, you'll probably lose some things you already had.

The issue is prioritizing. Picking out the things that are most important to you and then comparing them to the needs and wishes of others in your democracy.

I am one who has opposed the notion of Gay Marriage strictly on the merit that it's offensive to most Americans. There is a compromise in civil unions. Whats the difference ... mostly the name.

Thats a compromise. And by the way, it's a risky compromise as well. Democrats are risking a LOT of votes just by supporting civil unions. But you see it's PROGRESS. Your getting MOST of what you want.

One issue that I'm VERY inflexible about is NAFTA and WTO. It personally impacts me. But the kicker is that it personally impacts 90% of Americans. Including those of you who want to marry someone of the same sex.

I am inflexible on this issue because I realize that IT WILL WIN VOTES and IT'S POSITIVE FOR MYSELF AND THE NATION. This is a winning issue. It really needs no compromise (beyond giving up lots of PAC money from treasonous assholes).

What an issue that I believe in that I'll compromise on ... evolution education. I think the whole notion of "Creation Science" is pure and utter nonsense. However, educating a child in evolution isn't nearly as important as that child having a good job when they grow up. I've prioritized. I get something MAJOR, I give up something minor.

Of course, something major me might be minor to you and vice-versa. But you have to ask yourself whether you CAN EVEN GET IT in the first place.

Democracy is PRECISELY about compromise. The key is holding on to the things that are MOST IMPORTANT to MOST AMERICANS. That way you can win elections and get that incremental progress on controversial issues in measured amounts.

Otherwise, your simply throwing elections away. The folks in the south may very well be regressive and a bit backwards at times, but they have the same voting rights as you do. Disrespect that at your peril. They may be inflexible, but ask yourself how flexible you are being?????

[D G]

56. Thank you for your post - well said.

Although I don't agree with some of your positions on issues, I agree that democracy is not a firehose -- it's drip, drip, drip.

[hedgetrimmer]

76. build the walls that hold you inside...

this republic/democracy gives everyone a right to vote and a right to speak...

as a democrat I percieve this party to be a party for the people, when the mass of this party diminishes of that sacredness, when this party further aligns itself with the ideas spilled forth from the right, when this party excuses it's own behavior for a "win" we lose... we lose not just the party, we lose the ideals this party holds sacred, we lose the whole of this country to one over arching position and as that position grows from our "compromise" that which is the Democrat party becomes a haze of inarticulate and imobile actions that not further the rights of the people but depletes those rights... it is when Representitives like Sen. Byrd are considered flaky that the "compromise" has gone too far... if what you believe is so about the south then the democratic/republic will choose it's own empire as a majority of the whole... I will not slowly go to that death, drop the sword upon my throat and let all the participants of self-governmental suicide feel the wrath of their own ignorances and let them know that the freedom they believe they have is only a shrinking facade thanks to compromise....

Many blessings.

[DrFunkenstein]

53. Like Lobbyist Campaign Manager Or Accepting Kerry's VP Slot?

Or exonerating a select few Washington Insider Cockroaches(TM) for endorsements? The campaign finance pledge? Visit to Ariel Sharon?

Which compromise were you concerned about?

[RichM]

54. By definition, the group of persons referred to as "Democrats" are those

professing an habitual (often reflex) allegiance to the Democratic Party. It is not written anywhere that this party is equivalent to the "Truth and Justice" Party, nor to the "Highminded Principles Party."

In fact, the Democratic Party is nothing but the junior member of the American Big Business Party (which consists of 2 factions having occasional differences of opinion). Efforts to impute some sort of morality or lofty vision to such an outfit are doomed from the outset. The organization does not exist to articulate a vision that would dramatically improve society. It exists, rather, to meet the needs of capitalists, & to secure and further their longterm interests.

The only difference between the 2 factions ("Republicans" and "Democrats") is that the latter believe it's ultimately wiser for the ruling class to squeeze the working class a bit less hard, sometimes; and that the plundering of Third World nations should be shared with other wolves like Britain, France, et al. The Republican faction, by contrast, believes in simply raping everyone, all the time, as much as physically possible - sharing nothing with anyone, and ruthlessly crushing anyone who disagrees.

[arewethereyet]

57. here's the problem

you are applying a mistaken impression of what a Democrat is.

Go study John Kennedy to find out what a real Democrat is like.

[kalian]

59. Both sides of the same coin....

and I agree with your post 100%.
People that actually believe that by voting Kerry into the WH (IF
we're allowed to do that....). will change "everything"...
Oh...why do I bother... :eyes:

Great post though. :toast:

[BillZBubb]

60. Democrats sell themselves out?

Please! You yourself admit your candidate doesn't support all your positions. Are you selling out voting for him? NO.

I applaud Dean for having the courage--and he was the only one at the time--to go straight after Bush*. He lead the way. But, that doesn't mean he's the most likely to defeat the shrub.

I know one thing with absolute certainty: Any of the remaining Democratic candidates more closely represents my beliefs than Bush*. So, I will be doing the minimum of compromise by supporting any one of them over the toxic Texan. You too, I hope.

And electability is crucial. I would rather support a Democrat who takes several positions opposite of mine and get Bush* out, than hold firmly to a candidate who is more in line with me yet runs the risk of losing to Bush*. That is the only belief I refuse to compromise in this contest.

[Meldread]

69. So you disagree with the fact...

So you disagree with the fact that none other than your candidate can beat Bush? I believe that Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Kerry can all beat Bush -- some more handily than others. I am not sure who you support, but that doesn't really matter.

My problem is with people who support a candidate who they feel is the most electable, but goes contrary to their most closely guarded beliefs.

For example: Why would someone who stood against the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and No Child Left Behind support a candidate that voted for them? I realize that those votes were considered strategic votes (thanks to the DLC), but why should we reward a candidate when their votes when they were against us? It sends a message that "anything to win -- even selling out the American People" is okay. To me that is NOT okay, and in fact it is very troubling.

I believe that a Democrat who supported the Iraq War and the Patriot Act are selling out the values of our party. I would hope that most Democrats would agree with that. Strategic votes or not, why should we send a message that it is okay to send Americans to die on foreign soilb based on lies? Why should we send the message that it is okay to give away our freedoms to John Ashcroft. I don't believe that should be done, and I sincerely hope that the majority of Democrats don't either.

[roughsatori]

66. Excellent post. Some of the angry responses remind me

Of the Jungian idea that when one gets angry about something someone says about us--it angers us the most when we know and fear it to be true deep inside.

[kalian]

68. Bingo....

[D G]

70. I already have a therapist, thanks. n/t

[roughsatori]

87. Why am I not surprised that a Clark supporter proved my point? NT

[D G]

90. Because you have some pre-conceived notions about Clark

that are based on ignorance? I'm just guessing.

I thought this thread wasn't about supporters any particular candidate... but what the hell, I needed my intelligence insulted for the 50th time on this thread...

[Meldread]

72. I have to agree.

I think people more or less know they are selling themselves short, that they are making MAJOR compromises to win elections. The elected officials are worse than the voters, but the voters continuously support their actions by voting for them. It's a self destructive cycle.

[hedgetrimmer]

73. In the core, it is fear... in 2002 the Dem's got hurt by playing the

"electable" game...

they tried being mainstream in propagandized idealogy...

they were not true to themselves...

the few that were survived were...

I'll pass on republican lite.... I'll pass on "electability"
i know that those games put you down the same path as going to war for peace...

The fear factor overwhelmes the sense of clarity, like bullies in the school yard, often the "victim" is so afraid they can no longer perceive clarity...

We are so afraid of what we don't want we can not see that we are giving ourselves that exactly...

See with the clarity of Sen. Byrd, he is not running for president ... sure he's made mistakes and has apologized, ... see his clarity, see how he spoke and spoke on the peoples rights, how he fought for you and I and with that clarity look at the field of candidates and ask yourself who is the most like a Democrat, not who will beat bush, not who has the most attractive partner, not who has the most $... look for the Democrat... that is the voice, that is the candidate, that is our president a person who will act for the people... not special interest, not corporate sponsers but the people.

Many blessings.

[Meldread]

75. I must agree fear drives electability.

People are so afraid of another four years of Bush that they are willing to compromise what they believe in to see that it doesn't happen. However, what good does it do us to win the battle only to lose the war?

It isn't Bush we want removed it's his policies. What good does it do us to elect a Democrat who supported them?

[hedgetrimmer]

79. BINGO! N/T

[Kimber Scott]

77. What cost

your so called "integrity?" Five hundred, plus, more young American men and women's lives offered up as sacrificial victims at the Bush/Cheney War Altar? How many more jobs are we to give away to other countries? How many more jets are we going to finance for the ever eliter American elite through tax cuts for the rich, or fat contracts for Washington insiders? How many more people to die for lack of health insurance? How many more LIES must we listen to while the Junta preys on our fears and uses our desperation?

Any one of the men running for the Democratic Presidential nomination would make a fine president. Some much finer than others, but none more close to being Stalin, or Hitler than Bush and Cheney.

We do not have the luxury of losing this election based on ideological purisms. This is a matter of life and death. This is a matter of our survival as a nation built on DEMOCRATIC principles.

ANYBODY but BUSH!

:kick:

[Meldread]

82. Then let me ask you this...

what good does it do you to support a candidate who is going to take the country down the same path?

You talk about the Iraq War yet some of our candidates supported it. You talk about tax cuts yet some of our candidates supported it. Why should you send the message that it's okay for them to act this way?

When a child misbehaves you don't reward them. You punish them. This is the same in principle.

While granted any one of our Democrats will be better than Bush, the question must be raised on why Democrats who supported Anti-Democratic Values should be supported in the primaries?

[D G]

83. Is punishing children a Democratic value?

Haw haw, I'm going to bed now.

[hedgetrimmer]

84. Actually the lose of jobs in the U.S. are do to an agreement

called NAFTA (Clinton Legistation)...

The war was supported by democrats(Some of which are running for president)...

Slowly we awaken to the maggots in our rice, slowly we awaken to the growing lesion on our arm, slowly we awaken to the cancer inside that is rotting out the depths and roots of this party...

What are you willing to do to kill that cancer?

What are you willing to do to make your mark before that cancer kills you?

[MoonRiver]

80. You should meet Mairead.

The two of you have so much in common.

[Kimber Scott]

94. And even more than just a name

n/t

[BootinUp]

81. You need to realize that

the same question is faced by those on the right and even those in the middle. We all have some things we will compromise on and some things we won't. There is a point where I will become disenchanted and either not vote or look for a 3rd option. That is the nature of politics.

I am ready to compromise to get Bush out this year.

[corporatewhore]

85. the cries of 500 dead soliders are being muffeled by chants of ABB

[MoonRiver]

86. If we don't vote ABB those dead will be multiplied by who knows what

number. Are you really willing to give the PNAC fascist rightwing cabal a shot at the world domination they desperately seek to attain?

[Kimber Scott]

92. Who sent them to their deaths

and for what?

[quaker bill]

89. Why have the repugs been kicking our butts for 24 years?

It is simple. Because they stand for something. As much as I disagree with it, they stand for a well understood set of ideas and values. They sell these ideas and values, they stay 'on message' to the point that it makes me cringe to be around them.

They have been selling us as a party of no morals or values consistently since the end of Viet Nam. It has worked for them.

Why does it work? Because we keep selling out. Any hint of parsing and waffling plays into this image. There has been and still is plenty of parsing and waffling to go around. (It depends on what your definition of 'is' is)

The democratic message is a clear message of high moral values. It is well past f'ing we claimed it and refused to compromise.

If the most we can manage is to select a candidate for an image of 'electability' then we (the party) have become that which fits their image of us. A shallow and spineless ghost of the honorable tradition from which we arose.

[the skeptic]

108. at least somebody gets it

That's the reason why Democrats have been getting clobbered the past 25 years or so-the perceived lack of conviction. Most of us couldn't stand Ronald Reagan, but at least you knew where he stood on issues; he didn't have his finger to the wind and flip flop from position to position. That was one of the reasons Democrats had such a hard time against him.

Conversely, it was one of Clinton's great weaknesses-you never knew if in the middle of a political struggle he wasn't going to be "flexible" and sell you out to the opposition in the name of "compromise". You never knew what Clinton was willing to fight for because he was so eager to be all things to all people.

That's the problem I see with Kerry (and Edwards, and to a extent, Dean). They want to be all things to all people. Especially Kerry. Kerry supporters call this flexibility. Many others call it lack of true conviction. Kerry has this image that he will say anything to get elected and once in office, be a typical DLC Democrat (God, how I hate labels like that. They are so phony and distracting from real issues).

I could never trust a man who has to take polls to decide what he believes in.

[Eloriel]

91. Fear

That's it. I see it over and over again. People are so afraid of 4 more years of Bush that they would settle for a wooden puppet if they could just be convinced that he were more electable.

Unfortunately, what they are failing to understand is that they're being sold a bill of goods in the first place, and therefore -- especially in this election -- compromising their values and true preferences will likely mean they'll get exactly what they didn't want in the first place: 4 more years of Bush.

[quaker bill]

93. You have it

The problem is that, in the final analysis, people don't actually vote for wooden puppets regardless of how electable they seem.

With Bush* there will be no doubt what you are voting for. Will we or will we not present a clear alternative?

[MoonRiver]

95. Guess what Eloriel!

I'm NOT voting, and working my arse off, for my favorite candidate out of fear. I'm voting because I really, truly, and deeply believe in him. How DARE you minimalize my committment to MY CANDIDATE!

[hedgetrimmer]

97. Guesswhat saywhat?

Did you have a "favorite candidate" before clark jumped into the donkey scene? If so, who was it?

Nobody's questioning your fearlessness... if you are offended or minimilized by for-mentioned statements then you are... no one did that, thats how you interpeted it.

Now back to pre-clark election year... did you have a candidate?

[corporatewhore]

96. I am not going to vote for a radical cannidate

putting the bill of rights through the shredder was radical
free trade is radical i think
that our jobs going away to slaves is radical
The rape of land is radical
the stealing land from indigenous populations is radical
the gross violation of human and workers rights is radical
freet trade is so radical it drove the population it oppressed to havea revolution in bolivia
olivia's Poor Proclaim Abiding Distrust of Globalization By LARRY ROHTER

Published: October 17, 2003 (NY TIMES)

A PAZ, Bolivia, Oct. 15 — The many Indian protesters who choked the streets and highways of this Andean nation again on Thursday may be poor and speak broken or accented Spanish, but they have a powerful message.
It is this: no to the export of gas and other natural resources; no to free trade with the United States; no to globalization in any form other than solidarity among the downtrodden peoples of the developing world.

The force of that message may yet topple President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, who tried to quell the unrest by offering a package of concessions late Wednesday night that the protesters rejected.
Instead they vowed to continue with demonstrations meant to force his government to abandon a plan to export natural gas to the United States through a port in Chile. The protests have already left more than 80 people dead over the past month.

Sensing that public support for the president, weak to begin with, has all but vanished, opponents of the gas export plan have now moved to press their advantage.
"The blood that has been spilled is something sacred," Felipe Quispe, leader of the indigenous group that initiated the protests, said in response to Mr. Sánchez de Lozada's offer, made in a televised speech. "So we can't negotiate and we're not even going to talk."
Several thousand workers, mostly miners from the south and coca growers from the north, were reported to be marching on the capital Thursday. The armed forces demanded that they disperse, saying that the military would erect barricades to prevent them from entering La Paz, but the warning appeared to have gone unheeded.
More than merely threatening the longevity of Bolivia's government, the protesters have lent new energy to the discontent already percolating throughout the region.

Across South America, labor unions, student and civic groups and a new wave of leaders — Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil, and Néstor Kirchner in Argentina — are expressing similar doubts about who actually benefits from a free flow of international trade and investment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/17/international/americas/17GLOB.html?8...

[Paulie]

100. Amen!!!

I'm tired of the BS consessions, I'm tired of the waffling.

How can we keep playing the same game (compromise on the other sides terms), expecting a different outcome (a win)??? This is the definition of INSANITY!!!

[SW FL Dem]

99. I'm Guilty

but I am not sorry. I used to be a purist, but then I had a son and my vision of the world changed. I am no longer able to think only of ME and my ideals. yes, it would be wonderful if the Democrats could stick to their agenda and win. I have just seen too many examples of that ideal going down in flames.

[quaker bill]

101. The point is, my friend

failing to stick with out ideals is what makes us susceptible to being named the party of "no moral values". This is why repugs have consistently beaten us up for the last 24 years.

How much more do you wish to lose so that you can feel comfortable with a "low risk" choice.

I am sorry, but "low risk" choices are exactly what have gotten us to this place. We have the right message. Do we have the spine to nominate someone that will speak it?

Apparently not.

Until we gain the "huevos" necessary to take some risk and stand up and fight for our values, we will remain the second tier party we have apparently become.

[D G]

102. You're kidding, right?

failing to stick with out ideals is what makes us susceptible to being named the party of "no moral values". This is why repugs have consistently beaten us up for the last 24 years.

And all this time I thought it was the Christian right-wing conservatives who hate gays, view sex as sinful, demonize unmarried couples and parents and think women should stay home and shut up who promoted this view of the Democratic party.

History is being rewritten tonight, right here on DU!

[Hippo_Tron]

104. I'm willing to slightly compromise not sell out my beliefs...

I support John Kerry because I agree with about 95% of his platform.

The only things I really disagree with are...

1) Free trade to a certain extent. I like to look at this issue in many different ways. I'm not EXACTLY sure about

2) Gay Marriage, I support it completely but if backing down and just supporting civil unions (which are a huge step in the right direction) will get him elected then I'm willing to sacrifice that.

Other than that I haven't really compromised on anything.

However in this election in particular, I would be willing to compromise my beliefs somewhat and vote ABB simply because of the Supreme Court Justices that will be appointed in the next four years. The very future of our constitution is enough to temporarily compromise my beliefs. However, I get the best of both worlds in this case since I really don't have to compromise my beliefs.

[Clark Can WIN]

105. I have not

As a Democrat, it was General Clark's beliefs that moved me first above all.

[GreenArrow]

106. You're taking a lot of crap on this post

but you're essentially right. It's too late too post a lengthy reply that no one is going to read anyway, so I'll leave it at this: Divide and conquer is the name of the game, and we, Democrats and Republicans alike, are pawns.

[Hippo_Tron]

107. We have to start somewhere...

One way to look at it is... democrats HAVE NOTHING at the moment. We don't control congress and we don't control the white house. At the moment the party seems to be putting their trust in John Kerry to win. By putting John Kerry in the white house, even if you don't agree with his politics, we will now have a way for our voice to be heard. And if Kerry were to win re-election and finishes his eight years as a popular president, we might just put somebody more liberal in the white house in eight years.

[Piperay]

109. Compromising would be

letting the chimp win and I don't intend to do that. :grr:

[Moderator]

111. Locking......

4. Broad-brush statements about all or some of the supporters or opponents of any Democratic Primary candidate are forbidden. Don't paint people as disruptors or cult members.


DU Moderator