By all means, let's just not vote -

[mzteris]

or vote for the 3rd party because "MY" candidate didn't get the nod.

Let's have MORE SCJ's put in place by the Pub candidate. Four - or eight - more years of such wonderful decisions as:


Supreme Court Leans Conservative


Court Bars Suit Against Faith-Based Plan
The Bush administration's faith-based initiatives got a boost Monday from the Supreme Court: a ruling that ordinary taxpayers cannot sue to stop conferences that help religious charities apply for federal grants.

***

High court limits student speech
The US Supreme Court Monday upheld the right of school officials to limit student speech about drugs at school events.

***

Victory for Wisconsin's anti-abortion group, Right To Life.

The supreme court eases restrictions on TV ads that are paid for by corporations and unions airing close to election time. The court says the current law limits free speech. This comes after the group was not allowed to air ads during the final 2 months before the 2004

*****

[Frances]

1. Thanks for this post

[mzteris]

5. there I go talking to myself again.

Sorry - I meant to post to you and posted to myself. :P

[mzteris]

2. The thing that gets me are these "one issue" voters -

If X doesn't support "this" then I'm not voting. blah blah blah

The damage that bushco has done bad enough.

The damage that the SC can do can go on for generations!

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

60. if X doesn't even mention the restoration of civil liberties..

i.e. repeal patriot, military commission act, etc then not much else matters.

the "electable" candidates represent the rich and/or complacent.. not me

[mzteris]

61. I disagree with your 'observation'. You're entitled

to your own opinion, of course.

The non-vote is the complacent one who says - Hey! I'm perfectly FINE with the last 8 years.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

63. the last 8 years wouldn't have been possible w/o democrats

it's not my opinion; name one "electable" candidate that has mentioned repealing the patriot or MC act?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[ClassWarrior]

22. Show me, using voting records, ANY candidate who comes close...

...to being a Rape-Publican with a (D) behind his or her name.

Convince me.

NGU.

[northofdenali]

4. No shit.

VOTE, dammit.

I haven't missed one, municipal, borough (county), state or national since I turned 18 a long, long time ago.

VOTE

[Doctor_J]

6. Do you really think that keeping a slim Dem majority in Congress

will prevent this kind of thing? Remember they could have filibustered the two justices appointed by Smirk, and even now Roberts and Slappy are subject to impeachment since it's beyond any doubt that both lied at their confirmation hearings. Explain to me what having Dem majorities for five months has done wrt cleaning out the filth that Rove has spread around the government.

[mzteris]

7. Not having them nominated in the first

damn place would certainly help.

Direct your ire towards:

For ALITO:
Tim Johnson, SD.
Robert Byrd, WV
Kent Conrad, ND
Ben Nelson, NE



Roberts? - too damn many to name.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. You can't filibuster when you don't have the votes

The bottom line is that a handful of Democrats from extremely anti-abortion states voted for cloture and nothing Harry Reid could do or say would change their minds. They were too worried about their re-election.

[Old and In the Way]

8. It's rather simple, really.

Voting Republican reaffirms their agenda of the past 8 years.
Voting Bloomberg continues the status quo and the corporate agenda in place.
Voting Nader means something, I'm just not sure what.

If you want real change, it's only going to happen by electing a Democrat.

[mzteris]

13. Voting anyone other than DEM

- or not voting at all - is like a vote for the Republicans.

[welshTerrier2]

9. "supreme court eases restrictions on TV ads"

did you hear the reaction from the Democratic candidates about this? Did ya? crickets, my friend ... crickets ...

have you heard those same candidates making publically-financed campaigns a major plank in their platforms? Did ya? crickets, my friend ... crickets ...

are they leading the movement for a strengthening of McCain-Feingold? yup, crickets again ...

are they fighting as hard as they can to empower the average American voter and get mega-corporate money out of the electoral process? and again ...

or are they cozying up to K Street just sucking in all the bucks they can stuff in their pockets? no crickets here ... they proudly announce have much bribe money they've raised ...

think all those corporate campaign contributions come with no strings attached? or do you think that only those darn old republicans are influenced by corporate cash?

yeah, by all means keep voting for corporate Democrats ... i'll be voting for or writing in the non-corporate ones ...

[mzteris]

14. what a good idea

NOT.

More than one issue, my friend, more than one.

It's not all about the money.

How about Freedom and Individual Rights?

How about: Poverty, education, right to choose, stem cells

Yeah - voting for a moderate Dem is such a bad thing.

[welshTerrier2]

18. not sure what you're saying is not a good idea

are you saying you're opposed to publically-funded campaigns?

and on the other issues you raised, like Freedom and Individual rights, poverty, education, etc, you will never make sustaining progress on these issues while your corporate masters pull the puppet strings of those they fund and elect.

the issues you raised, all good issues, all critical issues, are symptoms of the disease. until We the People take our country back from the corporate pirates who buy and sell candidates at will, the disease will not be cured and the symptoms will not improve.

and the moment the corporate state is threatened, and it will be, they will caution just as you have, that all our freedoms will be taken away unless we yield to their power. to fight for freedom and individual rights does not come without a very steep price indeed.

[mzteris]

20. No - I think campaigns should all be publicly funded.

It was the "not voting at all" thing or the "vote for the (non-viable) 3rd party" thing.

Don't you think the Dems (even the moderate (supposed) "corporate shill" ones are good for social issues? For appointing Justices who will be moderate/liberal?



Also, I personally don't buy in to the "corporate master" thing. Using what people give you - well -

here's a story:

I'm a feminist. Had a daughter 26 yrs ago. Raised her that women were equal, make your own way, etc. . .

She grows up. Beautiful. Stunningly so. Southern accent she can turn on/off at will. Long dark hair she can toss over her shoulder. Big brown eyes that she knows how to bat.

So she bats and tosses and smiles and says "oh puhleeze won't some big strong boy cahry this foah me" . . and the guys fall all over themselves.

I say, "XXXXX!!! What are you DOING?!? I didn't raise you to act like that! Carry your own bags. Don't manipulate men with your beauty!!!!"

She just looks at me, "Momma, if they're stupid enough to fall for it, why not?"

[welshTerrier2]

24. Live free or die

you stated: Don't you think the Dems (even the moderate (supposed) "corporate shill" ones are good for social issues? For appointing Justices who will be moderate/liberal?

and the answer to your question is, YES. I do think Democrats are much better on "social issues". And I do think they will appoint better justices.

but that's just not enough. i'll try to explain. if you want to make a case that things will be much worse under republicans, you'll get virtually no disagreement from me. but corporate candidates will ALWAYS sell you down the river. don't ever forget that. the difference is, that the Democratic ones are kind enough to provide you with a life raft.

my view of what we have right now is a system that empowers corporations and industries and allows them to fully participate in the political process. citizens cannot possibly match the resources that corporations can bring to bear on an election or on a piece of legislation or on national policy. Iraq? corporate war. Campaign finance. corporate legislation. the Medicare bill. corporate legislation. health care? corporate. tax discounts for stockholders? corporate. education? local communities are forced to scratch and claw, neighbor versus neighbor, about whether to fund the schools or reduce taxes. why? because the federal budget is wasted on corporate welfare.

all the while, policies that would help the poor or restrict pollution or cut back on excessive weapons systems or decentralize the MSM are easily brushed aside. do you think only republicans are causing this to happen? i don't. i think big money that finances those with their hands out are helping corporate America have their way with us. this is not freedom; these are not the liberties or the system of governance our Founders described.

and now things are even worse with Corporate Global Government that claims more power under Nafta and Cafta and GAAT and the WTO than nation states. The message to governments is, we don't give a damn what your people vote for; you will obey us. That's the heart and soul of the WTO.

They threaten you and they threaten me. Your daughter will lose the freedom to choose. You think I believe them? You think I take that lightly. They absolutely mean it and it's an outrage. No, I don't take that lightly.

They threaten the poor. If you don't give us local tax concessions and ease up on costly anti-pollution regulations, we will move our plants and your jobs overseas. Think they mean it? Damned straight they do.

Even habeas corpus and anti-torture laws. The Geneva Conventions? forget about it ...that too ...

But therein lies the rub. if we don't let them skulk around with no accountability and don't let them use signing statements and skirt around pollution laws and give them special tax treatment and all the rest of it, we will be severely punished. The threat will always be there. And the power to enforce that threat derives directly from their ability to participate, i.e. the corporate ability to participate, in the electoral process. Would you argue that republicans are corrupted by this flow of money to their campaigns and through their lobbyists? Would you argue that Democrats, who are currently receiving huge amounts of money from K Street are immune to the impact of money?

Democrats who want to be re-elected play ball with the military-industrial complex. It's killing this country. I believe the American empire is collapsing. I believe the American people will suffer severely when it does. But Democrats, and of course republicans, have their hands out for more and more and more corporate cash. They brag about how much they're able to raise. Are you comfortable with such a process of campaign funding? Restoring democracy to the American people should be the most important issue every candidate talks about. Hillary? Obama? anyone? yeah, a few do. most don't.

We cannot continue to fund a military budget larger than the rest of the world combined. We cannot make these whimpy little suggestions to address global warming. The Democrats recent Energy Bill was pathetic and inadequate. There just is no time left. We need to demand an elected government that puts the very real needs of the American people ahead of the "special" interests. There can be no compromise about this. People before profits.

When you speak of being a feminist, I applaud that. As a feminist, it would seem you would look at all issues affecting women and not only selected issues. The Court? Freedom to choose? Absolutely. Both are human rights issues. There is no room for intolerance. But it is women, like men, who suffer when health care is controlled by the profit motive. It is women, like men, who suffer when our blood and treasure are spent to fund excessive defense and wage wars that do nothing but increase the risk to our country. It is women, like men, who lose their jobs and are oppressed as corporations threaten economic harm unless we "yield to their demands."

We are all, both women and men, being blackmailed for what should be our rights to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Feminists, like all who seek a better path for all Americans, should join us in our struggle against the real and ultimate enemy. Corporate oppression seeps into every aspect of our democracy and we are not truly free. The battle ahead is going to be incredibly costly and incredibly painful. My view is that regardless of the cost, it is a war that must be waged. You need not spend effort trying to convince me of what is at risk for all of us. I see that all too clearly. In the end, we have no choice. To quote the NH State motto: Live free or die.

[Psyop Samurai]

36. ...appreciate your perspective immensely.

They've really managed to put us in a vice, and we have to somehow extricate ourselves. I agree that the battle will be costly and painful, and is unavoidable.

They've cooked it up so that we fight each other while the string pullers remain untouched. I don't rule out interim solutions, but if you think there's a limit to smokescreens and manipulations, you haven't been paying attention. We need to toughen up a WHOLE LOT, and we need to argue from first principles if we're to ultimately get anywhere.

[seriousstan]

10. I believe the person you are reponding to has been tombstoned.

[mzteris]

15. eh? Who was I responding to?

Not any one in particular - but to all those crying "I won't vote" if X gets the nod. Or I'll write in Y or some such.

NOTHING will help but voting Democratic in the next election.

[illinoisprogressive]

11. what if you will vote for any of our candidates but, Hillary. that is how many feel.

it's not my candidate or nothing. it's we will support anyone but, Hillary.

[SaveElmer]

12. Many of us?

Care to illustrate how the person with the highest approval rating in the Democratic Party has this legion of Democrats that won't vote for her if she is the nominee...

Surely you have some evidence of this other than "the feeling"!!!

[mzteris]

16. Outcome is the same - just like voting for the Repubs.

She ain't that damn bad.

[AZBlue]

19. I'm pretty sure that's what that person would like to see.

[mzteris]

21. Wanna know what's disheartening?

People I "know" on this board - good people. People with whom I've agreed on so many things in the past. People I like and respect generally.

Even some of THEM are saying they'll not vote. :wtf:

I just don't - I do not - understand the rationale. It's lunacy. No matter how much you may hate Hillary or Edwards or Obama or Clark - any one of them - with all of their perceived problems - are a hell of a sight better than ANY Republican!!!

:grr:

[Old and In the Way]

17. So, if the overwhelming majority of Democrats want her in the Primary...

you'll take a hike in the GE? She's not my 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice....but if the clear majority of Democrats want Hilary, I'll be happy to relive the 90's with the Clintons (except the Inquistion part). Any other position only helps the Republicans.

[churchofreality]

28. That is ludicrous

I can't believe that you hosnestly think the allowing a republican to win over Hillary is better for this country. That is fucked up.

[AtomicKitten]

23. always foremost in my mind

n/t

[question everything]

25. Precisely. This is what many of us have been saying all along

to the ones who are going to "stay home" because X or Y or Z is the nominee.

And let's see the how the Supreme Court continue to drift to the right.


k&r

[kikiek]

26. Actually heard one yesterday say that exact thing. Sounded like a kid that if he didn't get his way

he would take the ball and bat and go home. Ironic thing is I heard Bush was like that as a kid. Sure shows in his governing too. Funny how much you can emulate someone you despise, but not see it. This country isn't going to go left to the point of Kucinich, and personally I wish it would. Even after the disaster of Bush we will be lucky to get a Democrat in office, and it will be a middle of the road one. Change doesn't come easily. We have a country that is disgusted with what is in the WH, but still think he is an aberration of the party not representative. I want to say to those who say I'm not voting or only voting for Kucinich look around at how we drive, talk, and consume. We have are a self absorbed society that is a product of decades of self indulgence. We believe in our right to be like that above all else to the point it unfortunately has come to symbolize this country. It isn't going to go away overnight.

[mzteris]

32. I know - much as I wish

we'd go "further left" - and as much as I support a MULTI-party system (not two, no - not even three) - it just ain't gonna happen any time soon.

Certainly not by the next election.

And I'm realistic enough to know that the "farther left" is not the majority, either - much as I wish it were.

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. Of course, my post got deleted with no explanation

We absolutely MUST NOT expect wanna-be elected Democrats to actually hold to Democratic ideals, can we? Party over ideology, now and forever!

[ClassWarrior]

30. And, of course, my challenge went unanswered.

Apparently the purpose of the deleted post was to call the OP names, not make a valid point.

NGU.

[realbluesky]

29. Rewarding cowards does not work either

I agree with everything you say except your basic premise. I am not voting in the next election, not because my candidate did not get the nod, but because democrats as a whole have betrayed the very basics of my beliefs. I expect my leaders to lead, not cave in to imbeciles. I expect my leaders to go after and bring justice to criminals, not tell them that impeachment is off the table.

(Can you imagine a prosecutor running for office telling the electorate he is not going to prosecute known criminals because it is not politically expedient.)

Democrats have shown that they are scared to do anything progressive because they do not want to be labeled "liberal." This is pure cowardice.

They gave the nod to extremist supreme court nominees.
They voted to fund an illegal war.
They stood by while our treasury was looted.
They whined while our country was raped.

I will not give my vote to these cowards. They will have to earn it. They are counting on the fact that you will vote for the lesser of two evils. Until they learn not to take their base for granted, I will no longer support any democrat.

[onenote]

31. therefore, you want Democrats to lose.

If they win without your vote they have absolutely no reason to listen to you. So for your nonvote to have any effect, you have to be hoping that the Democratic candidates that you would otherwise have the opportunity to vote for lose.

[realbluesky]

34. They need to know they cannot take the base for granted

Just think a moment. They don't listen to me anyway.
Maybe them losing is the only way to get a new bunch of progressives to run.

Apparently you think that you can vote for someone, they don't do what you want, so you vote them in again. That doesn't make much sense to me. It is the responsibility of the elected to represent the people. It is not the responsibility of the people to just blindly elect politicians who are too worried about keeping power that they do anything they want.

Apparently in your way of thinking the elected have no responsibility to you.

If the elected democrats are not doing the will of the people then they should not be re-elected.

[onenote]

37. I just wanted to be clear: You are cheerleading for Democrats to lose

That is your position. I happen to think its a bad position, but at least you are upfront about it.

[realbluesky]

38. I want them to do something

Can you imagine what would get done if the dems did not take their base for granted?
Can you imagine them standing up and saying "NO" to funding an illegal and unjust war?
Can you imagine them saying something and then following through and doing it?

Can you imagine a prosecutor running for re-election who said he was not going to prosecute known criminals because it was not politically expedient? But what did the democrats do when they took impeachment off the table?

I truly understand how you feel, but I (as a part of the democratic base) am tired of being ignored.

So, yes, if that's what it takes. Let them lose again. It really makes no difference if they're not going to do the job they've been elected to do.

I would change my position in a heartbeat if they did do something. But they won't. They are just as beholden to big money as the repubs are.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

62. why would anyone want to send cowards to DC?

[slick8790]

40. Normally, I would agree with you.

But there's too much at stake in 2008. After 8 years of Bush, we need to take whatever democrat we can get elected. Then in 2010 we throw the bum dems out of congress in the primaries and get real progressive dems elected to their seats, then in 2012 (if everyone still feels it necessary) we nominate a real progressive for the presidency.

We're teetering on the edge at 8 years of Dubya. Not voting or electing a repub just tips us farther over. I like to think of it as if the country has been wounded. You have to stop the bleeding somehow, even if you make a bandage out of a shirt or something, before you can get it properly bandaged at the hospital, and eventually have it heal. Letting it bleed out because "only a real bandage is going on me" just kills yourself.

[realbluesky]

41. It is a difficult question

I agree with everything you've written.

But for me, voting for these people who embarrassed the democratic party by voting to fund the war when they did not have to is just something I cannot do.

I am infuriated that they took impeachment off the table. How can anybody vote for that? That is absolute dereliction of duty. This administration consists of the worst criminals in the history of this nation and they're getting a free pass by these democrats who were elected to stop the madness.

I don't think my vote matters much, but they still won't get it unless they actually do something to stop the war and bring these lunatic criminals to justice.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

64. what if jeb bush joined to dem party and got the nomination?

:evilgrin:

[mzteris]

33. and by withholding your vote for a Dem -

you help the Republicans, n'est pas?

Heck I'd rather you voted 3rd than not at all, I guess.

I don't think they're cowards. I think they're as desperate to ensure that the Dems win the next cycle as we are for them to. And they realize, even if you and others do not, that the far left POV - is NOT the majority one. They DO have to represent more than just "us". While I may not always agree with everything they do, I have to respect that part - whether I like it or not.

Personally, I think there is a larger game plan (okay, I HOPE) and that by playing their cards close to the vest, and playing to the 'audience' as it were - that after the election - IF we can control the House and Sentate by more significant majorities, and the WH - that THEN we can actually get something done.

Premature offensives would only be tilting at windmills, wasting time/$$ and political capital, piss off the independents/moderates, and in the end - accomplish little if anything.

[realbluesky]

35. It's not about the republicans

I like what you say. I've used the same argument myself in the past.

But the democrats we elect must be leaders.

They had the opportunity to end the funding for the war and caved in to an imbecile.

They embarrassed the entire party. The current elected batch of dems are nothing more then a bunch of little squirts whining, but too afraid to stand up and do the right thing.

That's why repubs have won over the last 8 years. They are wrong about everything, but at least they stand up and don't back down. We need some progressive leadership that will stand up to the bullies. Not a bunch of lukewarm pantywaists.

[ClassWarrior]

45. So run.

No one's stopping you.

NGU.

[Bryn]

50. I can understand what you are saying

I feel the same way about the dem party. At least Bob Graham (D-Florida) had backbone to stand up and spoke out what he thought of Bush wanting to go to war in Iraq. Turned out he was right later on. Too bad he couldn't run for presidency because of his heart so he's retired now. Also there's Howard Dean who's very outspoken. Don't forget Barbara Boxer. And Ted Kennedy. We do have several very good dem leaders so don't give up on all of them. Keep faith that 2009 will be better and Bush will go down as the worst president in America history. It's not over until the fat lady sings. By the way, welcome to DU :hi:

[paulk]

42. you must be ok with the Republicans and the last seven years

then.

That's the flip side.

It's the Republicans who appointed those judges, started the illegal war, looted the treasury, raped our country.

[realbluesky]

43. Not at all

You are correct that the repubs are the ones responsible for the destruction of this nation, however, once the democrats gained control of congress, what did they do? Bent over and said "fuck me". They funded the war and told the criminals they would not impeach just giving them more freedom to rape and pillage the country.

There has to be some accountability. The repubs won't hold their elected representatives to accountability, but we, as democrats, must hold our officials to account.

Not doing so is like saying that it's okay for America to torture because other countries do. That non-logic takes away any moral high-ground we ever had.

[paulk]

46. You are a fool. To believe that

"holding our officials to account" by helping elect Republicans is logical is just about the dumbest fucking thing I've ever seen on this board.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[ClassWarrior]

47. Yes, let's expect them to put more than six years worth of toothpaste...

...back into the tube in less than six months. :eyes:

Welcome once again to Short Attention Span Theater.

:rofl:

NGU.

[realbluesky]

53. One step at at time would be nice...

Like not funding the war....
They didn't have to do that...

[ProSense]

39. Concerned about the SCOTUS?

Democrats failed through bogus negotiations.

After Iraq, the Roberts and Alito confirmations to the SCOTUS are probably the two most damaging outcomes of the Bush administration. Sure Bush would have replaced them with other conservatives, but these two were the architects of the unitary executive push. They were entrenched and should never have been confirmed.

[Totally Committed]

44. Just posted this about yesterday's decisions,

and the "Democrats" (read: DINO's) who voted for the nominations of Roberts and Alito, that made those votes possible. That's what trying to work through the system has gotten us... the old SCREW-gee!

Conservative Activism Grips Our Supreme Court, or What "Lesser of Two Evils" Voting Has Gotten Us...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3340126

TC

[mzteris]

59. see post 48. eom

[Milo_Bloom]

49. Unfortunately...

Put in the wrong dem and the GOP will, unlike the dems in congress, stand strong, filibuster justices they don't want and the wrong dem in office will cave and you will wind up with the same calibur.

I don't trust Edwards, Clinton, Biden, Dodd or any other enabler and I would certainly not vote for them, because I believe the result will be the same.

[mzteris]

56. so let's just give up, 'k?

Sounds like a great strategy you got going there.

[Milo_Bloom]

68. No...

The plan is to fight against the likes of Edwards, Clinton, Biden, Dodd in the primaries and work to make sure they do not get the nomination and if they do, work like crazy on a 3rd party option to make sure neither the untrustworthy dem, nor the GOP gets in.

[mzteris]

73. keep on dreamin' son

ain't gonna happen.

You have to work more than "one year" to have a viable 3rd party candidate. It's going to take a long time. Starting at the local level. Building a consensus and a movement takes time.

I'm all for a 3rd party. 4th & 5th, too.

I don't even LIKE the two party system, but as of now, it's the only game in town and I'm not about to forfeit to the Republicans. Bad as (you think) some of the Dems are, they're a hell of a sight better than anyone else from the "other side".

[Milo_Bloom]

74. Hardly a dream

If Edwards, Clinton or any of the other appeasers gets the nom, a third party candidate would hardly be a stretch. In a recent poll on DU 40% said they would go third party before Clinton... Edwards is even a more contemtable figure, so the number of bolting dems would probably be even higher...

Nominate an appeaser, and say hello to President Bloomberg

[Jed Dilligan]

51. I don't have a candidate yet

But I reserve my right to stay home if there is no candidate I feel I can support.

[mzteris]

57. Of course it's your right.

But just remember - a non-vote for whoever the Dem candidate is basically the same as saying you're okay with the last eight years.

:shrug:

[Jed Dilligan]

65. No, it doesn't.

A non-vote means the candidate didn't campaign to me well enough to get me to vote. Or, the other guy didn't scare me enough to vote.

Don't blame voters for the shitty choices that are put before us.

[mzteris]

66. ok - but all those who DIDN"T VOTE

or voted 3rd party - WILL "get the blame" if the Repukes win. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Most of those who took that route the past two elections - are kicking themselves in themselves in the @ss now, aren't they?

Question: how much worse do you think it could get under the 'pubs for another 4/8 years?

[Jed Dilligan]

67. I think it could get a lot worse

under either party. In fact, I'm pretty much resigned to it getting a lot worse. Unless the Dem candidate is, like, the Silver Surfer we're going to be cleaning up Bush's mess until well after I'm dead.

As far as blame goes: I tend to avoid people who would rather blame ordinary citizens who "vote wrong" for the mess that politicians make, than the politicians themselves. I will not let any candidate who can post a D after his/her name have a free pass to my vote just because of the initial. They have to campaign to me, or else the other guy has to be a lot scarier. I voted for Gore in 2000 and against Bush in 2004.

I am willing to risk the finger-pointing of party hacks to maintain my independence as a citizen.

[elizm]

54. So being a loyal Dem means...

....You must absolutely follow the herd over the cliff? I'm sorry, but that thinking makes NO sense to me. If the Democrats insist on nominating a candidate with high negatives and a good possibility of losing the election, we should just fall in line and participate in the suicide of the Democratic Party? Not voting will not help the Republicans....They won't NEED any help if we nominate the wrong candidate AGAIN!

[realbluesky]

55. Thank you

You stated my thoughts exactly...

[mzteris]

58. I disagree.

YMMV.

[riqster]

69. We have a binary system here

Dem or Reep. Nothing else.

If you do not vote for Dems, that means Reeps get bigger numbers.

Thus, not voting is support for Reeps where it counts most-at the ballot box.

IF YOU WITHHOLD YOUR VOTE, YOU ARE COMPLICIT IN THE CRIMES OF THE REEPS

[TechBear_Seattle]

70. By your logic...

If I do not vote for a Republick, then the Dems get bigger numbers. Thus, not voting is support for Democrats where it counts most, at the ballot box. If I withold my vote, I am complicit in the crimes of... excuse me, I am agreeing with the actions of the Democrats.

Or does it work only in one direction and not the other?

[riqster]

71. No, because there is not a level playing field

Reeps control the media and the voting machines. They have a built-in advantage that we need to overcome via massive turnout. That's the only reason we unseated any of the motherfuckers in 2006.

[JoePhilly]

72. You are on DU, so it works EXACTLY as the poster describes ...

Your in action helps them!

... if a rightwinger stays home, that helps us!