Voting for your beliefs sure beats backing a winner

[redqueen]

link

If I were a Democrat, I'd vote for Dennis Kucinich for president. I'm not, and I won't. His politics and mine, for the most part, are polar opposites. But if I were heir to the populism of Andy Jackson and FDR, of W.E.B. DuBois and John L. Lewis, well, the favorite son of this gritty, old steel town would be the candidate for me. Why?

Because Dennis (and in this city, he'll never be known by any other name) carries the distilled essence of what the Democratic Party used to be about, and in which most rank-and-file members, down deep in their hearts, still believe:

Universal, government-sponsored health care.

A massive public works program to rebuild the national infrastructure and provide full employment.

Curtailed military spending.

Continuation of affirmative action programs.

Cancellation of NAFTA and a quick exit from the WTO.

Re-regulation of all things corporate.

Immediate with drawal from Iraq.

Now that's a list that would warm the hearts of practically anyone who carries a "D" on his voter registration card.

But, come a week from Tuesday, a lot of those folks will let pari-mutuel politics silence the cry of their liberal hearts. Persuaded that, however much they agree with his platform, Dennis can win neither the nomination nor the presidency, they will treat their vote like a $2 bet at Thistledown: They'll plunk it down on an odds-makers favorite, regardless of how his voting record may conflict with creating the kind of America these Democrats want to see.

For too many voters of both major parties, backing the winning "horse" trumps every other consideration. That's the short-sighted tragedy of politics today.

continued...

[jansu]

1. HEAR! HEAR!

I agree with you: "they will treat their vote like a $2 bet at Thistledown: They'll plunk it down on an odds-makers favorite, regardless of how his voting record may conflict with creating the kind of America these Democrats want to see".

Exactly! I say vote your true choice in the Primary. Plenty of time to vote for the winning one in the General Election!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. I refuse to say

"Oh, well, at least he's not a Republican" twice in one year.

[sangh0]

5. But Jim Strang is a Republican

.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. Voting your beliefs makes YOU the winner

regardless of who else votes for whom, whether the votes are counted or burned.

You can flee an evil regime, but you can't flee yourself.

[MuseRider]

9. Well said. n/t

[DrFunkenstein]

74. Wasn't That The Nader Slogan in 2000?

While you must always remain vigilant of how much is too much, compromise is not inherently a vice. And there is a point when sticking to your principles becomes moral rigidity, and can also be vice.

Life isn't black and white, unfortunately. It's a constant negotiation.

[redqueen]

75. Agreed, Doc

Come November, it's time to focus on the big picture IMO.

This thread is about voting in the primaries, though.

[Mairead]

4. bump

This is an editorial that ALL should read!

[Tactical Progressive]

6. No, the "short-sighted tragedy of politics today"

is the 'I vote my conscience' narcissism that has given us Bush.

You were close, you just got it backwards.

[redqueen]

8. I think he's talking about his own party, too

This isn't just about Dennis's campaign.

Republicans have been subjected to scare tactics as well, resulting in the vast majority voting for decidedly UNconservative candidates.

It's a serious problem and blaming those that refuse to be herded like sheep isn't going to help.

[Tactical Progressive]

23. 'Refusing to be herded like sheep'

sounds so noble. Man standing apart, undeterred from his higher principles by the compromisers around him. It really is great imagery for vanity voters to wrap themselves in. Or maybe whack off to.

Unfortunately, what that fantasy world actually *means* when transposed onto the real world is that we're all herded into "free speech zones", herded into war based on provocative lies, herded into tax reduction for the wealthy, herded into Social Security 'reform', herded into a fascist judiciary and herded into a thousand strangulations you don't even know about buried in legislation you've never even heard of.

Well, what is all that really, when you compare it to the sublime sanctimony of not being herded into a real-world political struggle by people who just don't appreciate how principled you are?

[redqueen]

24. Your anger is not helping

Look, it's no secret that the march towards the right, towards corporate, one-party rule, has been helped along by BOTH major parties.

Does the fact that 'conservatives' are electing budget-busting corporate cronyists not bother you? Why would 'conservatives' vote for someone who is so obviously anathema to their stated interests?

Why do we?

When you stop taking offense and start looking at the big picture, let me know.

[Tactical Progressive]

44. I see the big picture

the little picture, the medium pictures and all of the ancilliary pictures. I'm not the problem.

People who don't understand politics are the problem.

Vote your conscience to select a candidate. Promote your agenda strongly after you have power. Yes to both. But in between, when there are things called "elections", I really don't want to hear about 'principles' or 'refusing to be herded'.

That's the major issue on these boards. You know that, yet you slide it into a discussion about primaries without making clear the distinction that primary tactics aren't election tactics and that principles play out differently in the two. The onus is on you to draw that distinction in such an atmosphere, and you coyly chose not to, instead inferring a candidate selection principle as a general principle. I don't know whether you meant to do that or not, but the article you linked certainly talked about voting for Kucinich for President, not nominating him.

[redqueen]

45. No one said you were the problem

Why do you take things so personally?

Your whole hissy fit is based on your perception that this is about the General Election.

If this were taking place after the primaries, after the nominee has been chosen, I would think you were making sense.

Now, though... :shrug:

[Tactical Progressive]

52. Oh, please.

Party loyalty is the biggest conflict on DU and you played it out as a primary consideration without saying so. You left that totally ambiguous so how can you blame people for taking your point in the way that it is being argued here constantly?

Who you want to support for the nomination certainly isn't an issue with me.

I've made my position clear on that. You're the only one who hasn't. Let's hear you draw the distinction between "refusing to be herded like sheep" in the primaries and in the general.

[redqueen]

55. You really think it needs to be rehashed again?

I don't.

Anyone who has spent more than a day in this forum knows the difference. Histrionics aside, it's fairly cut and dry.

You can demand that I regurgitate the ABB mantra so that you feel better about my post, but you'll just have to wait until after the convention for that to happen.

[Tactical Progressive]

66. If it were fairly cut and dry

it wouldn't be the biggest point of contention on DU. And most of those who don't know the difference sound just like you with your 'refusing to be herded' talk, so it's not really a rehash after all, but rather you playing games.

People interested in political outcomes aren't going to be hanging around until just before the election to see if courting party loyalty out of you-can't-herd-me prima donnas will work. We saw what happened in 2000 with that and you can bet that Democrats aren't going to be that naive again.

That factors into everything else, including the VP nominee. If the party decides that it can't count on the votes of people who 'won't say' until just before the election, then it will act accordingly. You obviously don't care what that means, so keep playing your little word games. Maybe I'll even join in now that I know you're just 'tweaking'.

[redqueen]

67. MY word games?

Why do you continually refuse to see that I only posted an editorial.

As for whether or not it's cut and dry that there is a world of difference between voting your conscience in the primaries and voting your conscience in the GE -- if anyone has missed that so far then me pointing it out for the 1,000,000,002nd time isn't going to do the trick.

And you're funny... you act as if you think the party would change depending on what people about what they're doing. ROFL!

That's a good one!

[Evil_Dewers]

81. Annoy the media...

That was Nader's theme in 2000.

[Dhalgren]

57. And of course voting for who we are told to vote

will save us from all that. Why not just let the party "elders" choose for us - I mean, they know best, right? We might vote wrong and boy, would we be sorry. Thanks for shining that brilliant lamp of yours on our benighted little minds. :eyes:

[redqueen]

58. The pretzel logic is getting out of hand around here!

:hi:

[Dhalgren]

60. You said it!

The thing that is so humorous about these petty, childish screeds is that they are so counter productive. Either these "Dennis = doom" posters are just neophytes or they they actually think that any straying from the DLC mandated lines of acceptability will cost us our freedom - "we must lose our freedom to save our freedom" seems to be the clarion call for these "folks".

[redqueen]

61. Either way

it's a pretty disturbing picture of how successful corporate media is at staying on message and shaping the debate to fit the outcome they want. :(

[library_max]

86. To me, it looks more like shaping "what they want" to the outcome.

Remember when the corporate media "wanted" Dean? When his face was everywhere and his nomination taken as a given? I'm not talking about DU, I'm talking about Time, Newsweek, etc. Then remember when Clark entered the race and the corporate media "wanted" Clark - wrote about his formidable resume and how he'd be impossible to beat.

Now you take the media's reporting of the fact that Kerry is riding high as evidence that the media "wants" Kerry. If that's really true, the best you can say for the media is that it is more willing to compromise what it wants than a lot of Democrats I could mention.

[redqueen]

90. What compromise?

All three of the candidates you mentioned would continue wars for empire.

The media doesn't really care, as long as whomever takes charge doesn't change anything substantive. No election reform, no department of peace, no ending the occupation for oil, no stopping the investor protection agreements, etc.

[library_max]

92. So by you there's no difference between Dean, Clark, and Kerry?

The only thing I can think of that they have in common is they all ran for the Democratic nomination and none of them is Dennis Kucinich. This "they're all the same except my guy" business is grossly biased nonsense.

[redqueen]

96. It depends on your perspective

Sure, if the fine points are the criteria, then they are vastly different.

If the actual substance is the criterion, they are mostly the same.

Both will continue wars for empire, both will leave the anti-democratic FTA's in place, both will ensure that for-profit health insurance continues to suck funds out of the system for the enrichment of investors and executives...

Care to state their substantive differences? That might go faster.

[library_max]

99. Fine points???

If you want to see their substantive differences, Dean's website is www.deanforamerica.com, Clark's is www.draftwesleyclark.com, and Kerry's is www.johnkerry.com. Each site has an "on the issues" button prominently displayed.

If that's too much trouble, you might try the Vote By Issue quiz at www.votebyissue.org. I took the quiz and it was very enlightening. I ended up choosing stands from the other candidates more often than Kerry because I voted "blind," I didn't check which candidate said what first. The thing that struck me most was that the five candidates (they don't include Clark, alas) sound almost exactly the same on almost all the issues - and they did include Kucinich!

Try it and see. Maybe it'd be better than hurling unfair accusations against candidates and expecting me to refute them item by item.

[redqueen]

101. Okay, if it's not that important to you, then don't.

Believe what you want.

[library_max]

104. Wait - what?

If it's not that important to me?

So its okay for you to slander the candidates who aren't lucky enough to be Dennis Kucinich, and then when I go fetch you the links needed for you to disabuse yourself of the ridiculous error that all the other candidates are the same, you can't be bothered. And that's because it's not important enough to me??

There are hundreds of differences between Clark, Dean, Kerry, and Kucinich, and hundreds of similarities. Because I can't and won't compress them all into one post on this mostly-forsaken thread, you blithely dismiss the fact, and then you tell me to believe what I want?

I've been trying very hard to continue to assume that you're responding sincerely in good faith, but it's getting more and more difficult. I do hope you're not just trying to "bury me in paperwork" because you don't want to listen to what I have to say.

[rucky]

22. in the Primary, silly

It's still going on, ya know.

I think you understood that when you posted, tho. I also don't see how knee-jerk insulting people helps your noble cause. Please stop enabling Bush by provoking more infighting.

[Tactical Progressive]

28. I have no problem with voting your conscience in primaries

I didn't take it to mean that because I don't see it as an issue. I think voting for Kucinich or Nader or whoever in the primaries is great.

The issue on these boards regarding ideological fealty has been all about what happens in the general election after feelings have been strained in the primaries, and that is where people seem to have a problem. People who don't understand the difference between what they want and what democracy and politics is.

That was pretty obvious by my reply.

[rucky]

32. Just seems that every plea to support DK in the primary

is sabotaged by this misunderstanding that we're all 3rd party troublemakers. Some of the most hardcore ABB-ers support him.

My apologies for jumping down your throat.

[Tactical Progressive]

54. No problem rucky

I like Kucinich. If I could I'd consider voting for him in the primaries to 1) send a message 2) keep him in the debates and 3) give him more power after the election.

This is the time to make your ideological choices heard if that's what you want to put into the process.

[info being]

88. Is that the voice of reason, or the voice of corporate media

in your head

[sangh0]

7. Feeling good about yourself sure beats helping others

.

[salin]

10. ?

What logic am I missing. How does voting for Kucinich in the primary hurt the front runner(s)? If it doesn't - why all the rude sniping (from a number of folks/directions).

I really do not get the hostility around here for individuals voting in primaries for other candidates. What am I missing?

[sangh0]

What you're missing

is that neither the author of that piece, nor the poster, have the best interests of the Democrats in mind.

[Forkboy]

14. Cool,I didn't know you could read minds!

That's awesome Sangha! For your next trick can you tell me what I have in mind?

[sangh0]

19. Nothing

.

[Forkboy]

20. Well there goes your next career move

better keep your day job here at DU.

[MuseRider]

15. IMO

that was an uncalled for attack.

[salin]

16. irrelevant to my question

again - how does voting for a candidate who is not a front runner - hurt the front runner -- this sentiment has been increasingly expressed here and I don't follow the reason why - unless it is just that the atmosphere is so toxically reflexive that folks just have to be snide to other folks.

[sangh0]

12. What you're missing

is that neither the author of that piece, nor the poster, have the best interests of the Democrats in mind.

What you're missing is thway Repukes lie and exploit "wedge" issues to split Democrats

[salin]

17. what wedge? this is a primary.

not the general election.

[library_max]

91. The more we propogate this "selling out your principles" meme,

the worse our chances in the general election. If voting for Kerry means selling your soul, who the hell is going to vote for Kerry? Why would it suddenly be virtuous to sell your soul because it's the general election and not the primaries?

If you want to vote for Kucinich in the primaries, vote for Kucinich in the primaries. What I find objectionable is this unwarranted assumption that those of us who support Kerry do so without principle, and that there is something inherently unprincipled (or actually diabolic) about concentrating on winning in November.

I think it is useful, though, to distinguish between the author of the quoted material, who is a Republican and almost certainly wishes us ill, and the original poster, who is just supporting her candidate and her views. I still object to the meme.

[redqueen]

98. Voting for a candidate you don't agree with in the primaries

is selling out your soul.

Voting for the candidate you don't agree with but agree with more than the other contender is an matter of survival.

[library_max]

100. One day I hope you will learn

that it's less about who you agree with and more about who is best for the country as a whole. "Who can win" does figure into that calculation. 'Til then, best wishes. Vote for whoever you want in the primaries.

[redqueen]

102. I wish you didn't have to learn

that by electing Kerry or Edwards, we'll still see a draft in '04.

Keep fighting the good fight. Such as it is.

[info being]

89. If you think voting for a Corporate Whore helps others....

I, for one, don't want your help.

[library_max]

93. I do think that voting for the Democratic nominee in November

will be helping others. Do you disagree?

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Can't wait til we get some election reform

so I can vote for my beliefs and elect a winner like Dennis!

[Snivi Yllom]

13. people have 8 months

to come to their senses.

[slinkerwink]

18. it's better to vote your principles in the primary season

rather than selling it out to a candidate who likely will be a general election nominee.

[redqueen]

21. Yes indeedly doodly

Not too difficult, is it? ;)

[slinkerwink]

33. nope, sure isn't! vote your heart in the primaries, and vote with your

mind in the general election. I don't know why this logic escapes some here.

[no name no slogan]

26. Well said, slink-- I agree entirely

SFW if I don't vote for the eventual nominee in the primary season!? I've done that a few times before, and I am quite doubtful that it did not "hurt" anybody in the long run...

...except for a handful of overly-zealous campaigners who think that the slightest support of anybody but their candidate is somehow a personal insult.

:eyes:

[slinkerwink]

31. I know what you mean-----we can't all march in lockstep during

the primary season, but we'll do so by voting for the nominee in the general election. Granted, I won't campaign for the nominee, but I'll pass out anti-Bush flyers and literature, and be helping congressional races.

[littlejoe]

25. Backing the winner IS backing my beliefs!

Will you take great comfort, in knowing you held fast to your ideals, when we get another four years of Bush, because of it?

[redqueen]

27. Why do some ppl need constant reminding that this is the PRIMARIES

:eyes:

[salin]

30. I am beginning to wonder

if some are just a tad bit confused about the election process... or perhaps they just believe that browbeating is an effective way to make friends and win supporters.

[Forkboy]

35. high-grade ignorance

[Tactical Progressive]

46. Maybe because this is the most tendentious issue here

and you chose not to specify that you were putting that issue strictly in the context of candidate nomination.

That would have been very easy to do, and given the conflicts arising out of this primary season, you should have drawn the distinction.

[redqueen]

48. I posted an editorial

Sue me.

I will not apologize for tweaking the hysterical. On the contrary, little situations like these provide much-needed training in self-control.

[salin]

29. again... how does voting in the primary

for anyone other than Kerry... help bush get elected? Nobody voting in the democratic primary... is assisting bush to get elected. Our election process simply doesn't work that way.

[tameszu]

34. Most Democrats and most liberals

if they really thought about it, would not have their hearts warmed by:

"Cancellation of NAFTA and a quick exit from the WTO.

Immediate with drawal from Iraq."

I have said this over and over: the LAST thing developing countries want is to go back to a regime of bilateral trade. That just opens the door to the U.S. using their economic power to stomp all over them.

Iraqis were not happy that the U.S. invaded our country, but they will be less happy if we leave them without security. We need to turn Iraq over to a UN-led mission, but there is no way that that mission can work without significant U.S. participation. No one else has the logistics and resources. Look at Rwanda and Somalia, for goodness sakes.

I'm not even sure what this means:

"Re-regulation of all things corporate."

We should enforce the regulations we have already, and THEN figure out what addition regulations we need.

Finally, mainstream Democrats do not oppose moving gradually towards the following:

"Universal, government-sponsored health care.

Continuation of affirmative action programs."

[salin]

36. per regulation you raise a very, very important distinction

many regulatory rules are still on the books. But aggressive defunding of regulatory agencies has left them toothless and no different than being nonexistent. It was the politically safer way of deregulating numerous areas... don't have to take the flack that bushco did over proposed rules for the level of arsenic in water... instead (in Congress) just defund the regulators - bingo - same effect.

[Evil_Dewers]

37. The author here is not a Democrat.

Fuck the author of this trash.

I guess DK supporters will believe the election advice given to them by George Will, Robert NoFacts and Bill Safire and take that advice to heart.

Pathetic.

[redqueen]

38. Thanks for contributing. n/t

[Evil_Dewers]

39. Thanks for contributing

If I were a Democrat, I'd vote for Dennis Kucinich for president. I'm not, and I won't.

All Dems should have stopped reading after that.

[redqueen]

40. Not all dems are so self-destructively closed-minded.

Read post #24.

[Evil_Dewers]

41. Read post #24.

I already did. If DK was viable, he wouldn't have only 8 delegates (half the Sharpton total).

DK has less delegates than Clark, Edwards, Sharpton, Dean and Kerry.

[redqueen]

42. So first your beef is that the author is a republican

Now your beef is that no one should vote for him because he has 'no chance'?

Pick a subject already! ;)

Seriously, though. Even if people who agree with Dennis agree with you that he has no chance, they still will want to vote for him to get more delegates for him at the convention.

[Evil_Dewers]

47. Dennis has no chance because people like me

(the vast majority of Democrats) have already decided he has no chance.

DK won't even finish in the top two in his home state of Ohio.

If that's not the definition of "unelectable," I don't know what is.

Bobthedrummer (your fellow DK'er) claims DK could be the Veep.

But not if he can't come in the top two in Ohio.

[redqueen]

50. No recognition at all of the reasons to vote for Dennis

I got your point before. It's not as if it would be missed. Post like this one are available on just about every Kucinich-related thread that is posted on this forum.

But Okay!

:hi:

[Evil_Dewers]

53. Reason #1 not to vote for Dennis:

He would lose all 50 states to *. DK can't even win the Dem primary in his home state.

If you could get DK in a room and ask him confidentially why he's still running, he'd tell you he has an important message of progressiveness and wants to keep John Kerry honest (keep him from being Clinton). He had no delusions that he'd ever be the nominee, so I don't know why his supporters ever believed he had a chance.

But hey, this is America, vote for whomever you like.

[redqueen]

56. Yep, this is America

Which is why threads about Kucinich get spammed by people who purportedly perceive him as no threat whatsoever.

:eyes:

[Dhalgren]

59. Democrats like you are why Democrats like me leave the party.

Have fun and feel guilty for four more years of Bush. :hi:

[Evil_Dewers]

79. Have fun and feel guilty for four more years of Bush.

Democrats like me (who will be voting for Kerry) are the reason why Democrats like you and others (supporters of Dean, Dennis the Vulcan Menace, Nader) leave the party? :wtf:

I'm moving to Canada if Bush cheats his way in again.

Screw America, and Democrats like you who leave the party.

[Democat]

71. Many here don't seem to care about the Democratic Party or winning in 2004

This used to be Democratic Underground, lately it's becoming "Help Bush Underground".

[Snivi Yllom]

43. YOU GO

and you can always sleep at night. You did not sell your soul to the devil.

[Evil_Dewers]

49. you can always sleep at night. You did not sell your soul to the devil

HAHAHAHAHA...DeanforAmerica.com

"We want everyone involved in Dean for America to stay involved, stay together, stay with the Democratic Party, and support the Democratic nominee. As I have said before, I strongly urge my supporters not to be tempted by independent or third-party candidates."

A lot of you Yearrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrghers!!! have been wandering off the good doc's reservation.

[Dhalgren]

62. Yeah, and when Kerry loses in Nov.,

you'll probably claim to have been a Dean supporter.

[Evil_Dewers]

78. Yeah, and when Kerry loses in Nov

Dean lost in February.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

51. Yes. Kerry supporters are all devil soul-sellers

We will be coming for your babies.

Skull & Bones, Baby.

Skull & Bones.

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. So you're saying that Kucinich isn't a winner?

:shrug:

[redqueen]

64. lol

As if you need to be told that, Freddie!

Obviously the author of this editorial is saying that voting your beliefs in the primaries still left to be voted in beats backing a winner of previous primaries.

[OutlawCorporatePolls]

65. vote the issues...

...or nothing will change.

[redqueen]

68. Can't argue with that!

And that goes for both Democrats AND Republicans!

[Democat]

69. Selfishness is a virtue?

Tell it to the families of the people Bush sent to their deaths.

[redqueen]

70. This thread is talking about the PRIMARY. not the GE.

[Democat]

72. If that's the case, then fair enough

I thought it was another "In November I would only vote for anyone except someone who can win" thread. :)

Sorry. :)

[redqueen]

73. Nope!

No worries! I'll be around here posting all kinds of stuff about France's near-disaster after the nomination to ensure the STOP BUSH movement moves full steam ahead!

[Evil_Dewers]

80. Canadians for Kucinich?

Too bad they can't "legally" vote for him.

[library_max]

76. Wow.

Wonder why a right-wing Republican would encourage Democrats to vote for Kucinich? Yeah, I wonder . . .

Oh well, I'm sure it couldn't be because he hopes we'll crash and burn in November, or anything like that.

[Tank in Texas]

77. I Admire Kucinich

The man has balls! Love the way he is unashamed of being a liberal and not afraid to confront "Boss" Kerry.

Good man.

[redqueen]

83. You got that right! He's got the the huevos to back up his talk!

From putting Diebold memos on his Congressional website, to filing lawsuits to stop bush from withdrawing from international treaties without congressional approval, to filing lawsuits to stop bush from going to war... he's not one you'd tell to grow a pair! :D

[littlejoe]

82. You say that you are not a democrat. This begs the question,

just what are you, and why are you here?

[Dhalgren]

84. Wake up Jo-Jo,

this is an editorial by someone who isn't a Dem. - the poster is way-Dem.

[library_max]

85. And yet it's a valid question, if mistakenly posed.

Why go to a Republican source for advice for Dems? Is a Republican going to give us advice that helps us? Isn't he more likely to want to help us out a 20th-story window? I know I sure wouldn't give Republicans any advice that would help them get Bush four more years.

[Freddie Stubbs]

87. Why in the world would a Republican want DK to be the Democratic nominee?

Probably the same reason they would want Al Sharpton. Anyone remember the freepers voting for Sharpton in the MoveOn.org online primary?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

94. It's even better to vote your beliefs AND back a winner.

[Zynx]

95. How do you vote your beliefs when you vote for a man with no beliefs?

The only position I have seen Kerry give consistent strong stands on is the environment and I don't care as much about the environment. It is somewhere at #10 on my list of issues.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

97. Your insulting characterization is meaningless.

If I knew who you were supporting, I guess I could respond with my own unsupported attack of that candidate.

:eyes:

The countdown is on: Bush will leave the White House in 324 days.

[Freddie Stubbs]

103. Some of us don't not have that luxury

Fortunately for me, I do.