Our support is not to be taken for granted by anyone.

[anti-NAFTA]

I've seen numerous people, like myself, in this forum get attacked for criticizing Kerry. They say we have a negative attitude. I say that's a load of nonsense. We have a positive attitude. We want to tell Kerry that although he is the nominee he won't be able to shrug us off and take our support for granted. I don't want 4 more years of Bush, but I sure as hell don't want 4 more years of Clinton either. We've seen what kind of policy can come from a "Democratic" administration. We should be united in telling Kerry that he's not going to pull any of this stuff on is: No, not on gay and lesbian rights, not on trade, not on foreign policy, not on anything.

Supporting Kerry is one thing; not calling him on dubious statements and stances is another, and, quite frankly, it's undemocratic. Blind, unskeptical support is unproductive and can only lead to wishy-washy leaders with no respect for their constituents'. The Christian Right understands what I'm talking about. They don't bow down to the Republican Party; the GOP bows down to them. We should do the same with the Democratic Party.

[Kanary]

1. I couldn't possibly agree more!

And motivating the apathetic also depends on Kerry being forthcoming about his policies, and listening to waht people really want.

Otherwise, we've, in essence, lost again, and are sunk.

Thanks for saying it like it is!

Pressure it is! :)

Kanary

Another Delusional Diehard for Dennis!!

Kucinich 2004!

[anti-NAFTA]

3. Thanks

:hug:

[coltman]

2. i sure would like 4 more yrs. of Clinton n/t

[Kanary]

4. I don't. I want a *REAL* Dem! n/t

[wyldwolf]

8. Clinton was a real Dem. Prove he was not

[Kanary]

9. Doubt you'd accept anything as "Proof"

since you're a True Believer for Clinton.

I'm sure you've seen plenty of posts pointing out the deficiencies in some of his policies.

The biggie for me is the thousands of people, including CHILDREN, who are suffering because of his Welfare Deform. I'm not interested in hearing again defense of that mess -- I'm concerned about the people who were and still are being HURT.

Kanary

[wyldwolf]

10. Who defines "democrat?"

Never mind what you consider "deficiencies."

If "deficiencies" aren't tolerated then there will never be a "true" democrat because someone will always disagree with a policy.

[Kanary]

13. Thanks for your dismissal of the thousands of poor

You've made yourself quite plain.

Kanary, over and out.......

[wyldwolf]

18. thanks for you typical emotionally charged misinterpretation

So, I guess the correct definition of "real democrat" is one approved of by Kanary.

Yeah, I know what your problem with Clinton is but, without getting off track again, show me where that one policy position has been designated somewhere as a qualifier to being a democrat.

Tell you what. Name a REAL democrat and I'll find something on him or her that will turn your stomach.

[Kanary]

19. You're doing a great job of proving just how "elitist"

your group really is.

Keep it up.

The audience is learning.

Kanary

[wyldwolf]

20. Elitist? Stay on topic, please...

Respond to the issue...

without getting off track again, show me where that one policy position has been designated somewhere as a qualifier to being a democrat.

Tell you what. Name a REAL democrat and I'll find something on him or her that will turn your stomach.

[sangha]

39. It's not elitism

It's about not shifting a candidates position from one spot to another. It makes the candidate seem dishonest. Kerry has a 30 year record. He can't change that merely because a segment of the Dem party wants to be better represented.

It's not "taking your vote for granted". It's "standing by his record"

[sangha]

40. For example

In the original post, the poster refers to the following issues:

No, not on gay and lesbian rights, not on trade, not on foreign policy, not on anything.

Kerry has already staked out positions on these issues. Do you think it would help further our goals to have Kerry switch positions, or do you think that might contribute to the Repukes claims that Kerry is a flip-flopper?

And what's with the "not on anything"? Does someone actually believe that they can dictate Kerry's positions on EVERYTHING?

[Kanary]

45. I really don't know why you're coming after me..... ???

I didn't write the original post. Since you're upset with that wording, I would suggest you take it up with that poster.

But, I must tell you.... your using the word "dictate" is quite interesting. I don't understand why you want to inflame.

Kanary

[wyldwolf]

48. perhaps because you said Clinton wasn't a "real" dem?

Clinton is a hero among many many at DU. He is a democrat. The "D" in DU stands for "Democrat."

Saying he isn't a "real" democrat because he doesn't meet your elitist (I get to use the word now) ideological purism is insulting to the many of us who voted for him and still support him.

Why not say Clinton supporters aren't "real" democrats?

[sangha]

52. That's not an attack Kanary

Read it again. Aside from one word (ie. "dictate") there isn't one harsh word in either post. I merely point out that what some people have called "taking my vote for granted" could also be seen as "sticking to one's record". I don't see how that could be considered an attack, but if I've said something rude or inconsiderate feel free to point it out.

With respect to my use of the word "dictate", it was in response to another's poster desire that Kerry not compromise on ANY thing. Since that poster has taken such an extreme position (could it be any more extreme than ALL issues?) I don't see anything inappropriate about describing it using strong words.

[Kanary]

60. so, we shouldn't even try to have a platform?

"Dictating" issues, of course, is what we do when we set a platform.

The issues put forth by the first poster are just that...... issues that many Dems want addressed in a platform.


As Zhade says, " I fully intend to continue to question Kerry's stances as I see fit, now and in the future". That is the American Way.

So, we'll just have to agree to disagree, as I see those as important issues, also. Since you see that as "dictating", then there's really nothing more to discuss.

However, I will point out that this is why there is a lot of discontent and discouragement about Kerry as the probable nominee.

Your strong response points out the very real likihood that all this talk about "Elect Kerry now, and we'll hold his feet to t he fire and keep him from drifting further right" is very likely just more hot air. Kerry supporters, like you, seem to see every disagreement, now matter how worded, and every view of the loosening of Dem standards as "dictating" and worse.

Clearly, the future of bickering and attacks here at DU isn't likely to change when a nominee is finally formally announced. It looks like any of us who don't fully agree with Kerry will be leaving, even though we have the traditional values of the Dem party at heart.

Interesting development.



Kanary

[sangh0]

63. Where did I say THAT?

Did I say we shouldn't have a platform? I sure don't remember saying that. In fact, I see nothing about platforms in the initial post or in any of your posts above (the ones I was responding to)


The original post is about how Kerry should change all of his positions, or else he would be "taking our vote for granted". I pointed out that Kerry has a long record and for him to change ALL of his positions would contribute to the image that Bush* is trying to promote - that Kerry is a "flip-flopper", a point you have responded to. I was hoping you would discuss how to balance those two pressures (ie responding to Dems concerns vs maintaining policy consistency) since I know you are concerned about how Kerry is perceived by the public.

So I want be clear. I have not criticized you or anyone for wanting to question Kerry's stances. I criticized the idea that Kerry is "taking someone's vote for granted" if he doesn't change his positions.

Since you see that as "dictating", then there's really nothing more to discuss.

I said that demanding that Kerry change ALL of his policies is "dictating". I was pretty clear about that in my earlier post, so I don't understand why you continue to misrepresent my position.

Here's what I said earlier:

"With respect to my use of the word "dictate", it was in response to another's poster desire that Kerry not compromise on ANY thing. Since that poster has taken such an extreme position (could it be any more extreme than ALL issues?) I don't see anything inappropriate about describing it using strong words. "


Your strong response

Your kidding right? Only Kerry criticism is allowed?

Interesting development

[revcarol]

15. Maybe if you'd lost your job to NAFTA, the WTO, etc.

of Clinton you would feel differently, like HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF US do.

Clinton's chickens are coming home to roost and where is it that Kerry is going to be better? Don't assume that we APPROVE of Kerry, just because we have to vote for him.

His feet are going to be burning the whole time he is in office if he follows those same Clinton policies or just says how he would like to put in environmental and labor "changes" in them when the agreements themselves prohibit changes without the signatories AGREEING to those changes. Talk about herding cats!! He would have to herd the whole WORLD.

[wyldwolf]

5. This is the exact same post that gets posted here everyday..

..worded a little differently and, at least this time, posted by someone different.

The difference is that the Christian Coalition is organized. Those on the further left (I assume those are the ones you speak of when you say "our" support) can't agree on enough things to get organized.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. A Damn Great Attitude!

:7 I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks!

[pinto]

7. tell Kerry. tell the DNC. let them hear you. imo, bowing shit's gotta go..

[Kanary]

11. I can do that.

However, lone voices haven't been very effective so far, including with the Dems.

What we need, as anti-NAAFTA has so well pointed out, is to organize, and present a clear voice.

Kanary

[Lexingtonian]

12. Thank God you're around!

You know, we are running short on criticism and a variety of other nonproductive repetitive behaviors. Believe it or not, we have a openings in the Circular Firing Squad Department! We're just doing way too much stuff that is actually helping our cause- please do come help sabotage our initiative.

Please present your evidence that Kerry is doing/backing stuff that justifies evidence-free attacks on him.

No, the purist dogmatist Left will not hold this Party hostage. This Party is getting more liberal again, you may not like it and whine as much as you like, but you will not succeed with tactics that are beyond reasoning with.

Become liberal, you have nothing to lose but your mental chains.
:D

[anti-NAFTA]

22. "Please present your evidence that Kerry is doing/backing stuff that justi

..."

Kerry opposes gay marriage. That's a fact.

And it's not only about what Kerry is currently backing. I think you missed my point. Giving Kerry unconditional support would make him take our votes for granted. Period. The article about trade in New Republic (DLC-left and neocon-right mag) where it said that Kerry is probably going to ditch the issue after Edwards drops out sort of jolted me. If I don't like what I hear on the issue at the convention (and/or if he nominates a notorious freetrader) he won't even have my vote. Quite frankly, I don't care what he says: I'm not voting for a candidate; I'm voting for a damn platform. I couldn't care less what hand he pisses with or how many soldiers he saved in Vietnam. What I care about is what he'll do when he's in office.

[zulchzulu]

55. Let's Play the Reality Game: OK, your choice is...

On Gay Marriage:

Door Number 1:
Bush absolutely opposes gay marriage and would not do anything about implementing laws supporting civil unions.

Result: BZZZZZT! You get nothing.

Door Number 2:
Kerry does not support "gay marriage" as a term and would leave the decision up to the states, but supports civil unions and other rights as well is progressive on all other GLBT issues. He would make sure that laws regarding civil unions pass.

Result: Ding! You may not be able to be legally "gay married", but the first steps of recognizing civil unions and other GLBT issues would be addressed.

Door Number 3:
Vote for a third party candidate and take a vote away from Kerry.

Result: BZZZZZT! See result from Door Number 1

[anti-NAFTA]

73. Or how about...

BZZZZZZT you keep the pressure on Kerry and get him to change his views to be more progressive.

:eyes:

[Thucydides]

14. I am all for free speech, and yes the candidates need to know

what we want. Does it have to be said with so much hate! If you have not noticed, thats what the BFEE, PNAC, Corporate Media and the Bush administration want. They want polarization, and I mean for everyone, be it Democrat, Green, Republican, Ultra Left liberals, Ultra right wingnuts. Total control thru pure chaos, how does it feel to be controlled like a puppet? Yup, I know you are going to give me some sane argument, thats why you posted this thread! Just so you know, I did jump on the Kerry bandwagon until after the results were in on Super Tuesday. Thats when I said that I was going to do my part to get Bush out of office. Thats what needs to be for right now, then we can take control of our party. My priority is to get these nut jobs out. As far as the GOP bowing down to the Christian Right, I believe it is more like "Pander to". The GOP is in total control of the Christian Right, if you think otherwise you are sadly mistaken. Well for it is worth thats my two cents.

pan·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pndr)
intr.v. pan·dered, pan·der·ing, pan·ders
To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer.
To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses:

[Kanary]

17. Where in the world did you hear hate???

I hear someone saying enough with the dumping on anyone who dares to question Kerry.

There are plenty of us, including the average US voter. So, you might want to consider those of us who have some real questions.

Kanary

[Thucydides]

21. Its not what I heard, its what I read, your post reads that way....

I could be mistaking hate for passion, however making statements like "but I sure as hell don't want 4 more years of Clinton"and "Blind, unskeptical support is unproductive and can only lead to wishy-washy leaders with no respect for their constituents". does not read well!

[anti-NAFTA]

23. Yup, it's passion.

I'm scared. How can I not be passionate?

[Kanary]

24. You're welcome to take over the posts that I've received

that have expressed REAL HATRED.

I will agree with you that there is hatred here on DU, and it's quite upsetting.

However, the Hatred is quite recognizable.

If the word "hell" bothered you, then you're going to be bothered by much worse here. It's all over the forum. While I don't appreciate the rough language, when it's not directed at a poster personally, I don't really think it constitutes hate.

Please remember.. there were people here who were personally hurt by Clinton's policies. There are people who *Can't* be here, and never will, because they didn't survive those policies. Some of us feel very strongly about that. Our allegiance is much more with the people who have been hurt, than with the politician who caused it. That's NOT hate... it's a strong statement in support of those who got the raw end of Clinton's deal.

You may not agree with "Blind, unskeptical support is unproductive and can only lead to wishy-washy
leaders with no respect for their constituents" but blind, unskeptical support is what is termed "true believer", and inded is unproductive, to say the least, and more like anathema to Democracy. I'm interested in why you find that sentence so repugnant that you would even term it "hate". If you read the writings of the founders of this very Democracy, you will find much the same wording. Does that upset you, also? I'm really curious about this.... I'd be interested to hear why this is not to your liking.

Kanary

[anti-NAFTA]

25. Yes, my allegiance is with...

the international worker and all oppressed peoples. Thank you for pointing that out.

[rdfi-defi]

26. because skepticism could lead to thinking

and thinking could lead to ideas
and ideas could lead to expectations
and expectactions could lead to action
and action could lead to.......

[Thucydides]

35. Well here goes, First.....

You have obviously posted a thread that uses thinly veiled derogatory comments. Why would you do that? Maybe to start a debate, why debate among those that feel the need for change as much as yourself. I believe that we need change, how we make those changes against such a juggernaut is by prioritizing. First we must take back control of the Executive branch and that means getting rid of Bush, which in turn means getting the majority of Americans to agree, and for that we need a centrist. I personally see the need for people like DK and Nader. But this election is not the time for that. I also believe that they would serve us better by taking control of the other Branch's of Government. There is real power in the other branch's of Government. Once we rested control of the White House, even if it means by way of a centrist, so be it. He would still have to answer to DK, Ralph and others like them. You have taken one simple word and made a complete DEBATE out of it alone. You seem to be combative and argumentative, you also seem to take offense at any postings that are not lockstep with your own, why? No I do not agree with DEM bashing threads and that is exactly what this is, you have done what you say you oppose! Personally I do not believe that posters here are blind and unskeptical. I find the intelligent quotient on this board to be well above average, and you insult many by accusing us of that. Believe me, many here are extremely informed, and many also understand what is at stake. We are not following blindly, and we are not unskeptical. I can see exactly where this country is headed, and I am skeptical of many politicians on both sides of the aisle and down the middle as well. However I also have an understanding of what needs to be done in the here and now. Get Bush out of office, then lets take care of house cleaning. No the word HELL does not bother me, I am ex-sailor (US NAVY) and I could put the worst of them to shame! I choose not to use profanity much on these boards, because I have respect for others. There is a proper time and place for everything! You know, like uniting the Democratic party at this time so we can take back the White House. I am not sure what you meant by "There are people who *Can't* be here, and never will, because they didn't survive those policies". You speak in a code that I do not understand. I can tell you one thing for sure, there are many that are not here now, and will not be coming here because of Bush. I can not do a thing about the ones that you refer to, whatever it meant. I can for Damn sure do something for those that it is happening to now, care to join me. Then quit whining and lets take it to them together. Here are your choices at present Vote Dem, Vote Republican, Vote Independent or don't vote at all. You can be a part of the solution, just quit wasting my time on worthless debate. Save the debate for later, when it is more useful. Goodnight!

[Kanary]

46. I replied to you in good faith... even wanted clarification from you

When you shoot back that I'm "whining", then that pretty much ends it for me.

You talk about "hate" when someone makes an observation about a candidate, yet you feel quite free to attack me about "whining". You sound quite closed minded to me, and I've had to make the decision that I don't need to take snide comments from anyone here anymore. It's just not that important to me anymore.

Kanary

[sangh0]

64. And I replied to you in good faith

In return, you've accused me of attacking you (without identifying where I did that) and of reacting hostilely to any and all criticism of Kerry (even though I agreed with some of your Kerry criticism)

You talk about being attacked. I've made the decision that I don't need to take your accusations anymore.

[Q3JR4]

16. My thoughts exactly.

:yourock:

[aldian159]

27. who exactly are you talking about?

The far left, the DK supporters? I hate to be the voice of reason so sorely lacking sometimes in these boards, but perhaps Kerry and other "centrists" would be more considerate of your interests if a few more of you bothered to vote DK. Why should Kerry kneel at the shrine of DK, as another poster said, when he lost his own district to two other candidates? Seems like the threat of the far left leaving I read about so often here on DU is nothing but a empty one, as the far left has nowhere near the power the CC has in the GOP. Sorry, anti-NAFTA, that's just the way it is. If more of you show up, maybe Kerry and others will be more considerate of your interests.

[rdfi-defi]

30. why "kneel at the shrine of DK"

when you can don the jewl encrusted dem/ABB horse blinders. the rewards and blessings are so much quicker to come.

sounds "reason"able to me

[aldian159]

31. what?

you lost me, sorry.

[rucky]

65. There's this guy named Howard Dean

and another one called Ralph Nader.

then one we never hear about named Sharpton - he represents disenfranchised Black voters.

There's a group to your left saying "we will vote if you make a gesture in our direction". There's a group to your right that promises nothing & doesn't really care either way.

Stragtecially, which group do you try & reel in?

[youngred]

28. Bingo

don't be so paranoid that we will cost you the election, many of us will vote Kerry, but our vote has to be earned, not degraded

[aldian159]

29. Do you have any suggestions

in how Kerry can do that? I would love nothing more then a Democratic party where all are represented, the real "big tent." However, if the party were to shift to the left as radically as DK is, we would lose. Guaranteed.

What is better? A candidate who you agree with 100% but loses big or a candidate who you agree with 50% but wins big?

Sometimes it is better to get half of what you want and be unhappy then shoot for everything and get nothing. Baby steps, that's all.

OTOH, I can totally see where you and other DK supporters are coming from. You feel ignored, and that is no recipe for success.

[sangha]

32. I don't take your vote for granted

You really don't sound as if you're going to vote for Kerry.

[littlejoe]

33. Since when does the tail wag the dog?

[MurikanDemocrat]

34. Kerry has made his positions pretty clear. You can decide one way

or the other. He's not going to change into your first choice of candidates between now and November. Either support him or don't. simple as that.

[sangha]

38. The nerve of Kerry!!

He's made his positions clear? What's next, posting them on his website?

That bastard! I bet he's gonna stick to them instead of bending them to my will. How dare he take my vote for granted!

[MurikanDemocrat]

41. *snarf*

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

The same people squealing that he not take them for granted would squeal because he waffled if he suddenly turned into their dream candidate on every issue overnight. The game is tiresome, but predictable.

[sangha]

43. True

and we need to point out the contradiction

[AntiCoup2K4]

44. Made his positions clear? He changes them more often than I change socks!

John Kerry's Internationalist House of Waffles has been open 24 hrs a day for some time now. Hell, if he actually MADE his positions clear, it would be much easier to believe the son of a bitch.

[JVS]

47. I agree

[sangha]

53. Make up your mind

Do you want him to shift his positions closer to yours, or do you want him to not "flip-flop" and keep his positions just as they are?

[AntiCoup2K4]

56. Either one would be more honest

But I would rather have a President who was as liberal as you claim Kerry is, and not 4 more years of PNAC in a shiny new wrapper.

[sangh0]

58. Which one do you prefer?

In this thread you have said that Kerry should change his positions. Now you're implying (while maintaining a plausible deniability) that it would be OK is Kerry does NOT change his positions. Then you go on to say Kerry SHOULD change his positions because they're not liberal enough.

Which is it?

[AntiCoup2K4]

66. I'd prefer he acted like a fucking Democrat, and not a Bush enabler

Is that clear enough for you, or are you going to ask the same question a third time?

[sangh0]

67. Does that mean sticking to his positions, or changing them?

I'll stop asking when you start answering the question. Until then, I'll continue to point out how you have avoided answering the question.

[Andromeda]

36. The GOP bows down to the religious right...

because the fundies give them lots and lots of MONEY. That's why they have so much influence.

[lams712]

37. Amen to that!!!!!!

A big :kick: for telling it like it is!!!!.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. The Democrats can take me for granted this year.

This year, for me, it's that simple. I will fight to improve my party, but I will back it even if I fail. This year. They sure as Hell may not like what I do or say after they win, but I will help them win, even if they treat me like dirt. This year. I will pay no part in any action, or inaction, that in any way contributes to Bush getting four more years. It's that simple. This year.

[Mairead]

49. Well said.

[Zhade]

50. We could all fall silent, and win the battle - only to lose the war.

I fully intend to continue to question Kerry's stances as I see fit, now and in the future - after all, that's democracy in action, and I'm entitled to my interpretations and opinions just as anyone else is. I won't be silent when I see things that concern me.

If people have a problem with that, I suggest the handy 'Ignore' feature. My feelings won't be hurt, believe me. I've used it many times to avoid wasting time with certain posters. It's a remarkable little feature, and highly useful.

[union_maid]

51. The premise is a little flawed, IMHO

The Christian Right is used as the shock troops by the Republicans. The bowing down is for form only. They get some rhetoric and fake inititatives passed and their real agenda for the most part falls by the wayside, because those issues are not popular. But the CC is patient. Roe v. Wade is their target. There have been Republican administrations in office after Nixon/Ford and three decades have passed since Roe v. Wade and it's still at least one more administration to go before there are enough RW Supreme Court Justices to overturn it. What they got was a ban on a type of abortion that is almost never used. The CC fights tirelessly agains the "gay agenda". Gays have entered the mainstream of society uncloseted, including the daughter of the VP, and the argument now is civil unions vs. gay marriage, and this during an administration that is supposedly identified with the CC. The CC is fighting a culture war and it continues to lose ground and there is nothing that the Republicans can do about it and for that matter, nothing they really care to do about it. They'll keep throwing them bones to keep them in line but if given the chance they will try to give them the big prize..the Supreme Court, but only because such a court will decide their way on other issues as well as cultural ones. That's the same prize Kerry would deliver to us if he gets the chance and it's more valuable than any message anyone can send to the major parties. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

[zulchzulu]

54. Name the issues, statements you find "dubious"

Kerry is not God. Reasonable and mature dialogue about his positions should continue now and into his administration.

The key thing though is that not supporting him in this election means that you either are voting for Bush or are voting for another candidate that takes away a vote for Kerry.

No one can force you to do anything. Talk about the issues and hopefully everyone can chime in with their opinions or concerns.

But if you really want to get rid of Bush in November, your choices are limited.

[sangh0]

59. anti-NAFTA named the issues - all of them

"No, not on gay and lesbian rights, not on trade, not on foreign policy, not on anything"

If Kerry doesn't follow anti-NAFTA's desires on EVERY issue, then Kerry is taking people's votes for granted, or so the initial post seems to say.

[AntiCoup2K4]

57. kick

:kick:

[redqueen]

61. Great post

Some other wise soul on this board has noted that third-party support this year may be for effect only, and that many of those suggesting they'll vote that way will actually be voting Dem in the GE. I wonder why this hasn't occurred to all those running around screaming about the sky falling.

[G_j]

62. you are right

and if people really want to know what it's like to be taken for granted just ask African American Democrats.

[lulu]

68. Why do republicans court their base

but democrats do not? I don't get it. It's the base that will get out and fight like crazy to win. The Christian Right bullies its way to a win for Bush. The left would do the same for the democrats. Passion wins wars. But no, the DLC wants democrats to run to the middle and court the center-right undecideds. That will do nothing for the democrats but lose elections.

[sangh0]

69. The Dems court their base

it's just that their base aren't liberal; it's moderates.

[lulu]

71. Ahhhhh, those passionate moderates.

Yes, I see what you mean. Perhaps the democrats are in more trouble than I thought.

[sangh0]

72. Yes

the problem requires a solution more complicated than imitate the Repukes.

[Bread and Circus]

70. Yes, criticize his policies, that's fair game...but people need to lay off

of personal attacks.

Now is not the time for "politics of personal destruction."

[anti-NAFTA]

74. kick eom