"if this Democratic Party ends up being a pathetic mimicry of the GOP"

[Mairead]

BuzzFlash: Do you foresee a united Democratic Party against Bush by next November, regardless who the candidate is?

Rep. Kucinich: You know it's easy to call for unity. It's hard to achieve it if you have candidates who want to keep us in Iraq, who want to maintain a for-profit healthcare system, and who are going to continue on this path of corporate globalization. We could all celebrate party unity but it's going to be hard to mobilize people if this Democratic Party ends up being a pathetic mimicry of the Republican Party.


And there is the truth: if it comes down to Bush vs Bush Lite, how many people will care enough to turn out? 'Not quite as bad as Bush' is a poor rallying cry.

[JanMichael]

1. Good cop v. Bad cop routine is not a solution.

If the Democrats cuddle and kiss to maintain the corporatist system and the Republicans (BushCo.) just beat the life out of you. The results are essentially the same no matter how you look at it.

Human Life is still a commodity to be exploited. No better than Oil or Gold.

[Printer70]

108. Clark is a faint echo of Bush- "pathetic mimicry"

Clark said he would not push for re-regulation of corporations after the Enron, Worldcom, Tyco scandals. How could we not order reform after thousands of employees were robbed of their pensions and countless others were abused by corporations and their backroom deals? I sincerely doubt Clark has the willingness to take on corporations after he came out so strongly against de-regulation, after Dean gave his speech on it. It would be corporatism as usual.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

111. "The results are essentially the same"

This is why I have trouble with ABB.

TWL

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Thanks, Mairead. The point of diminishing returns looms large.

As the situation deteriorates, the number of people who want change may increase, and there is not a lot for those folks.

[bryant69]

3. Hey, I remember this Slogan

Yep. It was "There's no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush." Yep. It was a very effective slogan. Worked on me.

Except it turned out there was a beg difference between Bush and Gore.

When Kucinich loses the primaries, is he going to try to discourage voting for the Democratic nominee?

Bryant
Check it out -->http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Mairead]

5. Why don't you lay it out for us, then -- chapter and verse, with cites

Tell us what the policy differences are between your favored candidate and Smirk. In what ways would your candidate slow or reverse the flow of wealth upward? In what ways would your candidate increase our freedoms and restore our Constitutional rights? In what ways would your candidate increase our chances of living out our full lifespans in peace and prosperity?

But only from declared policies, please...no speeches or interviews or third-party he-saids. As Si Kahn teaches: if it's declared policy, it might or might not be real...but if it isn't declared policy, it definitely isn't real.

[bryant69]

7. Hmmmmm. A Challange

And no speeches you say? I'm not sure I understand that prohibition. How do candidates express policy differences?

I don't have a favored candidate. I like all the candidates pretty well, except Lieberman and Sharpton (for different reasons, obviously (and if Kucinich discourages voters from voting for whe Democratic Nominee, whoever he is, he'll go down below both of them on the list).

But I do think that any democratic candidate will follow CLinton's wise policy of working to get our revenues into a more managable position so that the deficit goes away. This will make it easier for more people to buy houses or cars. Buying Houses and Cars are both good for the economy; as making a car or a house empoloyes a lot of people.

While any of the Democratic candidates would have invaded Afghanistan, I don't think any of them (with the exception of Lieberman) would have invaded Iraq, or offended the rest of the world quite so cavilerly as President Bush has done.

Voting Green is Voting for President Bush. If the last four years haven't convinced of the damage he can cause, well, I don't know what will.

[MadHound]

9. And you base this on. . .?

I mean, gee with the exception of Kucinich, all the Dems who were given the opportunity to for on the Iraq war voted for it. Judging by that, I'd say that at least that groups of Dems would have followed their corporate masters' orders and invaded Iraq. And if you think that just because somebody is Dem that they won't get the US into an illegal war by illegal methods, remember Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Will these Dems also follow Clinton's "wise policy" of shipping well paying manufacturing(UNION) jobs overseas, just to please their corporate masters?

And I'm sorry, but voting Green isn't voting for Bush. It is voting to strengthen a legitamite party that has the potential to sweep the other two corporate whore parties into the dustbin of history, thus returning government of the people, by the people and for the people back to the people.

It is the party of Change, and that scares the shit out of the corporate whores on both sides of the aisle.

[bryant69]

10. Of course

Of course, the Green party also has the potential to give us our very own Stalin. That's the thing about Potentials you never know exactly how they are going to go.

[MadHound]

15. "Our very own Stalin" HAH!!

That's a laugher! A real sidesplitter!

I ask you now, who is more democratic? A small party, with liberal ideas(ones that used to be the mainstay of the Democratic Party) who takes no corporate cash. Or a large party that is corrupted in it's entirety by vast infusions of corporate money. One is beholden only to the people. The other is entirely beholden to it's corporate masters.

Stalin! HAH! Obviously you have read neither the Green Party platform, nor you Soviet history. I suggest you read both before engaging in such over the top hyperbole. It would save you from the egg currently dripping down your face.

[bryant69]

16. Laughs.

I've read both actually. There are aspects of the Green Party I like and lots that I don't.

Strikes me that your talk of the Greens and of how Kucinich (who has little chance of getting the nomination) is the only honest candidate is exactly the sort of talk Karl Rove would like to hear. Not an accusation, just an observation.

I've looked at the field of candidates in some depth (you can read my candidate reviews at my website, the ones I've done --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com along the left there), and I like them all (with the exceptions noted above). I'll probably end up casting my vote for Clark or Edwards when it gets down here to Florida.

Lest you get confused, I'm not voting for them because I think they are electable, while in my heart of hearts, I'd rather vote for Kucinich. I will vote for them because I think they are the best men for the job (which, of course, implies I think they would be better Presidents than Dennis Kucinich).

I suppose that makes me a corporate whore.

[MadHound]

18. So I'll ask you, which is it then?

Corporate whore or political wuss? C'mon now, you said ". . .while in my heart of hearts, I'd rather vote for Kucinich" You know, if everybody who said that would actually VOTE for Kucinich, hell he would be the nominee! Yet still you say you will vote for either Clark or Edwards ". . .because I think they are the best men for the job (which, of course, implies I think they would be better Presidents than Dennis Kucinich). " Which is now? You like DK in your heart of hearts, but think that Clark or Edwards would make a better president? You must be one conflicted puppy.

And your accusations tying Greens with Stalin, Bush, and Rove(damn, you can't even keep your ideologies straight) strikes me as the ravings of a person who knows that the candidates they support are corporate whores, but just doesn't want to admit it. I've noticed that you can't come up with any rebuttals or even good excuses for my accusations, just ad hominem attacks. Sorry, but that is always the last resource for a desperate arguement.

But hey, if you want to get into bed with a corporate whore, I won't stop you. I'll just ask you one question. Can you live with your conscience if you do?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

19. Agreed Madhound!

I am dumbfounded everytime a Nader comparison comes up when speaking about Kucinich. People act like Kucinich will have a Nader effect. HOW?! He is running as a Democrat. The party they want to vote for regardless of who is the nominee. Why not nominate the best?

TWL

[no name no slogan]

23. Damned if we do, damned if we don't

This whole thing reminds me too much of all the shit that old-skool liberals and progressives took regarding Gore's 2000 loss.

First of all, the "Democrats" (DLC types, corpowhores, Clintonite apologists, etc.) criticize the progressives and more left-leaning liberals for fleeing the Dems to vote for Nader, and pinned Gore's self-inflicted defeat on us.

Now, many of us who stopped working for Dem Presidential candidates in 2000 (AND 1996, like me) are returning to our party to help drag it back to its populist roots, because not only do we want to beat Shrub, we want to bring CHANGE to how this country runs, and how it serves its people.

But now we get criticized because we're going to "ruin" their chances of winning in 2004 by nominating some "liberal"/"populist"/"wacko" freak who doesn't represent the "New Democrat" ideals that have cost us power and influence over the last dozen years?

Well come on now, Clinton apologists, DLC sympathizers, corporate whore-o-crats: what's it gonna be?

Do you WANT us to help you beat Shrub? Are you WILLING to address
the traditional liberal issues we bring up (like fair trade, good jobs for working people, national health care, a clean environment, controlling corporate power, etc.)? Or do you insist on driving over to the right lane, to out-Republican the Republicans with such sell-out positions as so-called "free trade" and "welfare reform"?

Make up your freaking mind already. If you WANT us to help you, then don't dismiss us and our issues so quickly.

If you don't want our help, don't be suprised when you get your asses handed to you by a well-funded BushCo AGAIN.

:eyes:

[library_max]

29. With all respect, I think you've got the argument backwards.

It's great that you're back in the party. No one wants you to leave. Support Kucinich and work for him all you like. That's why we have primaries - to reach a consensus about the nominee that is going to carry the party's banner in 2004. Of course, don't forget the essential logic of democracy - when you're part of the process and given your full say, you don't get to disown the result if it isn't what you wanted.

And that's the complaint about statements like the "pathetic mimicry" statement. It's one thing to support your favored candidate, or run and try to win if you are the candidate. It's another thing to try to delegitimize the process in advance because you think you're not going to win. So when Kucinich says things that are easily interpreted as encouraging his supporters and other like-minded Democrats to reject the party's nominee unless that nominee is him, that is a problem.

It's not us who are threatening to kick the supports and bring the party crashing down if our guy isn't nominated. Or do we have to roll over and give you everything you want just to prove that we're glad to have you back?

[OhioStateProgressive]

43. if Democrats want to actually win elections again there better

be some rolling over.

[library_max]

44. Based on what?

Or is this just another kill-yourselves-or-we'll-kill-you political threat? Because the party that wins is always the party that appeals most strongly to the center, not the party that runs to the base.

[MadHound]

49. One simple question then

If your assumption is true, then how come the 'Pugs are getting more conservative and winning? No running to the center for them, hell they're heading straight for their base all the way.

[library_max]

55. That's not what Bush did in 2000

When, anyhow, he didn't win.

9/11 moved the center. We can object all we want, but it did, in part because the Bush Administration and the right wing "Mighty Wurlitzer" pumped out so much opportunistic propaganda when the electorate was panicky and vulnerable. For sure that's what hurt us in 2002. Jesus Christ couldn't have won as a Democrat in 2002.

How much will the Bush Administration's lies and excesses come back to haunt them in 2004? On that question hangs our chances to get Bush out of the White House. I agree that we need a nominee who will talk about the Bush Administration's corruption and lies and failures and demand accountability, but that's all of them, even Lieberman to an extent. Kucinich is certainly not the only Democratic candidate who is critical of Bush and his policies.

The problem is that people don't like to admit they were wrong and stupid people don't like to admit that they were/are stupid. Can we get past cognitive dissonance and persuade an electoral majority that Bush is a terrible president? I hope we can. But it can only hurt us to position ourselves on the left extreme and demand as basic rights things that have never been done before. It makes it too easy for people who are looking for an excuse to dismiss us.

[MadHound]

68. That's exactly what the 'Pugs have been doing for the past twenty years

Moving ever rightward, to the point where even Goldwater looked like a liberal(and that is paraphrasing Goldwater).

Unfortunately the Dems have moved right along with the 'Pugs

[library_max]

70. And then there's reality. /nt

[MadHound]

98. Yes, and the reality of the matter is

That Nixon was more liberal than Clinton, much less Reagan, Bush I or Bush II. Let's see, did any of those presidents do anything to compare with Title IX, normalizing relations with China, creation of the EPA, nuclear disamament, and on and on? Don't get me wrong, I think Nixon was a double dealing dirty low down crook, but the policies he enacted while in office were significantly more liberal than anything done since Reagan took office, on either side of the aisle.

That is the reality, I'm sorry if you can't accept it, but there it is.

[library_max]

99. Good, you changed your argument.

First you were saying that Republicans have been moving right ever since Goldwater, which was so ridiculous (Nixon being a case in point) that it was more appropriate to dismiss it than answer it.

Nixon was the last Republican president in liberal times, and he was an extreme political pragmatist. You're right, if you look at his actions as president (not counting his criminal actions or his private statements), he has a much more liberal record than any Republican president since. That's N-I-X-O-N, not G-O-L-D-W-A-T-E-R.

Ford was a moderate running against Jimmy Carter, but Ford had Watergate hanging around his neck. It seems almost quaint now how upset the nation became about their president having lied to them, given the record Reagan and both Bushes have had in that area, but it was a big deal at the time.

Reagan was an extraordinary politician who came along at just the right (or, really, wrong) time. The postwar boom had died as it inevitably had to (the rest of the world was industrializing and retooling, the U.S. no longer was the only major manufacturing nation) and white males were starting to discover that civil rights and fair employment were actually going to cost them something. Carter was a rather feckless president made to look even worse by world events. Reagan the actor had a knack for telling cheerful lies with an honest face and people were desperate for "optimism." He got the chance to take a conservative readjustment and give it a big rightward push.

But Bush the elder was less conservative than Reagan, and so was Dole. Remember that Bush coined the term "voodoo economics"? Remember "kinder and gentler"? Remember that after shamelessly demagoguing on the tax issue, Bush quietly tried to do the right thing and got crucified for it by his own party?

Bush the shrub ran as a "compassionate conservative." The people who talked the way he is now governing, like Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer, were no-chancers. Bush lied and slipped in under the radar. We can thank Reagan's popularity for the difficulty that the media now have in calling a president a liar and making it stick (to the point where they've basically given up).

So now that the game is up and everybody knows what Bush is like, he's toast, right? No, because of 9/11 and cognitivie dissonance. 9/11 still has major segments of the electorate panicked. They think the U.S. needs to be an s.o.b. in the world to ensure their safety - it doesn't occur to them that "safety" is an illusion, everybody dies of something eventually. In the first throes of that panic and the inevitable plastic patriotism that followed, the majority basically wrote Bush a blank check, which he promptly cashed. Now, the first thing we have to do to win is to convince people that they were wrong, wrong, wrong about Bush, terrorism, Iraq, etc., and that's a hell of a hard sell.

But none of this changes the basic fact that the only way to be elected president is to run toward the center. Every successful candidate has done it, every one that hasn't done it has failed (mostly spectacularly).

[MadHound]

101. Do you even read my posts? Do you have short term memory problems?

I really do wonder about these things, because(and I refer you to post #68) I said "That's exactly what the 'Pugs have been doing for the past twenty years" TWENTY YEARS, not forty. And gee, guess what 2004 - twenty puts us back in Reagan's first term, not Goldwater. Sheesh the reason I brought up Goldwater was to paraphrase him.

Please, read or reread before you post. Even I'm starting to get embarassed for you.

[library_max]

103. You're grasping at straws, my friend.

You brought up Goldwater, not me - sheesh yourself. And then you started your second argument with Nixon, which was thirty-five years ago, not twenty.

And even if you want to start the clock at Reagan's first term, you're still wrong - Bush-the-elder and Dole were both less conservative than Reagan, in both rhetoric and (in Bush's case) in official action. That's what I said in the post you are replying to. Do you even read my posts?

However, I'm not embarrassed for you. I figure that's your job.

[OhioStateProgressive]

51. well, i mean, it is a...

"nominate left wing candidates, or consistently lose elections because that large chunk of the base stops voting, votes Green or NLP"

this may be the last election where the Democrats can get away with this crap of watered down Repubs constantly being the choice

[library_max]

56. Yup, the murder-or-suicide choice, as I thought.

Running left has never worked in the history of American presidential elections. If we run left in the general election, we go down in flames, guaranteed. So you're saying that if we don't immolate ourselves in that fashion, you'll do what you can to kill our chances a la the Florida 2000 Green vote. Gee, thanks.

And again, remember when you're going on about "watered down Repubs" that the issues you want to defect over aren't tried-and-true American values, they're innovations that have never been tried before.

[OhioStateProgressive]

57. I'm an ideologue, I don't care(nt)

[library_max]

61. I get that.

Clearly you also don't care if Bush gets four more years.

[OhioStateProgressive]

64. tomorrow doesn't matter

what matters is if we will be here 100 years from now...

the temporary band aid of removing Bush doesn't change a thing

and the "thing" that needs changed will only be changed by Dennis Kucinich

so in the end, no, it doesn't matter

[library_max]

69. The next 100 years will just be one long string of tomorrows.

I don't understand where you folks get the idea that reality will magically turn itself upside down if you just project far enough into the future. The more Bush, the farther right the nation will go. If it's Bush in 2004, it'll be DeLay or Robertson or some such in 2008 and nowhere but downhill from there. Why do you think they're putting so much effort into redistricting and the appointed judiciary? They're engineering the "reich that will last a thousand years."

[OhioStateProgressive]

72. hmmmm...there is hope

help elect Kucinich

or at least help him get the VP nomination, then you might be able to get away with your watered down repug candidate

[library_max]

77. So you've assumed the right to personally select the nominee.

How generous of you - saving millions of Democrats all that trouble in the primaries.

[OhioStateProgressive]

80. not my fault if you see it wrongly(nt)

[OhioStateProgressive]

59. "american values"

well, first off, there are human values, i take no part in the Nationalism of this Country

[redqueen]

53. History?

Look at the party's success since the DLC took the reins.

[library_max]

63. Do you mean Clinton's election in 92 or his re-election in '96?

Or do you only want to harp on 2002, which was entirely a product of 9/11?

[redqueen]

84. I forget

How many Democratic seats in Congress & the Senate did we pick up under Clinton?

[redqueen]

87. How many seats on the hill did we gain under Clinton? n/t

[library_max]

91. Sorry, actually logged off my computer for a while there.

First, the opposition party (the party not in the White House) almost always gains seats in Congress during non-presidential elections. Second, that was the time period during which the last of the true Dixiecrats switched over to Republican. So it wasn't so much losing seats as having it made official that those seats had already been lost. What actually cost us a working majority in Congress was not the defection of the Dixiecrats, who were never on our side, but the demise of the liberal Republicans. Explain, please, how the demise of the liberal Republicans is the DLC's fault.

[tinanator]

96. bs

bs

[MadHound]

45. Trouble is with all the DLC Dems is they've already rolled over

And given the corporations and greedheads everything they've wanted. "Free" trade? Done! Welfare "reform"? By all means! The Patriot Act? How small do you want the pieces of the Constitution shredded to sir! A war in Iraq? How about the power to wage unlimited war sir!

And on and ever on ad nauseum.

And speaking of disowned, how about us, the activist, populist base of the party? Boy talk about disowned, we have been. For twenty years now we've watched the Dems creep ever rightward to the point where they are now running 'Pugs like Clinton and calling him a Democrat. I mean honestly now, what else would you call a president who "reforms" welfare, flushes well paying UNION jobs down the drain, rachetes ever upward the Constitution shredding War on Drugs, and who praises media monopolization? I certainly wouldn't call him a Democrat, FDR would be spinning!

But obviously you don't get it, that the entire process is already delegitimized. You have two parties that are being controlled by the same corporate masters. The same corporate masters like Phillip Morris, who gave two million plus to the Gore and Bush campaign. The same corporate masters who practice this dual giving just to insure that they remain in control and in charge no matter whether the person in office has a D or R behind their name. It simply doesn't matter anymore.

This is why Kucinich is so very refreshing to many of us, and why, if he isn't nominated, many of us will not be voting or voting third party. We are tired of the same ole same ole corporate whores running. Since Kucinich doesn't take corporate money(like the Greens), he is only beholden to we the people. I know that is a novel concept for some of you, but there it is. So if our fleeing the party brings the Dems down, so be it, it apparently wasn't worth saving, and something better and more responsive to the people will rise from the ashes. And meanwhile, the DLC can go to the corporate party that better suits them anyway, the 'Pugs, and leaves us liberals and populists alone.

[library_max]

58. Great.

Very constructive, especially the name-calling. Split the left because the party of FDR isn't liberal enough for us any more, because it isn't politically suicidal enough to support our extreme agenda. Perfect formula for perpetual Republican control of all three branches of the federal government. Thanks so much.

[GreenArrow]

113. at this point in time

moving further left is an antidote to suicide. Whether we head dramatically further right, with a Bush re-election, or slightly further right, with the election of one of the mainstream Democrats, the country will still be moving right, and that move is the suicidal one.

I suppose it just depends on whether you want the iron fist to wear a glove or not.

[library_max]

122. Your premise assumes that if the Democrats run left, they'll get elected.

History tells us that they won't. Democrats running left equals four more years of Bush. Democrats running center means a return to something like the Clinton years. If you don't see how that would be an improvement, you're so far into your own little world that there's not much point trying to explain it to you.

[GreenArrow]

125. my premise is actually something different

It's that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If the Democrats run left and lose, the country is doomed. If the Dems run left and win, which history suggests is unlikely, than our chances of doom are mitigated. However risky, it is still the best chance to salvage what remains of our political system.

Both parties are hurtling ever rightward; the "viable" Democratic candidates are further to the right than even Bill Clinton. Bush, Cheney and the PNAC boys are driving the train now. They're throwing on coal, they're hitting the throttle hard. They don't care about curves, they don't care about hills; their motto is full speed ahead. If a Democrat take over as engineer, he'll hit the brakes and slow down, but the train will be on the same track and heading to the same place.

If this country doesn't move left, and pronto, we are screwed. Period. Effectively, I don't suppose it makes much difference. If the Dems run left and If Bush gets re-elected we're doomed. Assuming a corporate, right wing Democrat gets elected, then we are simply postponing the inevitable. We're still doomed, because the direction that the country is headed is unbalanced to the right.

The old traditional divisions of Democrat/'Republican are in their death throes, the terms themselves increasingly meaningless. There is really one party, the party of the corporate oligarchs. And yes, it has its own internecine battles, but most of us are just pawns in those. It not "my little world" that we're in partner; it's a brave new world we're heading to, and a great many of us aren't going to like it one bit.

[library_max]

126. Whew. Calm down.

"The 'viable' Democratic candidates are further to the right than even Bill Clinton." Got anything, anything at all, to back that up?

The train thing is metaphor abuse. A train can run only in two directions, and one of them is reverse. That's got nothing to do with the body politic or the US government.

If you'd take a look backwards at American history, it would help you gain some perspective. First, money has always been a big part of politics. Always. People with money have always had more say. Second, there have been long periods of conservative politics (the Gilded Age, for example) and the nation survived. And reforms and differences that seemed small at the time did in fact lead to bigger reforms and eventually the New Deal, etc.

What we're hyperventilating over is that some of the gains we made in the seventies and late sixties might be reversed. Actually, in many cases we're hyperventilating that laws and programs that have never existed before (such as single-payer health care and international guarantees of worker's rights) might not be enacted, thereby irreversibly destroying the American dream.

The two worst things Bush is doing are the unjust war and plunging the country into debt to fatten the rich. Both have been done before and the country survived. Neither would have been done by any of the "corporate right-wing Democrats" you deride.

Try to develop some perspective. All of the great progressive eras started with small reforms and developed momentum. This country doesn't do instantaneous reverses, which are the stuff of bloody revolutions and alternating dictatorships anyway.

[HFishbine]

73. About Corporate Whores

This is exactly why Kucinich supporters should consider Dean their second choice. Dean has revolutionized presidential campaign fundraising. Dean is running on the people's money, not corporate money.

[OhioStateProgressive]

75. NAFTA

get your good Doctor to agree to take steps to revoke NAFTA and WTO, then the possibilty arises

[library_max]

78. Not the possibility of actually being elected, mind you.

Just the possibility of getting OSP's vote.

[OhioStateProgressive]

81. i'd be willing to bet that many DK supporters would

vote for Dean, should he be the nominee, if he supported Fair Trade

[library_max]

83. Whoopee.

That'll offset the billions of dollars and millions of voters that would be turned against Dean over that one issue.

[GreenArrow]

114. I would if he supported free trade

and opposed the death penalty...

and had a humane and liberal view of the obscenely wasteful drug war...

And if he didn't side repeatedly with business interests at the expense of the commons...

And if he didn't want to continue enrichment the corporate thieves in the pharmaceutical/medical for-profit health industry...

And if he wasn't willing to continue wasting lives, money, resources and time prosecuting our occupation of Iraq...

and so on...

[tinanator]

95. what are you talking about?

Dean/Clark supporters and big name endorsers dont want primaries, they want their candidate locked in before a vote is cast. What Kucinich said is the truth, not a threat or proclamation. Your misinterpretation folds right into the same old corporatist propaganda aimed at the left over the last 4 years.

[paulk]

40. that's not what he said, Madhound

re-read the post.

[formernaderite]

105. Thanks mad hound

I get tired of the democrats trying to coerce people into voting for them. It's almost as bad as recruiting a republican who happens to be anti-Iraq to run against the real democrats in this race.

[JVS]

24. Sweet! I can't wait for the Green Stalin.

Then there will be changes!

[Kanary]

13. If it's "laid out" by candidates, this whole topic will be moved.

You've brought up an important issue that needs to be discussed, and I would hate to see it deteriorate into one more candidate bashing thread and moved to the primary section. There is much of importance that can be said about this without getting into which candidate says what.

Kanary

[Mairead]

54. You're right, Kanary--I got distracted. But it was moved anyway.

So how attractive WOULD a Bush Regular vs Bush Lite election be? Because we all know, I think, that if the Bush Lite crowd succeeds then we're going to hear nothing but how we MUST vote for their lizard so that the other lizard doesn't get in. But 'vote for my lizard' is not an argument that will appeal to me, and I suspect that it won't appeal to the 100M people who couldn't see a meaningful difference between Bush and Gore, either.

[GreenArrow]

115. So how attractive WOULD a Bush Regular vs Bush Lite election be?

'Bout as attractive as the second debate in the 2000 election or the vice presidential debate the same year.

It's not so much a question of their lizard versus our lizard as it is a question of their snake versus our lizard. See, there are real distictions at play between the two parties!

[Mairead]

117. There are certainly distinctions between Bush and DK

But between Bush and Dean? Not many, according to Dean's web site, and none of them substantive. If we're foolish enough to elect Dean, we won't see any significant changes at all. We'll going on handing most of our hard-earned wealth to the elite few, we'll go on having our children kill and be killed in Iraq, we'll go on having a gutted Constitution,.... It's really not at all appealing.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

127. This is not time to talk about issues

There are new polls and magazine covers to discuss!

TWL

[MadHound]

6. Wake up, open your eyes before it is too late

Our two party system has devolved from two distinct parties, representing two distinct groups of people, to a two party/same corporate master system of government. I mean, c'mon now, can you actually imagine a Democratic president of even thirty years ago supporting NAFTA(which ships well paying UNION jobs overseas), welfare "reform", media monopolization, an ever increasing, ever more invasive War on Drugs, and on and on? Did you realize that in the '00 election cycle well over forty corporations gave $100,000 plus to both the Bush and Gore campaign? Phillip Morris topped the list with over two million dollars to each campaign. Thus they insure that the corporate agenda is given top priority no matter who wins.

And then we have the spectacle of the Democrats in Congress rolling over time and again helping enable Bushco's ongoing destruction of our country. This is supposed to be the opposition, the party of the small guy, the working stiff. But oh no, we're going right along with whatever the boyking wants, because our corporate master say it should be so. Invasive abuses of privacy, no problem! A pre-emptive war of empire, hear you are sir, how big do you want your war?
Keep shipping those well paying jobs overseas? Right away sir, and we'll throw in the high tech sector as a bonus!

So what's the difference again?

Well, there is one, and that is the speed with which the destruction occurs. 'Pugs tend to speed the matter along faster than the Dems, but hell, even that gap is being overcome.

But Kucinich speaks the truth, which is why I will vote for him, and have donated to him. He is quite frankly a throwback Dem, a man whose ideals harken back to FDR. And it is telling about the Democratic Party how much they marginalize and ostrasize the man. He is the conscience of the Democratic Party and is making them quite uncomfortable, especially since he isn't taking any corporate money. Oh My God, no corporate control, this can't be!

And in all reality, if Kucinich isn't given the nod this year, I will be voting Green. Because I simply can't stomach pulling the lever for another corporate whore who is going to sell us down the river for the benefit of his corporate masters. At least with Bush it is out front and in the open that he is going to screw us. These corporate whore Dems smile and say their for the little guy, but screw us over nonetheless when their behind closed doors. Either way, the result is the same.

[Terwilliger]

30. what kills me about the leftist rhetoric coming from most of them is...

when the nomination process is over, they're going to abandon a lot of the leftist ideas they've been using to solidify their base

Dennis wouldn't.

[library_max]

41. "The destruction of our country"

Someone from Mars reading your posts would think that the US had always been a idealistic, mostly peaceful social democracy in which money never had anything to do with politics until Bush, or possibly Clinton, came along.

The things you appear to demand - universal publicly-supported health care, an end to foreign wars, legalization of drugs, and a divorce between money and politics - these are things that have never existed in the United States. So the Democrats are "destroying" the country by refusing to make completely novel changes in it, or at least by not making them quickly enough.

Please understand, I support all those things, although I doubt if they are politically practicable in the present climate. But it's not as if we already had them and the Democrats gave them away.

Now, there is somebody destroying the country, by plunging it into record debts and deficits, by rolling back the Bill of Rights, by privatizing essential public programs, by slanting the tax code and trashing necessary regulation and legal protections to favor the rich, and by falsifying intelligence to justify a war and routinely lying about all matters related to public policy. But that's not the Democrats. You can say the Democrats haven't put a stop to it, but how are they supposed to do that when the Republicans control all three branches of the federal government? And how is that going to change if progressives like yourself insist on throwing away their votes?

You can shout "corporate whore" all you want, but your stance makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[MadHound]

60. Those "things" as you so quaintly put it

Are positions that are supported by the majority of the people in this country. And some of those positions were once held nationwide. Drugs were, until the twenties, legal in this country. You could go down to corner druggist and get all of the coke you wanted to cram up your nose. Also at one time their were restraints on campaign financing. But those restraints have been eroded away over the past twenty years, capped off with Clinton's sellout and unconstitutional invention of soft money contributions. And yes, many, in fact the majority in some instances, have not wished to get entangled in foreign wars. That was the mantra of our forefathers, one that was echoed as recently as the Vietnam war by the majority of the population. You say you favor all of these positions, well don't dispair, you and I ARE IN THE MAJORITY!

And you hit the nail on the head, the Dems haven't put a stop to a damn thing, in fact they have rolled over on piece of legislation that Bush brings. You don't think that they could do a thing? You're wrong, there are many tools at their disposal, like the filibuster and the bully pulpit. And I know that there are enough old line 'Pugs in Congress who are horrified at the crimes that Bushco is committing that they would caucus with the Dems IF THE DEMS WOULD PUT UP A DAMN FIGHT! They are supposed to be the opposition party, instead they act like Bush's lapdogs.

And quite frankly the only way one can be part of this problem is by refusing to hold the Dems accountable. I'm not doing that, I'm joining with other like minded people to forge a solution. If you wish to join, great, but if not, well, you know what they say about people who do the same thing over and over, expecting a different result every time;)

[library_max]

67. "Positions supported by the majority of the people in this country."

No matter how you slice that (and you've sliced it every which-a-way on this and past boards), it's still baloney. When you ask people whether they support those programs as such, they say no. It's only when you ask people if they want things for free without referring to a specific government, tax-supported program that they say yes. That's no help in an election.

As for foreign wars, you know perfectly well that our forefathers were sharply divided on this issue. You seem to think that you can put any idea into their mouths that you like, the same as you do with the "majority."

But I must admit, what a great "solution!" Crucify your friends and allies (or the closest thing you have to friends and allies in real politics) and leave your worst enemies in complete control of the situation - why didn't I think of that?

[MadHound]

79. Ooops, you've walked into it now

Tell you what, why don't you go read Michael Moore's new book, he's got some great stats on what the majority of Americans want. Or how about some Jim Hightower? Or Gallup, Pew Research, NRO, the list can go on and on. Those are my sources telling me that the population of this country is liberal. Do you have anything backing you up in your position? Or is this just a gut feeling? I've given you some sources, let's see yours.

As far as our forefathers go, I believe it was Washington who advised us to steer clear of "foreign entanglements" a sentiment that was echoed by Presidents down through Jackson and beyond. In fact it wasn't until the 1840s that we were involved with a foreign war, and that was with Mexico. But of course you didn't address the majority of people who wanted us out of Vietnam, or even more recently the majority of people who didn't want us in Iraq preemptively or unilaterally.

I hate to tell you this, but we are a nation of liberals. But since that word has become stigmatized in the past twenty years, we just don't want to be CALLED liberal. That doesn't change the underlying beliefs or morals.

[library_max]

82. Support for the Iraq war is currently at about 60%.

Opposing Vietnam and supporting working people is what got McGovern squashed in 1972.

The US became a world power in World War I, and the world power after the Cold War. 1840 isn't going to come again.

I've read Moore, I've read Hightower. They're entertaining and inspiring, but they're useless as guides to practical politics. You might as well consult Tim Allen on real-life home repairs. You forget that we've been all through your sources in previous posts. The real numbers you present don't mean what you say they mean. You keep changing the wording to distort the significance of the numbers.

Less than 20% of Americans are liberals. If you want to "prove" otherwise by distorting history and statistics, be my guest, but don't expect me to be impressed by it.

[MadHound]

86. You have drank the Kool-Aid haven't you

The reason that McGovern lost in '72 was two-fold. First he was getting all sorts of dirty tricks played on him by Nixon(does Watergate ring a bell? That was the tip of the iceberg). Second, the DNC was so pissed that God forbid the people spoke and they said they didn't want the handpicked candidate Musky that the DNC offered NO support to the McGovern campaign(suprise, suprise, doesn't that sound familiar). I know, I worked the McGovern campaign. If you called in for supplies, or cash, or whatever, nine times out of ten you would get curtly dismissed and told that it was up to the local office. And yes, in 1972 the majority of people wanted us out of Vietnam. Go do your history research.

You say you've read Moore and Hightower, and then blithely dismiss them eh. Do you also dismiss their detailed sources too? Like the Gallup Poll, the NRA, Pew Research, and others? Are these sources too much of an idealogue for you? And you know what, we been through these numbers and sources before, and you keep dismissing them, I guess because the truth is too painful for you. But what I have yet to see is ANY sources, research, footnotes, books, etc to back your happy ass up. All you do is bluster and blather, yet you have yet to produce any FACTS, STATS or NUMBERS. Why is that? If all I say is so much shit, why can't you attribute some source to back you up? We're waiting.

And as far as Iraq goes, before we went in, back in Febuary and March of last year, sixty percent of the population opposed the US going to war pre-emptively and unilaterally. You can go check Mother Jones for that stat.

And yes, I read broadly also. That twenty percent figure is how many Americans CALL themselves liberals. However if you query them on their actions and ideas, you find that a vast majority ARE liberal(again I refer you to the above sources). They just don't want to be called liberal, and who can blame them after Limbaugh, O Reilly, Hannity etc have demonized it. Stop getting your talking points from the conservatives, it just makes you look foolish.

[library_max]

92. Still baloney.

Still not impressed.

:boring:

[MadHound]

94. Still have no sources to back yourself up eh?

Here, I have another book for your reading pleasure. "Wealth and Democracy", by Kevin Phillips. Of course you probably think he's a loon too:eyes:

[library_max]

100. Philips makes a very powerful economic case.

But he's not talking about the politics of elections. Nowhere does Philips say that the way to win presidential elections is to run left.

As for the rest, it's still baloney and I'm still not impressed.

[MadHound]

102. Yes he does make a powerful case

One that shows that Americans are much more liberal than you would like to believe. He makes it in economic terms, with questions regarding taxes and corporate election control, but it is just anothers piece in the puzzle my friend.

As for the rest, well, I'm still waiting for you to refute me with sources.

[library_max]

104. Regarding "sources"

I refer you to Al Franken's book, specifically the section on "How to lie with footnotes."

Regarding Philips, find me the statement where he says that we can win presidential elections by running left and we'll talk. Moore and Hightower say stuff like that, but they're primarily humorists, not political strategists.

You have only to look at decades of election results to refute the self-centered notion of "everyone is as liberal as me." It's still baloney and I'm still not impressed.

[Mairead]

90. "Opposing Vietnam and supporting working people is what wrecked McGovern"

No, what got McGovern squashed --I was there-- was the arrogance of his supporters (they remind me sooooo much of Dean's) and their failure to even try to explain to people why it would be a good thing to vote for McG. They behaved like a Marxist cadre, which frightened some people and irritated the hell out of the rest.

[Mairead]

89. "these are things that have never existed in the United States."

Yep, and publicly-funded pensions and 40-hour workweeks and laws protecting unions and... also had 'never existed in the United States'. Til FDR.

We're ripe for some big pro-populo changes. They're so overdue that it's painful. 'Now's the day and now's the hour. See the front of battle lou'r. See approach proud Georgie's pouer: chains and slaverie!'

[library_max]

93. FDR.

Kindly notice that FDR didn't run on a platform of publicly-funded pensions, 40-hour workweeks, and laws protecting unions. He found opportunities to get those things done after he got into office. Lincoln didn't run for president promising to free the slaves, either. The big good things get done when people of goodwill are in office and see an opportunity. But people don't get into office by promising to take the country on a one-eighty. People get less than twenty electoral votes for that.

I can't help thinking that if you'd been politically active in 1932, you'd have supported Debs and not FDR.

[Mairead]

112. Actually, he stood for a virtually socialist platform at first

It was later that he moved to the right.

Check your history.

[library_max]

118. This is what Encyclopedia Americana says.

"The 1932 Campaign. During the fall campaign against Presdident Hoover, Roosevelt suggested a few parts of this "new deal." He supported spending for relief and public works. He favored some plan, undefined, to curb the agricultural overproduction that was depressing farm prices. He spoke for conservation, public power, old-age pensions and unemployment insurance, repeal of prohibition, and regulation of the stock exchange.

"Otherwise, he was vague. He said little about his plans for industrial recovery or about labor legislation, and he was fuzzy about foreign policy and the tariff. On some occasions, he promised to support increased expenditures for relief; on others, he denounced the Hoover administration for extravagance.

"FDR's equivocations on these issues alienated some intellectuals and reformers, who turned to the Communist or Socialist party on election day. But for most Americans, including the majority of progressives, Roosevelt seemed the only viable alternative to Hoover, who many people blamed unfairly for the Depression. On election day, Roosevelt captured 22,821,857 votes to Hoover's 15,761,841, and took the Electoral College 472 to 59. The voters sent large Democratic majorities to both houses of Congress."

So that's it, verbatim, with nothing left out and no wordings changed. Hardly supports your theory about him running as a socialist, does it? Now if you want to claim that he ran as a socialist "at first" and changed his tune long before election day, okay. The point is that he was elected on a platform of mild reforms and mostly not being Herbert Hoover.

[redqueen]

119. Were these not huge reforms / plans?

spending for relief and public works
plan to curb agricultural overproduction
conservation
public power
old-age pensions
unemployment insurance
repeal of prohibition
regulation of the stock exchange

You act as if these were all safe, commonplace ideas that most of the electorate already supported. Is that so?

Americana says that "Roosevelt seemed the only viable alternative to Hoover, who many people blamed unfairly for the Depression."

This statement says a lot about their perspective.

Here's another version of events at the time "In 1932 Hoover states publicly that "no one in America is actually starving." But he is wrong. Things have gotten so bad that some people are getting themselves arrested, on purpose, just so they can eat. The president is out of touch. At the White House, he and Mrs. Hoover dress formally for dinner each night and sit down to seven-course meals."

So yeah, he may not be the be-all-end-all cause of the depression, but the americana is obviously whitewashing Hoover's attentiveness to the situation. Did he cause it? No. Was whether or not he personally caused it even an issue? Maybe - probably not, though. Did he do much at all to alleviate the suffering of Americans? Hell no. Which is why Americans FAIRLY voted him out on his ass.

Americana indeed. :eyes:

[library_max]

121. You seem to be trying to go in two directions at once.

First, you use items from the EA quote and present them as refutations of my argument. Then, you attack EA's credibility as a source.

Second item first, EA is correct, Hoover did not cause the Great Depression. That's all it says on the subject in that particular quote, which is from the entry on Roosevelt, not Hoover. How does making a simple statement which is perfectly true constitute a "whitewash"? You might want to have a little more to go on before you impugn one of the most respected standard reference books in libraries across America.

Now to the first point. Relief and public works were hardly new ideas. An "undefined plan" is hardly a major innovation. Conservation goes back at least to Teddy Roosevelt. Lots and lots of politicians in those days were running on platforms promising the repeal of prohibition and some form of regulation of the stock market, given that a) prohibition was a spectacular failure, and b) the stock market crash had brought about three-plus years of the Great Depression. The other three items, I'll grant you, were innovative, but they were hardly "a socialist platform."

The original argument was that FDR hadn't been elected on a promise to take the country on a 180 degree turn, and I stand by it. Even in the depth of the Great Depression, on the groundswell of progressive feeling that it produced, FDR was proposing moderate reforms and relatively innocuous changes. Did you notice the paragraph beginning, "FRD's equivocations . . . "? It was after he was in office, particularly after 1935, that the New Deal began to be a real one-eighty for the country, which supports my thesis that the big good things happen once the good guys are in office - promising them doesn't get the good guys into office, it gets the about 20 electoral votes.

[redqueen]

123. Refutations?

Wow, someone's trying really way too hard. :)

I didn't post those as 'refutations', friend. I posted them asking if they were commonplace or not. Clear?

And if you re-read my post, you'll notice I didn't say EA was wrong about Hoover & the depression. I simply pointed out how they framed their information. Stating a true factoid does not in and of itself constitute a whitewash. However what they chose to state says a lot. Did you notice what I wrote about the information they chose to publish? Perhaps EA could have instead stated that the American public FAIRLY blamed him for not doing anything about (and not even having a CLUE about) the suffering caused by the Depression... but they didn't. Hmmmmmmm.....

[Terwilliger]

28. "a big difference"

such a huge difference that EVERY Dem candidate for president has mentioned the idea that the Democratic party needs to move away from "Republican-lite"

So, I guess there's some truth to what Nader said after all.

As for Dennis' comments above, you can't shake the idea that Democrats are offering up policies that are not all that different from what Bush is doing. Sure, on some issues, there is real opposition, but on most other issues, the similarities outweigh the differences.

Kucinich is the only real alternative that has been offered by Democrats.

[Touchdown]

4. Kucinich knows the real deal.

There's no sense in having an opposition party if we act like Republicans. Harry Truman knew this, and it's no less true today.

[TexasSissy]

8. I guess it depends on viewpoint. I know of no "Bush Lite."

There's no one quite as horrible as Bush, that I know of. And none of the Dem. candidates is Republican, in my view. They are all clearly on the left, some close to the center, some far left. But still left.

So I guess it depends on your viewpoint.

[Kanary]

11. Yes, Sissy, it depends on your viewpoint! Exactly it!

If your job has gone overseas and you're without work and paycheck, or if you have lost your means of support because you are disabled and all benefits were cut, then, of course, it doesn't matter whether it was a Repub or Democrat who sold you down the river. It makes no difference at all -- the result is the same.

At one point, the Dems used to care about these issues, and used to care about the people who were affected. Not any more, obviously, as your post attests. Given that, those affected are speaking up and are very displeased with the Dems. Is the party going to wake up and recognize this and take action, or is it going to just fade away?

We are real people, in real pain, and deserve more than to be so easily dismissed!

Kanary

[MadHound]

12. I guess you haven't been paying attention then

Would any real Dem have voted for the IWR? Would any real Dem have rolled over for that abomination known as the Patriot Act? Would any real Dem sponsor and vote for welfare "reform"? Would any real Dem, ah hell, it just goes on and on and on.

Sorry, but the by far vast majority of today's Dem candidates are nothing more than corporate whores dressed up in Democratic clothing. To pretend otherwise is to delude yourself, a possibly fatal error. They are not elected to represent you or I anymore, they are put into power by mass infusions of corporate cash, and are thus beholden only to their corporate masters. And if you don't realize this by now, then you haven't been paying attention for the past ten years. Gee, we got a huge high tech boom during the ninties. Why did the Democrats insure it's collapse with "free trade" agreements and H1-B visas? If the economy was so damn rosy, why did the gap between the rich and the middle class reach record proportions? If the economy was humming along under Clinton, why did the numbers of working poor reach record proportions? If Clinton was a Democrat, why did he act like a 'Pug?

Sorry, but King Corp. has corrupted both parties. And since both parties take corporate lucre, both parties have to dance the corporate dance. Meanwhile, you and I are left out in the cold, straining to be let into a party that we once owned.

[corporatewhore]

22. Well Said !!!!!

[Terwilliger]

31. Some people think Bush is a genius

so, I guess it all depends on your point-of-view

[angka]

14. well well

so anybody but bush now looks a little less appealing? now that you're starting to wonder if maybe a couple of these guys really are the same corporate shills, with a 'D' after their name?

been saying this for months, even back when it was highly unfashionable to do so...but since the field is about to meaningfully narrow, and the rank-and-file do not seem to be picking the 'shilliest' of this pack (too bad for them), well, i can only just hope that the other corporate shills who in large part run our Democratic party will have the courage to get out of the presumptive nominee's way.

[jpgray]

17. Very true. But if there was ever a time to hold your nose... (nt)

[adamrsilva]

20. Yeah, but Dean is the non-Bush lite candidate, not Dennis

Dennis *is* too liberal to win.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

110. Policies

Bush doesn't cut Pentagon budget...Dean won't
Bush keeps Patriot Act... So will Dean
Bush keeps NAFTA... Dean will not cancel it
Bush likes death penalty... Dean also

I guess it's all perception.

TWL

[Forkboy]

21. What does he mean "ends up"?

We're pretty much there now.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. Nader Lite will drive away more people

American voters don't like extreames. They will reject an exteamist from the left just like they will reject an extreamist of the right.

[Forkboy]

27. Pretty sad state of affairs

when the most sensible of the bunch is too extreme for the electorate.

No wonder this will be my last time voting Dem.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. The Republican party rejected the extreame wing of it's party 4 years ago

Sure Bush is conservative, but he is no Gary Bauer or Alan Keyes.

[Forkboy]

37. He's worse,but he hid it well

and too many suckers bought the compassionate conservative crap :shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. Do you really think that Bauer or Keyes would have proposed immigartion

reform like how Bush did? Bush is a right-winger, but not as far right as thoses two. It would be like saying that Kerry is just as liberal as Kucinich.

[Forkboy]

42. Kerry is just as liberal as Kucinich.

Dont I wish :D

[Terwilliger]

47. everything he does is political

and what the hell does he care about immigration...he and his buddies just need more cheap labor for the ranch

[Terwilliger]

38. what did you see differently than anyone else?

Bush made REPEATED references to his god beliefs, to his plans for initiating laws that would give religious institutions government money, nearly nixed Powell because the far0right didn't like him...what rejection are you looking at?

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. Just look at how conservatives are pissed at Bush for immigration reform

and the Medicare bill.

[Terwilliger]

32. tell me...who is extremist left?

Nader? He's not even a socialist, FFS!

What is extremist about Dennis Kucinich??

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Want an immediate withdrew of troops from Iraq is extreame

Even Carol Mosely Braun sees it as foolish.

[Terwilliger]

52. No, in fact CMB got it wrong, like everybody else

Dennis does not advocate anyone pulling out unduly, just quickly. We have to change our policy toward Iraq, treat them with some respect, and persuade both the UN and Iraqis that the UN presence makes more sense to the ultimate peaceful ends of the situation. The other Democrats want to FIX Iraq by occupying it under the same kinds of attitudes that ultimately got Bush his war in the first place. Iraqis will always be our enemy as long as we treat them as if they're incapable of taking care of themselves.

[Terwilliger]

33. *echo*

[MadHound]

36. Nader Lite? Puhleeeze

Kucinich (and Nader, and the Greens for that matter) espouse a platform that is no more liberal than FDR's was. It is a platform that the majority of people in this country support. People WANT universal health care, people WANT sensible gun control, people WANT real CFR, people WANT us the hell out of Iraq, people WANT gay marriage. So if the majority of people in this country WANT all of these things, how radical is that platform? Quite frankly it looks like they are positions that are in lockstep with what the MAJORITY WANT.

Sorry, but if the Democratic Party puts up another DLC, corporate controlled, 'Pug lite candidate again this year, they had better kiss their chances of winning goodbye. People are sick of this two party/one corporate master crap, and if they find no difference between the two candidates a lot of people with either stay home or vote third party. And a lot of the Dem's base will be gone for good. I'm a good example, a lifelong Dem(I even worked for and voted for Gore, against my better judgement), quite active, part of that dependable, activist base. Over the past twenty years I've become ever more sickened watching my party creep ever rightward, to the point that they are no longer the party of the little guy, the working stiff. The ONLY thing that is keeping me around is the candidacy of Dennis Kucinich, a throwback Dem who truly believes in the age old ideals of the Democratic Party. I feel he is the last best chance of the Democratic party to make a difference in this country. And if he doesn't get the nod, then I'm going to go Green. Me, a lifelong Dem driven out of my own party by the very people whom the Dems once despised, corporate whores. And you know what? There are millions more out there like me.

So go ahead, take that gamble, nominate a 'Pug lite. But don't be suprised if it doesn't turn around and bite you. Because people are looking for a real change in this country, and if the Dems can't provide one, then the people with make one on their own.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. I'd rather have a Bill Clinton than a Walter Mondale

Apperntley the American electorate agrees.

[MadHound]

66. The American electorate is hardly getting a choice!

Gee, I'll take the corporate controlled sock puppet on the left, rather than the corporate controlled sock puppet on the right! Just don't look behind the curtain, it is the same corporate master controlling both sock puppets.

[Freddie Stubbs]

74. No one wants the sock puppet controlled by burned out hippie peaceniks

The party learned its lesson from 1984 and 1988. 1992 and 1669 proved that.

[OhioStateProgressive]

76. yes, Cromwell killed the King around that time, i believe(nt)

[Terwilliger]

88. 1669? was that pre-convention?

and what other crap are you trying to tie together here?

Burned out hippie peaceniks? Does that make these others zealous yuppie war-mongers?

[MadHound]

97. Nobody wants a sock puppet period

What they want is a president who is their own person, beholden to nobody but their constituents. As it is what we are getting are presidents who put the priorities of the rich few exclusively ahead of the vast majority. It is a pretty sad state of affairs when paper corporations have more rights and privelges than flesh and blood citizens.

Ooh and that was a real cutting attack with the hippie remark. Say what you want about hippies and peacenicks, but you've got to admit that they were out there and involved, and that their actions brought about change. What have you done, oh so straight laced one?

[rucky]

26. The Man is Fearless

please stay in til' May... pleeeeease

[JohnKleeb]

35. Then get people votign what they really want

Then you just may see him there in May :). However if we continue the ad nasuea of I love what Kucinich stands for but hes unelectable, give the man a chance, sorry for griping but it just breaks ones heart when people actually agree and believe with what your candiate stands for but wont support him because they think he won't win, I think I read somewhere that if Iowa voters were voting their consciences, he would be amongst the front runners there. This downright saddens me, hope begins, fear ends. Simple message yet so true. Hopefully with a suprisely good showing in Iowa, Dennis may get some of those past cynics, I hope so.

[rucky]

62. You're right. I have not done enough.

Kicked a few bucks his way, but have been hesitant to really gun for him...on DU & beyond.

[JohnKleeb]

71. not mad at ya dude, its all good

But if this is what we believe in, lets give it a shot. Some say wait till 2008 or 2012, its like being a Brooklyn Dodgers fan in the 50's, wait till next year those Brooklyn fans would here, they finally won one in '55. Ok sorry for the baseball history :), now they first by saying what I paraphrase above basically says hey even with so and so "electable" candiate we still may lose, and in 2012, maybe people dont know this but Dennis Kucinich will be 66 that year. I know I am not the only DK supporter who doesnt love the man for the issues, we love him for who he is, he is great inspirational. Its ok Rucky but we'd love your support, and if people want to take their country back not only take it back but take it to a new level, then I think they should follow their hearts. The nominee gets my support but only Kucinich really has got my heart, I would be so happy if he were the nod.

[dpbrown]

65. If it does, people won't vote, or will vote third party

And all the handwringing about "Don't run, Ralph" won't mean diddly, because the paltry 5 million or so "conservatives" holding the Democratic Party hostage don't hold a candle to the 80 million who didn't vote in 2000, plus the 3 million who already took the plunge and voted third party.

Run a Democrat's Democrat, or don't expect to win by a decent margin, and a decent margin will probably be necessary to win in 2004.

The choice, of course, is yours.

Fear Ends
Hope Begins
Kucinich 2004

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[ThirdWheelLegend]

106. Nobody wants to listen to the truth Dan..

I have already heard this from many of my acquaintances that voted for Nader in 2000.

They are going all out for Kucinich and if he is not the nominee, they are voting Green or not all. Not a threat, just the truth.


TWL

[OhioStateProgressive]

120. exactly

I won't vote Green

but I will vote Socialist, write in vote obviously

[KaraokeKarlton]

85. That's the danger in nominating Clark or anyone who supported the war

The only reason people like Clark is because they think he can out-Bush Bush on defense issues.

[snoochie]

107. How many will turn out to support the lesser evil?

I would hope it wouldn't be as close as last time around, but Bush is doing a lot of kissing up (immigration, medicare) which most people don't seem to realize is just empty promises or outright fraud.

I hope he isn't able to sway too many to vote for the devil they know.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

109. it's worked so well in the past...

:eyes:

Oh well here's a kick for the best candidate we have had in YEARS!

GO DK!

TWL

[MoonRiver]

116. If people don't turn out then they can kiss their 18-23 year old

children good-bye. The warmongering * regime will reinstate the draft. That's the only way to get enough cannon fodder for their never ending war for oil (oops, I mean against terra). And those 18-23 year olds might want to think a little about their probable fates also, if * gets another 4.

[Mairead]

124. A question about the 2005 draft

Since Dennis is the only(?) one saying 'pull our kids out', and our forces are greatly overextended already...

It seems to be accepted that Smirk will re-start the draft if people are fool enough to let him have a legitimate term. But if Dean or Kerry or whoever wins instead, won't they also have to re-start the draft? If not, where will they get the forces to maintain the occupation? They're going to be facing the same shortages SmirkCo faces now.

Where do Dean, Clark, Kerry, et al plan to get occupiers, if not from a new draft? Why is nobody talking about this?

[Mairead]

128. bump for this question

(perhaps i should start a new thread instead?)