Angry DUer's---Don't get mad, get even!

[littlejoe]

Lately, a torrent of anger has flooded the DU forums. It seems to me that most of this anger is not directed toward Bush, but toward other dem. candidates.

There has been a lot of ill will directed toward Kerry lately. This I do not understand. Like it or not, he's the front-runner. Most likely he will be our nominee. It is disconcerting for me, when I hear people, many DUer's, say that they will vote third party, rather than Kerry. Or they say they just won't vote in the general election. True democrats wouldn't do that.

Anger is not necessarily a bad thing, if focused properly. So, let's not get mad because your candidate is not the front runner. Focus your anger at Bush, and pour your energy into getting this extremely dangerous man out of the White House.

If we can accomplish this, it will be a glorious victory.

Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE needs to support Kerry and quit trying to rip him another orifice.

[Dookus]

1. I agree entirely

but I don't hold out much hope it will actually happen.

This appears to be the first election for a lot of people - it's the only explanation for some of the behavior I've seen here.

[arwalden]

11. Apparently Some Folks View This As A High-School Football Game...

where if you can just YELL LOUDER and CHEER HARDER and really-really-really show that TEAM SPIRIT you'll carry the day and your guy will be elected.

All that energy and enthusiasm is VERY admirable. Unfortunately, the way that energy is being applied is unrealistic, naive, and reckless.

That's not how real life works. That's not how politics works.

Why in the world would anyone who opposes Bush, his war, and his policies SO MUCH... why would they vote in a way that actually HELPS him? This makes no sense to me.

-- Allen
...

[littlejoe]

17. Your reply was bewitching. (Sorry.)

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

42. Explain That Again... Who Are You Most Opposed To?

Certainly you can agree that one of two people will be elected president: the Democratic nominee, or the Republican nominee.

So by voting against those who (in your estimation) have "enabled him", you YOURSELF become the enabler that you despise so much. Hmmm.

How delightfully ironic... and sad at the same time.

-- Allen

[Astarho]

38. As long as

the "D" team wins everything's fine right?

[arwalden]

43. Yes. That's It. As Long As The "D" Team Wins.

That is the most important thing right now.

Push-em-back
Push-em-back
Wa-a-a-a-ay BACK!

Push-em-back
Push-em-back
Wa-a-a-a-ay BACK!

[in_cog_ni_to]

52. *chuckle*

:7 Funny! I have my pom-poms out!

[littlejoe]

16. I have to agree with you. n/t

[HuskerDem]

50. Yeah, I agree the first election syndrome seems to be rife here

But the good news is: DU is not reality. Out in the RW Democrats DO understand that the most important thing is getting W out of the White House. He's quite simply the most reckless, destructive and dangerous president we have EVER had. He is the WORST president we have ever had and to pretend that even Joe Lieberman would have been 1/20th the danger and detriment to our country is to have ones head planted firmly up one's own ass.

"I won't settle for the lesser of two evils"
TRANSLATION: I will only accept a perfect candidate.

WAKE UP JR & Juniorette! THERE IS NO FUCKING PERFECT CANDIDATE! YOU DID NOT GET YOUR WAY! GET OVER IT ALREADY!

Anybody looking for the "perfect" candidate is destined for at least one divorce. When did we start raising kids to be this god damn selfish?

[quinnox]

2. It's just a lot of whining

and temper tantrums being thrown (mostly by a certain candidates supporters who never liked Kerry in the first place). It is of no import and won't change anything, Kerry will be the nominee and will defeat Bush.

[Catholic Sensation]

3. They don't NEED to support John Kerry

all us Kerry supporters are asking for is their vote if Kerry is the nominee in November.

I think a lot of the anger on this board can trace its lineage back to Bush, whether it is the 2000 election, Iraq War Resolution, or simply the fact he's so god damned stupid, we on the left are angry (justifiably so) and the primary is like the playoffs in football. We all have candidates we favor vehemently over the other, but I think, in the end, the Super Bowl (aka November election), the vast majority of us will support (to some extent, even if simply by voting) the good guys (Democratic nominee and his running mate).

[indigo32]

4. Look

I'm not involved in ripping anybody another orifice... but I DO NOT HAVE to support him YET. Hell even in Nov I don't but I will.

[littlejoe]

20. Thank you.

[jansu]

66. See!

"You are either for us or against us"! Where have we heard this before?

[littlejoe]

71. When it comes to ousting bush, you are exactly right!

[MASSAFRA]

5. If Kerry is the nominee

I will support him. Since I live in PA, the primary will most likely be meaningless. My primary mission is to take the White House back and the country. The alternative is unthinkable.

[littlejoe]

22. Thank you. That is all we can ask.

[smiley_glad_hands]

6. I think most people will make the right choice come November.

Everyone hear knows what 4 more years of Bush will be about.

[maxanne]

7. many of us are angry

because people keep telling us what we HAVE to do.

It's not a winning strategy.

[arwalden]

13. For Those People Whose Goal It Is To Remove Bush... Then Yes...

this is what must be done. If this is NOT their goal, then they should vote as they please.

These people are certainly welcome to send all the messages they want. Protest votes, third party votes, write-in Donald Duck votes, throw-away votes, non-votes... whatever. Pick one... do it. Then shut up about it.

People have tried to define to me what a "winning strategy" is... yet they continue to threaten actions and protest votes that benefit the one person they claim to want out of office: Bush.

One of two things is clear to me: either they don't REALLY want Bush out of office, or they don't REALLY know what a winning strategy is.

Indeed, these voters don't HAVE to do anything. But if they WANT to win... if the WANT Bush out of office... then this is what they MUST do. To that whole group of people who think that way... I respectfully suggest that they ought to grow up.

-- Allen

P.S. A third option would be that these voters are simply being selfish and naive and reckless.

[maxanne]

39. see what I mean

You're telling me what to do and to shut up at the same time. Not a winning strategy.

[arwalden]

41. Guess What? --- I... Don't... Care.

I really don't. You've made up your mind and you may vote as you see fit... regardless of how reckless that decision may be and regardless of how selfish it may be. Being of legal age is a requirement for voting... being able to make mature decisions isn't.

What I do care about (and look forward to) is that very soon now, the disgruntled fringe people who are dissatisfied with or "principally opposed" to the nominee (eventual nominee/presumptive nominee) will not be permitted to use DU to encourage the defeat of the Democratic candidate. Nor will they be able to encourage behavior that will benefit Bush*.

-- Allen

[maxanne]

47. yes,

heaven forbid there should be discussion, Allen.

How have you justified Kerry's waffling on gay marriage?

[HuskerDem]

51. Well I don't know about Allen

But I haven't seen any waffles since Dean left.



mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


waffles.

[arwalden]

65. With Vermont Maple Syrup... Mmmm.

I'm hoping all these mutiny threads have run their course.

-- Allen

[arwalden]

53. I'm Not A One-Issue Voter. Rather Than Being Selfish...

I choose to look at the bigger picture of what's best for America on the whole. I'm not naive enough to believe that there is the "perfect flawless ideologically pure" candidate, so rather than letting the Republicans walk all over me (and the country) I choose to my actions based on what will benefit the better of the two candidates.

I choose the positive. I am proud to be able to choose the BETTER of the two candidates. Unlike many other people... I do not have the luxury of being able to wallow in sanctimonious discord and whine about not wanting to pick the "lesser" of two evils. WHAT BULLSHIT!

Blah-blah-blah... I know what these folks typically say in response. There like to "remind" me that there are more than two candidates running for president. Yeah-yeah, we've heard this non-starter before.

While it may be true that there are more than two candidates, the fact is that there are only two contenders and only ONE of TWO will actually be elected. In their hearts they know this is true. They just can't bring themselves to say it out loud.

-- Allen

P.S. I have some news... ready? I don't need to discuss this with anyone who has declared their intention NOT to support the Democratic nominee. There is no "discussing" it.

People who think that way are wrong and there's no two ways about it. They are just wrong, simply wrong, dead wrong, completely wrong, entirely wrong. I don't know how much MORE wrong they could possibly be!

Their actions (inactions) will serve to support the Democratic nominee or they will serve to support the Republican nominee. But no matter what action they choose, ONE of the nominees will benefit from what they choose to do.

"Heaven forbid" indeed. What a laugh! Those folks are not somehow ENTITLED to argue with me. I have absolutely no incentive or reason to engage people who refuse to support the Democratic nominee in vanity debates. In the end it becomes nothing more than a series of contradictions.

I choose to shut-off this debate because it's NOT a debate, it's not a discussion, it's destructive. I see no need to engage those people on that low level.

Those folks will selfishly do what they will. Those folks would be wise not to try and use DU to poison the minds of others with their selfish and reckless hatred of the Democratic party.

Edit: clarity.

[littlejoe]

72. You've never backed up on any statements you've made?

Perhaps his opinion is evolving. Perhaps he misspoke. Perhaps he is waffling. Gay marriage is a fringe issue that will not determine the general election. Probably, like most politicians, John Kerry hadn't given two seconds worth of thought to gay marriages. Now, all of a sudden every candidate has to have a position on it. Give the man a break.

[littlejoe]

23. I trust that you are an American. As such, you don't have to do

a damned thing come general election time. But if you truly want Bush out, then it's true, you have to support Kerry with your vote. On this issue, there is a definite cause/effect ratio.

[maxanne]

40. yes I am

an American - a Democrat who ran for state office in 2002 - and may well be old enough to be your mother. I am offended by the arm twisting going on around here. It's presumptuous to assume that you know what I should do.

[littlejoe]

73. I don't mean to offend you, but please tell me,

just what is your agenda? Is getting bush out of office at the top of your list? It should be.

Okay then, you must get behind Kerry when he becomes the nominee. It really is as simple as that. Sorry, but it's true.

[lovedems]

8. Well,

While I was a Clark supporter initially, I have always been of the mindset that I would happily vote for any of the candidates. I thought they all were outstanding. It sure is hard to find that sentiment these days.

[adadem]

9. The most important statement you made is

"True democrats wouldn't do that."

I never thought I could cast a vote for Dean or Lieberman. After volunteering and donating to Dean I came to have several issues and switched campaigns. Even before Iowa I came to realize that the most important thing was getting rid of shrub and no matter what I would have voted for either if they had become the nominee because "True democrats wouldn't do that" to the party or the country.

Give it some time...I was angry for a few months after I switched campaigns, too. My anger was with myself for not doing my homework; that my initial candidate and I were ideologically different.

And this too shall pass. If one does vote third party or does not vote then you are right...they are not Democrats.

The race is not over.

[diamondsoul]

21. "they are not Democrats."

Excuse me???

When and how did I ever give you the authority to pass moral judgement on how I cast my PRIVATE ballot? When did it become anyone's right to decide what and who I am besides me?!

I resent that statement coming from you or anyone else! My vote belongs to me and how I cast it is none of anyone else's business, NOR does it determine which party if any I choose to affiliate with.

[Old and In the Way]

25. Resent and vent all you want,,,,if you vote 3rd party you're not a

Democrat. What part of that don't you understand? You want to pretend you are a Democrat and vote for against the Party? That means you are not a Democrat.

[littlejoe]

28. Thank you.

[littlejoe]

27. There are serious repercussions to your actions. That is

how I can pass judgement. So you want to do the deed, but don't want to take the heat? You can't have it both ways. If you want to throw away your vote, or do nothing, then be prepared to take some grief over it. Again I will say that a true democrat wouldn't do it. If you have been through the political wars I have been through, you would know exactly what I mean.

[littlejoe]

24. I ran into the same problem, Cheryl. But I am a Kerry

supporter now. Even had I switched my allegiance to Clark or someone else, I would never for a minute consider voting third party or just not voting. There is no other way to cut it, except to say that, "true democrats wouln't do that."

[Jacobin]

10. Some of us don't like politicians who support warmongers

I'm one of those.

I have two soon to be draft age sons.

"Angry" ain't the fucking word for it, btw.

The word hasn't been invented yet.

[arwalden]

14. Your Choices Will Be To Cast A Vote That Will Remove Bush From Office...

or you may choose to cast a vote that will help keep him in office. This is really simple.

-- Allen

[GreenArrow]

48. in other words you can vote for your choice between two warmongers

.

[arwalden]

54. Yes... That Pretty Much Sums It Up

I'm not a one-issue voter. I choose to pick the BEST candidate rather than wring my hands worrying that the best candidate is not the "perfect" candidate.

Unlike so many other people who prefer to make a choice based on their own ego, I choose what's best for the country.

-- Allen

[IrateCitizen]

67. I would rephrase your answer, Allen

You make it sound as if you are given a choice between "Good" and Bad". I would disagree -- the mere fact that we are choosing between warmongers should make it clear that the choice is between "very bad" and "pretty bad, but not as bad as the other".

I choose to pick the BEST candidate rather than wring my hands worrying that the best candidate is not the "perfect" candidate.

I would rephrase this as: "I choose to pick the not-quite-as-bad candidate rather than wring my hands worrying that the not-quite-as-bad candidate is not the "perfect" candidate.

Unlike so many other people who prefer to make a choice based on their own ego, I choose what's best for the country.

I would rephrase as: "Unlike so many other people who prefer to make a choice based on their own ego, I choose what's not completely destructive for the country, but rather what is marginally so."

Of course, if you truly believe that whatever candidate we are given by the Democratic Party is truly the "best" candidate seeking to do what is "best" for the country (and the rest of the world), then I apologize for the misstatement. But if that is the case, you and I certainly have drastically different definitions of the word "best".

[arwalden]

69. LOL... Tomayto, Tomahto.

Hopefully we can still make ketchup... or a nice sauce.

-- Allen

[littlejoe]

75. I would be willing to bet that, if Kerry had been president, we

wouldn't be in Iraq. Warmonger? Hardly. In case you've forgotten, he's been through one, up close and personal.

[littlejoe]

29. Then don't vote for Bush.

[Turkw]

12. I'm Angry with the media, with politics as usual mentality that ingrained

in the party leadership, and with Bush, with Bush mouthpieces, then with Bush again, and um Bush

[Rowdyboy]

15. Once the nomination is decided, I agree with you 100%

Until then, I'll support Edwards, without demeaning any of the other canidates in the process.

[kanrok]

18. That seems to be a hallmark of Edwards supporters

I support Edwards, but I will not denigrate any other candidate. I truly believe any of the candidates who are still in and who have dropped out, are all light years better than Chimpy. I will support whomever is our nominee.

[littlejoe]

32. Words to live by. And you are lucky to have Lovie.

[littlejoe]

30. Well and good. But I am addressing something else.

[waldenx]

19. more threats huh

telling us to sit down and shut up seems to be the norm around here.

A decade of pathetic failures, and Democrats still have not figured it out.

[littlejoe]

34. I'm not telling you what to do. I reserve that right for my son.

I'm just telling you what has to be done. You will do what you want, and we will have to live with the consequences.

[SinkingInTheRain]

26. No, some of us don't NEED to support kerry

I will vote the person and not the party they claim to belong to.

[littlejoe]

35. Then call yourself an independent.

[SaddenedDem]

49. And you might be wise to consider that you NEED the

independent vote to put your guy in office.

Your behavior here is not winning any independent votes for your side.

[littlejoe]

76. If my behavior is going to influence your vote, then maybe you

need to rethink your political values.

[Kanary]

33. You say you don't understand.

If you want to hear WHY I feel what I feel, and why I have taken the stand I've taken, and discuss it with understanding and openness, I'm willing to give it a try.

But telling me what YOU think I should do, even when you know nothing about me, is NOT the way to open a real dialogue.

Kanary

[littlejoe]

36. I don't need to know anything about you or your wishes or

political desires. I'll say it one more time. If you don't support Kerry, it's the same as supporting Bush. What part of that don't you understand?

[Paulie]

37. Not supporting someone before the convention is supporting BUSH???

You need to take a step back from the computer and take some deep breaths.

Until he is wearing the mantle from the CONVENTION, it's by no means certain he's the one. A lot can happen, both in the campaign and in LIFE that would make him not be the one.

Until then, all these hardnose threads do is PISS PEOPLE OFF!!! For what? NOTHING!

[arwalden]

46. No... That's Incorrect. -- The People Who Pledge To Vote "Third Party"...

or to not vote at all, or to write in a protest name are the ones who are supporting Bush.

The "hard nosed" threads you object to (the ones I've seen) are clearly against those folks who declare that no matter WHO the candidate is (and at this point it's likely Kerry or Edwards)... no matter who the Democratic candidate is, they will NOT vote for him.

That's a SLAM of the Democratic party. They are certainly welcome to make unwise and selfish choices... that's their perrogative... but DU is not the place to SLAM our party. Those folks need to get with the program or move on and out or find another party that better represents their beliefs and goals.

If there have been hard nosed threads that give individuals grief over their dedicated support for Kucinich or Sharpton (rather than the presumptive nominee) then YES those threads are out of line. THIS PARTICULAR thread doesn't appear to be something that you should be angry at.

That is to say... unless you've ALREADY decided that you will not support the Democratic nominee.

I hope this helps.

-- Allen

[Paulie]

56. It doesn't, I call BS

For the simple reason that beating someone over the head isn't going to sway them. How about listening to the issues, and then resolving them? Too much to ask? Maybe it is.

Or just vote for the Unity canidate, and we all WIN-WIN! :D :D :D

NBKITPACRTEMVITG = Nobody But Kucinich In The Primary, All Canidates Required To Earn My Vote In The General. :P :P :P

AIIAGTGC = And It Is A Given That George Can't ;)

[arwalden]

57. Oh Gee... Let Me Think. By Golly... Ya Know What? That IS Too Much To Ask!

I'm disinclined to engage someone in a "vanity" debate when it's clear that they have already made up their mind to NOT vote for the Democratic candidate.

Those people who feel entitled to my undivided attention should prepare themselves to be disappointed. There is no resolving the issues with selfish myopic people like that. These folks are the juvenile-minded provocateurs who merely wish to engage in a tit-for-tat series of contradictions for the purpose of annoying others and entertaining themselves.

When someone asks a thoughtful question, I'm more inclined to discuss things with them. For those jerks who choose to heap scorn on me an my party and BLUNTLY DECLARE that they have no intention of voting for the Democratic candidate... then I'm disinclined to acquiesce to their aggressive demands of MY time.

-- Allen

(I'm not sure what to make of those tongue-twister acronyms. I don't know what you were driving at, so I have no comment about them one way or the other.)

[IrateCitizen]

59. That's a two-way street, Allen

When someone asks a thoughtful question, I'm more inclined to discuss things with them. For those jerks who choose to heap scorn on me an my party and BLUNTLY DECLARE that they have no intention of voting for the Democratic candidate... then I'm disinclined to acquiesce to their aggressive demands of MY time.

The same thing goes for someone like me, a Kucinich supporter -- except in reverse. Every time people start telling us how the debates need to be limited to Edwards vs. Kerry, or that we need to unite around Kerry right now, or any of those other tired cliches -- the only thing it honestly does with me is to generate ill will.

Such propositions do NOTHING to make me want to join up with those making them. And while I have made up my mind to vote for the Democratic nominee, it almost makes me want to NOT vote for them out of pure spite to those who so vehemently insist that I do while refusing to even listen to issues that are important to me.

What Paulie was proposing through his acronyms (and he can correct me if I'm wrong on this) was that he wants to hear the broadest possible airing of issues -- and that includes keeping Kucinich in the race. After that, he STILL wants to hear about the issues, and that no candidate is "guaranteed" his vote -- although it's pretty damned clear that George W. won't be getting it and the allusion is clearly made that he will be voting for the Democratic nominee.

Please tell me why such a modest proposal for thoughtful and meaningful exchange on issues is consistently met with such vitriol.

[Paulie]

61. Ding Ding Ding

Thanks for actually READING my post. It's appreciated. :) :) :)

[IrateCitizen]

62. It seems to be a lost art form these days...

People seem much more predisposed to emotionally-charged invective rather than reflective thought and meaningful debate. I wish it weren't the case, but sadly it appears to be. In any event, I just try to do what I can to not get sucked into it all.

Sometimes I succeed, others I don't -- but it's nice to know that it's recognized. :D

[arwalden]

64. Unfortunately, I Did Make Statements In Support Of A Two-Man Debate...

which excluded Kucinich and Sharpton. I don't know if you saw it or not, but after sleeping on it, I posted a separate follow-up message letting folks know that I in my eagerness to rally behind one single candidate, I made a mistake.

>> Please tell me why such a modest proposal for thoughtful and meaningful exchange on issues is consistently met with such vitriol.<<

I believe that there must be some misunderstanding here. I'm not sure who is misunderstanding whom... so let me clarify something.

I am NOT opposed to thoughtful and meaningful exchanges or debates about the issues and positions of any Democratic candidate. I am not opposed to HEATED debate and arguments either.

I AM OPPOSED TO engaging in vanity-debates (which are not really debates) with folks who have already made up their minds that both the Democratic candidate and Bush are evil... and that they refuse to choose "the-lesser-of-two-evils". --- I could go on describing their behavior and irrational mindset... but it should be clear which group of people I'm talking about.

Paulie's comments appeared to be defending the "I-will-never-vote-for-the-Democrat" group by suggesting that I ought to take seriously and otherwise engage the irrational folks... and I took issue with that. ---If that's NOT what Paulie was suggesting, then I misunderstood and I am heartily sorry for my error.

If Paulie is NOT one of those folks who refuses to vote for whomever the Democratic nominee may be, then he misunderstood me---and obvioiusly my comments would not apply to him, correct? In any case, if he misunderstood me, then I apologize for not being clear enough.

>> Such propositions do NOTHING to make me want to join up with those making them. And while I have made up my mind to vote for the Democratic nominee, it almost makes me want to NOT vote for them out of pure spite to those who so vehemently insist that I do while refusing to even listen to issues that are important to me.<<

I can understand the frustration you must feel, but I think it is very unwise to throw away one's vote in an act of defiance and retribution against Internet jerks. Now *that* would be selfish.

>>... allusion is clearly made that he will be voting for the Democratic nominee.<<

That wasn't at all clear to me. It was so awkwardly worded that even with your explanation, I'm still uncertain about it.

I hope this clears things up for you.

-- Allen

P.S. Don't get me wrong... I'm not back-peddaling... I continue to stand by my earlier statements in opposition to the folks who selfishly and recklessly refuse to support the Democratic nominee.


Edit: Added P.S.

[littlejoe]

77. You have completely misunderstood my entire thread.

[edzontar]

44. Last I checked, Kerry still needs to win more delegates...

So this is more than a little premature.

Talk to me in a few months.

[nonconformist]

45. Agreed

And this is coming from a very angry Dean supporter. Yes, I'm still disappointed - not just because of Dean's loss but because I honestly don't feel that Kerry was the strongest in the field in many aspects.

But - OH WELL! What's done is done. There is nothing we can do about that now. I credit Dean for invigorating the Dems and uniting them on their aversion to Bush. He has played a critical role in this election, and he will continue to do so. To ignore Dean's contributions is not being honest with yourself.

I really think (hope?) that once the primary is over, people will come to their senses. I also think that while it may look like a high percentage on DU, in reality the vast majority of Dems, no matter who they supported in the primary, will do the right thing come November. Even if they deny it to the death right now. Emotions are still running high - give it time. They'll come around.

[Walt Starr]

55. I will NEVER support Kerry

I'll vote for him, but I will NOT support the man.

I look at 2004 as a guaranteed evil of two lessers.

[littlejoe]

68. Kerry is Not Bush

[Walt Starr]

70. The evil of two lessers

Bush is not Kerry.

BFD.

It's still the evil of two lessers.

I'll vote Kerry. There's nothing that says I have to like it.

[Crunchy Frog]

58. No, I think I will get mad

thank you very much.

I'm not mad at the remaining candidates, I am mad at the process, and at the media manipulation of the process, and at the Democratic establishment for front loading the primaries.

Don't worry, I've got plenty of anger left over for Bush, and the fact that I'm mad right now isn't going to stop me from voting for our nominee, or even from donating and working for his election.

But right now, I just feel like being mad, sorry for the inconvenience.

[mopinko]

60. achtung! get in line!

get over it. this is a democracy. who is whining here?
:puke:

[Rowsdower]

63. "fall in line and do what you're told!"

I guess we are no longer free to do and think what we want. We must bow down and follow orders from folks like littlejoe here. If someone isn't happy with the current frontrunner, then it's their goddamn right to make their voice heard because they are concerned about the party going down the wrong road. Nobody tells me what I should think and/or do.

[VOX]

74. I'm backing Edwards for now, but will back Kerry if that's how it ends up.

My only problem with Kerry is that he doesn't connect with people like Edwards. (All the Democratic candidates have been flawed, but none of them are Bush*.)

But I would vote for Kerry in a New York minute. Hopefully, Edwards will at least be on the ticket with him.