Will Deaniacs pull a Nader on the Democratic Party?

[kskiska]

Some of the insurgent's supporters say they're going to take their idealism and go home --- but most of them will probably get over their bitterness and support the nominee.

On Jan. 30, three days after Howard Dean came in a disappointing second in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, posters on the late-night open thread on the Dean for America blog excoriated John Kerry. "At first, I was in the ABB category, but I refuse to be cowtowed by the corporate-controlled media and vote for a gutless democrat who rolled over and played dead for George Bush or one who helped draft the Patriot Act," wrote Sydney Platt, a 42-year-old from Houston. Another poster castigated her, but many more supported her sentiment. One wrote, "I have decided that perhaps America must lose everything to value something. That may be what it takes to actually get our country back if Dean goes down."

If this sounds familiar, it's because some of the rhetoric coming out of the most disillusioned quarters of the Dean camp recalls that of the Ralph Nader campaign. Among parts of the Dean movement these days, there's much railing at the corporate-dominated Democratic Party, plenty talk of rejecting the "lesser of two evils" approach to politics and abundant slandering of front-runner John Kerry as "Bush-lite." So as it grows increasingly likely that Dean won't be the Democratic nominee in 2004 -- and that Kerry will be -- some are wondering, and worrying, whether all the devoted legions of activists that Dean brought into the Democratic fold will stay in the party, spoil the race or just stay home. If Dean goes down, will one of the greatest grass-roots movements in Democratic history go with him -- a rerun of the Nader fiasco four years ago? Or will Dean supporters decide that beating Bush is more important than remaining true to their man and their principles and support the Democratic nominee, whoever he is?

(snip)

"It looks like the Democratic Party, they're just bullying us around by putting Kerry out there," says Platt, a Dean volunteer who says she's never been involved in politics before this campaign. "The press is courting him. They think they're going to win and I'm not going to let that happen. Kerry voted to let Bush have carte blanche because he was too weak to stand up to him. There's no reason to support the man, after all the effort we put out ..."

But isn't four more years of Bush reason enough to support any Democrat? "Maybe in four years the Democratic Party will learn something," says Platt. "Maybe it takes another four years for it to hit rock bottom before they will wake up and smell the coffee." Platt is echoed by Nancy Fulton, a 39-year-old mother of three from Santa Monica, Calif., who says that rather than vote for Kerry, "I might be happier impeaching Bush if he took a second term."

For an outsider, there's something odd about this cavalier attitude toward the threat of another Bush term. After all, much of Dean's initial appeal lay in his frank denunciations of the president's right-wing extremism at a time when other Democrats insisted on treating Bush as a credible leader. Dean thrilled his followers by articulating the full ghastliness of Bush's agenda. How, then, can those followers believe that their anger at Kerry justifies risking more of the horrors that presumably brought them into the campaign in the first place?

more…
http://salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/04/deaniacs/index.html

[lastknowngood]

1. We owe the party nothing but we are mostly ABB

but crap like this really pisses us off and alienates us from the gloating media selected losers. Yes I have an attitude.

[wabeewoman]

2. My perspective

"there's something odd about this cavalier attitude toward the threat of another Bush term."
Maybe but what it feels like is that the media who have sold out to bush have decided that Kerry is the anointed one and they have trashed Dean. This means that bush is choosing his running mate. If you doubt the media's affect, listen to the exit interviews and the panels of voters-all talking about 'electability.' This was the buzz word used to denote Dean wasn't up to the task. Without media interference Dean would be the front runner. And without Dean, the democrats would be pussyfooting around bush like the milktoast they were for the past 3 years. I am pissed and disillusioned with how its going for Dean but it ain't over until its over. When and IF Dean is defeated, I'll vote for whoever the democratic candidate is-but with a very bitter taste in my mouth. And I'll know that it is just an illusion that the people can really choose their candidate.

[Democat]

3. These people need to wake up and realize they are becoming Nader 2004!

There is no difference between the words of some Dean supporters and Nader in 2000.

Every excuse they offer for why they want Bush elected in 2004 could have been taken from an article about Nader supporers in 2000.

1000's of people have died because Bush is in the White House. If you help him get another 4 year term because you can't face reality, then blood will be on your hands too.

[ixion]

4. this is NOT a two party system...

this is a democracy. And that means that you can vote who you support. Now, that said, this time around is different. This time around I will vote for the Dem nominee, because I want the Bush cabal out of office.

But the condescending 'Deaniac' stuff is very uncalled for, IMO.

And quite frankly, I don't care much for Kerry, I don't think he is the best candidate, but using this ditto-headesque logic, I should tow a party line.

*sigh*

[Larkspur]

5. My 2nd choice after Dean is ABB

but that doesn't mean my enthusiasm and money will go to ABB. It will go to MoveOn.org or if Dean turns his campaign into a PAC, I'll split it between Dean and MoveOn.org

I braved the elements in NH for Dean. Won't do it for ABB but will work with my Dem Town Committee in the general election -- phone banking, lit drops, poll watching.