Dean Supporters: Please lay off the Kucinich bashing

[SweetZombieJesus]

While I did give up on trying to improve the discourse around here a while ago, I have to speak up about a bit of Kucinich bashing I've seen from some of my fellow Dean supporters as of late, and it needs to stop. Dennis and Bob Graham, as far as I'm concerned, should both be strictly off limits to any bashing, as they both had the courage and integrity to vote against the Iraq invasion. Both of these men have shown themselves to be on our side, and as such I think we should cut them some major slack.

That being said, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Kerry should get no compassion from us whatsoever. All three stood up to be counted with the enemies of democracy, and as such, all three are dead to me, and should be to anyone who was truly against the invasion.

[tjdee]

1. Bob Graham is "on our side" with Iraq?

I thought Bob Graham didn't vote for the resolution because he wanted it to be stronger/broader? That's not really *against* the invasion, is it?

on edit:
Oh, and also, if we invade North Korea or Iran in the coming year, will those candidates need to oppose that in order to still be living in your eyes?

[JohnKleeb]

2. Thats what I thought to.

But SZJ thank you, we're sorry if we come across as bashing Dean at times. I am glad you had enough class to this.

[SweetZombieJesus]

5. It's better than giving Bush the keys to the war machines

and giving him a map to Iraq. I have compunctions about the war on terror, but anyone who has the guts to stand up and say that Iraq shouldn't be our focus and tried to deny Bush his show war is on our side as far as I'm concerned. If you don't feel the same, that's fine, but the issue I'm really bothered by is the Kucinich bashing. Dennis is possibly one of the best if not the best Democrat we have in Congress, and is closer to my views than Dean, and if I believed for a second the rest of the country would ever go as far left as me, I'd support him. Unfortunately, I know that's not the case.

Kerry deserves every sling and arrow that's thrown at him, and Lieberman deserves even more than that. They've both sold out any ideals they ever had, so fuck them both.

[tjdee]

12. No, that's cool with me--but what about

North Korea, for example?

I agree with you on Iraq, but I'm just trying to see where you're drawing the line.

Are you saying that NK, Iran, Syria, etc. are valid targets for us and therefore 'alright' for candidates to support?

It could be said that Iraq was a valid target for us (I wouldn't say it, but some people would). Is it the lying that gets you, or is it the actual act of pre-emption/aggression (For me, it's both, I'm trying to see where you're coming from)??

[SweetZombieJesus]

22. Iran and Syria, fuck no, North Korea, I'm not so sure

I don't buy into the Kim Jong is The Devil crap completely, but he does scare me just enough that I can't say I would be totally against action against North Korea. The biggest problem is that I wouldn't even NEED to think that way, had the Democratic Party as a whole stood up to the BFEE BEFORE 2000, and before Bush and his bunch of idiots gotten a chance to bring us Cuban Missle Crisis 2: North Korean Boogaloo.

I don't know how to feel aobut North Korea, because it's not the same as Iran, Iraq, or Syria. There really isn't anything we'd gain from a conflict save for security in the region, and if a credible case (read: from any source OTHER than this administration) was presented, I think I might support an action. But that's not going to happen under present circumstances, so I can only hope we can get someone in there who can neutralize this situation WITHOUT touching off thermonuclear war.

[tjdee]

30. North Korean Boogaloo!

[dansolo]

37. Wouldn't a non-aggression pact be better?

Are you forgetting that North Korea has been practically begging for a non-aggression pact with the US, and this administration has refused. Don't you think that has something to do with recent events there?

[SweetZombieJesus]

43. I could go for that

But as I said, will we even get a chance to take them up on that offer? Or will Cowboy Georgie get to play with his ICBM's first and make the whole penninsula glow in the dark?

At this point, I'm too scared that the idiot is going to aggravate them to the point where they say "Fuck it, they're going to hit us anyway, let's shoot off a few."

We got lucky that Bush and co lied their asses off about the WMDs, because if Saddam really had anything, he would have unleashed it on our troops. I don't think we'd get so lucky with North Korea. This is potential WWIII stuff, and it scares me to the point that I can barely think about it rationally or logically. But then, maybe that's what they want.

[Andy_Stephenson]

58. Bravo!!! Well put!!!

"Kerry deserves every sling and arrow that's thrown at him, and Lieberman deserves even more than that. They've both sold out any ideals they ever had, so fuck them both."

[gully]

3. Stop bashing any dem period

Even Lieberman has a pretty progressive voting record on many issues, and is a vast improvement over Bush. Let's not forget that either, KWIM?

http://www.globalstewards.org/democrats.htm#env

[jiacinto]

4. Good idea

But there is a contingent of extremist Greens that wants to defeat Democrats and elect Republicans.

[bpilgrim]

6. didn't i just see you saying kucinich is unelectable?

so are you part of the 'contingent'?

peace

[SweetZombieJesus]

11. There's a difference between baseless bashing and stating my own reasons..

for not throwing my support behind the guy. I'm not starting bullshit threads sniffling about his abortion stance, which to my mind, he's explained to my satisfaction already. It's a non-issue, and even if I were to treat it as one, I'd still say that it doesn't matter to me near as much as selling us out on the vote for the war, which Dennis, to his eternal credit, did not do, and would not do.

Dennis Kucinich is, for any faults he might have, a true populist progressive. John Kerry is a sham, Gephardt is a bend-over Dem, and Lieberman is a schmuck. Not one of those three is fit to shine Dennis Kucinich's shoes.

[bpilgrim]

18. actually i was speaking to holy jiacinto

he likes to attack progressives and thinks he has all the truth.

he's a young buck, but needs to be called out on his divisive tactics.

i have no problem with folks bringing up their likes or dislikes i just don't like hypocracy which is the tribute he pays to virtue.

peace

[buddhamama]

44. hah!

good catch,bpilgrim

[sujan]

9. you are being dishonest in your assessment

but then again you must be a yellow dog. Distorted Reality vision.

[jiacinto]

10. That is true

There are often more Greens than Democrats here. And almost every day you can see a thread where people talk about not voting Democratic in 2004.

[sujan]

13. Greens are correct

in stating that there is no real choice.

What is the point of voting Lieberman over Bush? especially after http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/10/dems.candidates/

Independent voters probably outdo the registered members of the both parties so choosing the lesser evil is not really an option. Especially if you want to claim as the US being a truly 'democratic' republic.

And whilst DU may start with the word 'democratic' but that includes progressives too. And Green party members in general tend to be more progressive than say, an average Democrat.

[jiacinto]

15. Okay Several Issues I can think of

Headstart
Right wing judges
Abortion rights
Environmental Policy
Civil Rights Laws
Cabinet Appointments

I am not supporting Lieberman in the primaries because I don't think he has what it takes to beat Bush. But I would rather much more have a Lieberman administration than a second Bush adminsitration.

[sujan]

19. and they are very similar in many issues

Hawkish Foreign Policy
Social Reform Issues
War on Iraq
I/P issues
Pandering to Corporations
Military Expenditures
WTO/NAFTA
UN arm twisting

If it comes down to voting Lieberman over Bush, I would abstain my vote.


PS: I am not a democrat

[jiacinto]

23. I/P Issues?

Like any Democrat is going to run on an anti-Israeli platform? And I find it highly suspect that you mention Israel when talking about Lieberman, who also happens to be Jewish. Why are you singling him out for his posiition on Israel when almost EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT shares the same viewpoint. No Democrat is running on anti-Israeli platform.

As for "social reform issues" Bush clearly will take us much more farther. Headstart and other social programs will be dismantled even further. I disagree that Lieberman would do the same thing that Bush has doen to our safety net.

Regarding the military, in this era, no Democrat is going to run on defunding national defense. Running against in the military will lead to sure defeat.

As for coporate lobbies I will concede some ground there. But Lieberman's state is home to many insurance companies and he can't go against an industry that employs a large amount of his constituents and expect to be re-elected.

I am not a Lieberman supporter--I am voting for Dean right now. But should Lieberman get the nomination I would not hestitate to vote for him against Bush.

[sujan]

32. "I/P Issues?"

Yes
Democrats will most of the time side with the Israelis.

Like any Democrat is going to run on an anti-Israeli platform?
> Not anti Israeli, per se, just Neutral

And I find it highly suspect that you mention Israel when talking about Lieberman, who also happens to be Jewish.
> Has nothing to do with Lieberman's faith and I mentioned why about Lieberman

Why are you singling him out for his posiition on Israel when almost EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT shares the same viewpoint. No Democrat is running on anti-Israeli platform.
> Read above

As for "social reform issues" Bush clearly will take us much more farther. Headstart and other social programs will be dismantled even further. I disagree that Lieberman would do the same thing that Bush has doen to our safety net.
> I quite agree but with democrats the process only slows, however, does not stop

Regarding the military, in this era, no Democrat is going to run on defunding national defense.
> why do you always have to take it to the extreme? No need to defund, just cut some unnecessary cold war era programs that make no sense for the sanctity of national defense

Running against in the military will lead to sure defeat.
> No contest

As for coporate lobbies I will concede some ground there. But Lieberman's state is home to many insurance companies and he can't go against an industry that employs a large amount of his constituents and expect to be re-elected.
> Not just liebermann, almost all candidates

I am not a Lieberman supporter--I am voting for Dean right now.
But should Lieberman get the nomination I would not hestitate to vote or him against Bush.
> I think I have made my choice clear if it comes down to that contest.

[jiacinto]

38. I'll leave it at that

Allowing Bush to win another term is making life harder for millions of the most disadvantaged Americans.

[sujan]

40. sorry

Electing democrats != panagea

In fact if that is the only choice (Democrats or republicans) even in this day and age, then the electoral process needs some serious fixing.



And if you continually advocate the two party only system, then you'd rather not waste talking about real change.

[jiacinto]

45. The US is not like Europe

where minor parties get seats via proportional representation. I never said that life would be perfect if Lieberman got elected, but I do think he would be a major improvement over Bush.

But if you would rather have Bush for four more years then go right ahead. I am sure that you won't be one of the millions suffering because you "voted your conscience".

[sujan]

47. somehow

people do tend to survive even under republican administration, you know?

I will put effort to see some considerable change even if that means failure. I would accept that. But I reject the notion that you should always choose the lesser of two evils. Mainly due to the fact that it goes against my progressive ideals. Oligarchy is not a democracy.

Choosing Lieberman over Bush wont really mean much if you wanted to take his words and what he proposes to do, I refer to http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/10/dems.candidates/index.html .
I dont believe in being a sheep..a yellow dog.

[jiacinto]

49. I don't help elect Republicans

And frankly, if you do vote against the Democratic candidate in 2004, don't bitch about Bush for the next four years as you will have done everything possible to re-elect him.

[sujan]

50. again

if it comes down to Liebermann vs Bush, I will abstain my vote. If that leads to the re-election of Bush, so be it. Of course, I would then have to bitch about the democrats for putting up such an inferior nominee.

[jiacinto]

52. Well

I guess that we will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

[sujan]

54. yes

And If you could stop painting Green/Independent progressives in this board as being 'extremists'.

[jiacinto]

59. I do think the Greens are extremists

They would only support candidates that are blatantly unacceptable to the electorate at large.

[Andy_Stephenson]

62. Horseshit!

A true populist would take the country by storm! Howard Dean for example.

[sujan]

65. that is called 'Distorted Reality Field'

Green movement is much larger than the Democratic party.

And yes, Greens provide a better alternative than Democrats.

Given the adequate coverage, I am quite sure that Green would win considerable support. Two facts still remains, Independents outnumber registered democrats/republicans and if it came down to choose between a green and a democrat, true progressives in democrats would vote for green.

[jiacinto]

66. The Green Movement is quite small

Nader got only 2.74% of the vote. TR, LaFollette, Wallace, Anderson, and Perot did much, much better. Maybe if Nader had gotten around 6-10% of the vote I would think differently about the Greens.

The Greens are not going to be able to win any major office above the local level for the forseeable future. And given how the US is not a proportional system I don't see them being more than minor players.

[sujan]

67. hmm

dont worry Green party is still growing in the US especially with Democrats blurring the distinction between them and republicans (see Lieberman).

Also the fact remains, green party is a larger movement than the democratic party. Look how much clout it has gathered around the world especially in Europe?

[jiacinto]

68. There is a major difference here that you don't acknowledge

Most European countries have systems of proportional representation, where minor parties can get seats based on their vote share. If we had a system like that in America then you would have a point. But we don't.

[sujan]

70. therefore

people are seeking to change that. By participating in the process or lobbying to change the rules itself. Democratic and republican membership hasn't grown by sizable percentage over the years. More progressives are switching to Green and the indepedents keep on growing. So how long before we see a viable third party? Pretty soon.

The extremist...err, yellow dogs would be in denial but the numbers don't lie.

[jiacinto]

72. Well

If you want the Green to be viable it's going to need to get more than just 2.74% of the vote. That's not impressive at all and quite pathetic when you compare it to the major third party candidates of the 20th century.

Again I don't see the Greens winning any major office above the local level not for the forseeable future. Maybe they will become a key regional party in places like San Francisco, but they won't be a national party. At least not for several decades if even then.

[Tinoire]

71. Jiacinto

Nader could have easily gotten over 6% of the vote if "Leftist Retards" (I hear that's the new term) like me weren't continuously black-mailed into voting for the lesser of two-evils due to the disastrous 2-Party system that's got a choke-hold on our FEAR OF THE BOGEY-MAN!

Well, I have decided, thanks to people like you, that I am NO LONGER going to fear the Bogey-man. From now on, it's going to be me and my conscience in that voting both. Pray that Kucinich wins because you will see a lot more than 2.74% this time.

Enough people are tired of hanging with a party that deliberately stands in the middle of the road waiting to get run over and destroyed.

[Andy_Stephenson]

73. Amen!

"From now on, it's going to be me and my conscience in that voting both."

[jiacinto]

74. I doubt it

Maybe at DU you are someonewhat important. But outside of places like San Francisco, Berkeley, Boulder, Madison, Ann Arbor, Ithaca, Amherst, and Cambridge, I don't see the Greens being major players.

We don't have a propotional system. All you are going to be doing is electing Republicans.

Help re-elect Bush, but don't bitch him about in 2005 should he win another term. You will have helped re-elect him and thus you have no right to bitch.

[Andy_Stephenson]

75. You will help elect Bush if you nominate

re:puke:lite candidates. At least your supporting Dean. That is a start, but you have blinders on re Democrats. Sheep like almost, in your blindness.

[jiacinto]

76. Not sheep like blinders

But I would rather have a Democrat in office than a Republican. However, I've already talked to you about this; and you've made it clear--with the exception of Dean--that the only candidates you would support are the ones that are unacceptable to the general electorate at large.

[Andy_Stephenson]

77. Huh?

Your really reaching now Carlos. I won't vote for the "Lesser of two evils"...because evil will still win. Sorry no can do.

[jiacinto]

78. Okay

You've said that you won't for anyone who voted for the Patriot Act. That eliminates Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, Kuchinich, Graham, Lieberman, and Edwards.

That leaves Carol Moseley-Braun, Dean, and Sharpton. CMB and Sharpton are not electable. Of those three that only leaves Dean.

So I'm not stretching.

[Andy_Stephenson]

79. Uh...check again

Kucinich did not vote for Patriot Act.

[jiacinto]

80. I take that back then

I did some research and it seems like Kuchinich did vote against it. I stand corrected.

But even so Kuchinich could not win the general election.

[Andy_Stephenson]

81. Not with that attitude he can't.

But you seem to thrive on defeatism.

[jiacinto]

92. I disagree

I thrive on realism.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

The Patriot Act passed 98-1 in the Senate with the votes of liberals like Ted Kennedy, the late Paul Wellstone, and Barbara Boxer. Every Democratic senator except Russ Feingold voted for it.

If the Patriot Act is your litmus test you better start your own party.

[jiacinto]

97. Exactly

But see, even though the likes of Kennedy, Wellstone, and Boxer are there on the issues 75-99% of the time, they must be "punished for their vote on the Patriot Act". They must be replaced with Republicans who will only be there on the issues 10-20% of the time so that Kennedy, the late Wellstone, and Boxer can "learn" that 100% loyalty is demanded at all times; and anything less requires their removal from office.

[Tinoire]

100. Oh I see

Let's just maintain the chokehold right?

Let's insult loyal non-Centrist Dems by saying they're part of the "enemy" party- the GREENS!

Let's just smear and insult until we've run everyone out because Centrists are so convinced that all you have to do is yell "Bogeyman" and the votes will roll in.

How many elections will it take before you realize that that tactic is just as disastrous as their agenda?

For George W. Bush, I thank the DLC and the chart-flipping DLC apologists who are so out of touch with the people that they will never get it. If George W. Bush is re-elected, I will thank people like you who refuse to understand that people want a change and refuse to acknowledge that we will no longer tolerate letting a Centrist minority hijack and run our party.

Don't like Bush? Thank the DLC and all their apologists. There were quite a few right here in River City- I'm sure you remember some of them.

[jiacinto]

104. There you go again

I am not part of the DLC, but I am no fan of the Greens. And the Greens are the "enemy" if they are going to attack the Democratic candidate and try to defeat him.

Your precious Greens got only 2.74% of the vote in 2000. That is quite pathetic when you look at other successful third party candidates like TR, LaFollette, Wallace, Anderson, and Perot, all of whom got at least 5% or more of the vote in their runs.

It is obvious how little you actually care about governing and getting rid of Bush. If you did want him to lose next year you wouldn't be trying to defeat the Democratic candidate. But then again that's what people like you do: you work to defeat Democrats.

[Tinoire]

108. Sigh

You just don't get it. Never have and never will.

I have about 3000 thousand people who can vouch for what I've done and what I do.

I'm not even going to bother dignifying your ridiculous accusations with more than that.

Keep the blinders on Carlos. And make sure you check the soap-dish when you shower- there could be Greens lurking in there ;)!

[jiacinto]

109. They aren't riduculous

Either you want Bush defeated in 2004 or you want him re-elected. There is no gray area here.

As for your "3000" people that's quite small in a country with a population over 270,000,000.

[Tinoire]

111. Sigh. Double sigh.

[jiacinto]

113. Whatever

I am waiting in such anticipation for the Green landslide in 2004. Your party can barely even win local races for dogcatcher, and you act like you are a major party. That's funny.

[Tinoire]

119. Your hatred of the Greens borders on Pathological

Freud would have a field day with that one...

Don't know how many times I'll have to tell you that I'm a Democrat and not a Green- but why should that sink in any more than anything anyone else has been telling you at DU?

Nothing here is funny. And you are definitely not funny- neither funny nor accurate.

Here's looking to a few more nights on the streets of Baltimore for you. A dose of reality about poverty in this country to help you realize why people are not enamored with your centrism or grand ideas of privatization would not do you any harm.

Better Dead than Left, right?

Until then, farethewell. Gotta go. Gotta go do something more productive and more intellectually stimulating like maybe talk about Yaks in the Lounge.

Or start a Paul Simon ""One Trick Pony" thread there...

Nice song that.

He's a one-trick pony
He either fails or he succeeds
He gives his testimony
Then he relaxes in the weeds
He's got one trick to last a lifetime
But that's all a pony needs
(that's all he needs)

[jiacinto]

122. My hatred isn't pathological

I am just realistic as to what the Greens really are.

As for "doing something productive" I will be doing everything to get rid of Bush next year.

And what will you be doing?

Wasting your vote on a candidate who can't win while Bush gets re-elected?

And as for the pepole on the "streets" of West Baltimore another four years of Bush will only make their poverty worse. And I think you know that.

[Tinoire]

130. Sigh. Triple sigh. No use wasting more pearls. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. Perot Ran A Non Ideological Results Oriented Campaign

Big difference between him and the Greens.

This is a statement of fact not a value judgement.

[Mairead]

102. Carlos, *I*'m a Green. I voted for Gore not Nader.

That means that I didn't get counted as a Green voter.

You're a uni student. Do please try to show that it's having a good effect on you.

[Andy_Stephenson]

61. My feelings exactly....

If down to voting for Bush or the lesser of 2 evils, I will abstain. The Democratic Leadership might want to heed this view...ther are many that feel this way.

[sendero]

86. voting Green...

... = cutting off your nose to spite your face. Go ahead, but don't delude yourself that Greens will hold any nationwide important office in your lifetime. You have a right to a protest vote, so long as you understand that your "protest" will not change ONE DAMN THING ONE SINGLE IOTA.

[sujan]

93. you are a defeatist

"You have a right to a protest vote, so long as you understand that your "protest" will not change ONE DAMN THING ONE SINGLE IOTA."

[jiacinto]

95. It's the truth

Cold but true.

[jiacinto]

94. See

These people are more about "protest voting" than actually governing.

[sujan]

96. better than bending over

[jiacinto]

98. Which only goes to show that

your "all or nothing" approach will not get you anything. But I doubt that governing and actually getting things done was ever one of your concerns.

[sujan]

99. isn't it about time?

It's not just me. The largest number of people who are independent proves so.

Now it's just about sorting that crowd to build a party base which reflects their ideals. I am glad that Green Party will get the necessary momentum from that.

You try to discourage and deride potential voters who want a viable multiparty system. And it is contradictory to your statement 'green = extremists' itself because you seem to be in the extreme about not providing a better alternative.

Oligarchy != Democracy

[jiacinto]

105. Get real

Your precious Greens are not even 3% of the electorate and can't even win any offices about the local level. And yet you act like the Green Party is about to take over the country by storm when it can barely just win races for city and and county council.

[sujan]

107. you should be the one getting real

More people are leaving both parties and going independent. The last election turnout was 39%, the dimson got elected by less than half of those numbers.

Since you are a part of the problem, dont try to discourage people who are trying to mend the machine. Those diminishing numbers and your denial doesn't help for your party's cause, whatever the hell that is.

[jiacinto]

110. Denial?

I'm not the one who thinks the Greens are going to take the country over by storm. Quite frankly 2.74% of the vote is quite small and not indicitative of a grand movement. If your precious Greens had even just gotten more than 5% of the vote I would be thinking differently. But they aren't.

[sujan]

112. yes denial

If you read word for word, I never claimed Greens would take over the country by 'storm'. It is an incremental procress. How do you address the largest block of voters who aren't even registered party members?
How do you address the fact that Bush got elected than less than 19% of the eligible voters. So your claim that there cannot be a better third alternative is crap. It's just about time and motivation. You and your establishment lackeys try to discourage anybody who's working for a change. You are very much the part of the problem.


You favour oligarchy, I want real democracy.

[jiacinto]

114. I'll say this

We don't live in a system conducive to third parties. If we did then maybe I'd be willing to agree with you.

[sujan]

115. that's why you're in denial

You have no right to discourage those who are working to change the system. And yes, the system can be changed.

[jiacinto]

116. I am being realistic

In the current system your precious Greens will never be more than a regional party at most.

[sujan]

118. so quit branding green as 'extremists'

They have their agenda which is in the spirit of worldwide green movement, fostered out of concern for ECOLOGY, SOCIAL JUSTICE, GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY and NONVIOLENCE
, and it certainly isn't 'anti-democrats'.

In fact if you happen to go to their website and read the ten key values, I claim it trumps the DNC's talking points any day. So if it speaks to me, an independent, then it should speak to a whole set of disenfranchized audience and thats where the hope lies.

[jiacinto]

120. The Greens can promise you the world and the kitchen sink

because they know they'll never be in any position to enact their agenda for the forseeable future, if not even longer. They can be idealistic because they know they aren't going to be in a position to deliver on their "promises". So they can sit there and run on their vision knowing that they won't ever be accountable for it.

I would love to see a Green candidate win office. I would love to see said Green president try to implement his or her agenda with a GOP Congress that would be bitterly opposed it to every step of the way. I would love to see a Green president govern and then find out how little of that "vision" they could actually implement.

The Greens can promise you everything because they aren't going to be in a position to govern.

[sujan]

121. really

The Greens can promise you the world and the kitchen sink because they know they'll never be in any position to enact their agenda for the forseeable future, if not even longer.

> How did you read their mind? Seems like you're not telling the truth.

They can be idealistic because they know they aren't going to be in a position to deliver on their "promises".
> More bullshit. The position Greens take is nothing ideological. They are pragmatic compassionate people.

I would love to see a Green candidate win office. I would love to see said Green president try to implement his or her agenda with a GOP Congress that would be bitterly opposed it to every step of the way. I would love to see a Green president govern and then find out how little of that "vision" they could actually implement.
> If you agree, then why oppose a growing movement?

The Greens can promise you everything because they aren't going to be in a position to govern.
> Subjective opinion. Ten years ago, there were no green party members holding office, now they are holding few. In few years, the numbers will grow. It's just about time and motivation. And there are independent voters like me to support them.

[jiacinto]

123. Get real

The Greens can barely win races for city council and dogcatcher. And I don't see them winning statewide offices for a very long time, if ever.

Again the best that the Greens can ever hope to be is a regional party in places like San Francisco, the way the Liberal Party existed in NY up until recently.

But I don't see the Greens being a national party--at least not for the next few decades, if even longer.

[sujan]

125. "Get real"

Maybe working and putting effort is not your 'forte' but seems like they are growing. I dont fear failure. The only reason your precious democratic party grew was by advantange of circumstances. But now you have people actually working to build a party base and succeeding to some extent.
So dont 'get real' to me, I am not even being optimistic. The demise of the two party system is inevitable, I give it 8 more years. So at that time, which side will you be on? For oligarchy or for democracy?

Just because it is not a force to reckon doesn't mean it wont be in the future.

Did I say the number of registered activists in both parties is actually decreasing?

[jiacinto]

128. 8 More years?

You've got to be kidding. Your party can barely even win races for dogcatcher and you fully expect to be a major player in 8 years. Try winning statewide office first and then come back once you actually have a party that is more than just people on the City Council.

[sujan]

129. yes

Your party can barely even win races for dogcatcher and you fully expect to be a major player in 8 years. '
> I expect it to be a considerable force by that time. It's open to your interpretation.

Try winning statewide office first and then come back once you actually have a party that is more than just people on the City Council.
> Yes the diminishing number of activists in your party should help that fact.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. I Doubt The Democratic Nominee Will Be Neutral On Israel

if being neutral means denying there is a special relationship between America and Israel.

That is a political reality.

[jiacinto]

106. But see

a lot of people here don't live in political reality.

[SweetZombieJesus]

17. Yes, it's all a Green conspiracy

It couldn't be that Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman are fucking ENABLERS, and not leaders, and that's why many of us would ALMOST rather stay home than vote for any of them, especially Lieberman.

Carlos, you can live in the past all you want and defend these three, but just saying "They're Democrats" doesn't absolve them of guilt for what they allowed. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat, once upon a time, and that means nothing now.

If John Kerry or Dick Gephardt get the nomination, and I pray to God they don't, I will vote for them. But I won't like it a bit, and when Bush smears them and they bend over yet again, I'll be sad, but I won't feel sorry for them, because they gave him the dagger, and presented their backs to him.

So I won't say I'll stay home, but as soon as I cast that vote for Kerry or Lieberman or Gephardt, I'll start packing my bags for Canada, because those three destroyed any faith I had in them the day they stood against me and what was right, and stood with everything that is wrong in this country.

[jiacinto]

20. You're lucky to have that luxury

And there are many people who don't. Those are the people who will suffer the most from a second Bush term.

[SweetZombieJesus]

24. Well maybe they should fucking WAKE UP, Carlos

People like you, who do not call people like Gephardt, Kerry, and Lieberman on their enabling behavior, are the reason its gone on as long as it has. Partisanship means NOTHING if our party can't even stand up for what we believe in when it counts. If the Democrats are truly represented by the Bend Over Three, then what the fuck is the point of being a Democrat? Negotiating for scraps from King George's garbage? If that's the master plan, count me out.

[jiacinto]

41. I am not a single issue person

And I simply don't understand the logic that people who are with you 75-80% of the time must be defeated with people who are with you only 25% of the time because of one vote.

[Andy_Stephenson]

63. WOW........SZJ

"People like you, who do not call people like Gephardt, Kerry, and Lieberman on their enabling behavior, are the reason its gone on as long as it has."

Your making some real good points.

[Forkboy]

51. "There are often more Greens than Democrats here."

Do you seriously believe that out of the 30,000+ members of DU that there are that many Greens?

[jiacinto]

69. The ones that are often the most vocal are Greens

nt

[Forkboy]

89. Well which is it?

Is it a small vocal group or is it "There are often more Greens than Democrats here"?

Or do you want to just admit it was complete hyperbole?

[unfrigginreal]

16. Well let's take Kerry out of the equation and just leave Joe

Then what do you say? Do you think it's only extremist Greens that want to see Lieberman go down in a ball of flames? You need to get a grip jiacinto, I did have repect for your opinions but they certainly have become suspect of late.

[dansolo]

39. Lieberman and Gephardt

I have issues with Kerry, but he didn't betray the party like these two. They are the real enablers.

[indictrichardperle]

7. Loserman ?

wrong, his foreign policy is even worse than Junior's.

Back to the subject, i havent seen that much DK bashing by Dean supporters, i certainly havent bashed DK...i really like him, probably my #2 behind Dean. He has courage and if Dean doesnt articulate a policy on the I/P that has substance, im leaning to DK. Agree on Kerry, Edwards........they are still defending their pro-war vote :puke:

[SweetZombieJesus]

8. His past record hardly helps us now

Where the fuck were Lieberman's vaunted progressive ideals when we needed them? Why didn't he have the balls and integrity to stand up the worst President in the history of our country?

I'll tell you why: Because Lieberman sold out, period. The Joe Lieberman who joined the Civil Rights struggle in 64 no longer exists. Where he stood, a hollow shell of a man now resides who has compromised himself into irrelevancy.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

21. gully, you've been dem bashing all day?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

29. gully you're the BIGGEST dem basher on this board!

33. Do Kucinich supporters know what 'hypocrisy' is?

Edited on Sun Aug-10-03 08:35 PM by gully
Dean is a liar b/c he changed his position on the retirement age. And, Kucinich 'evolved' when he changed his position on choice.

BTW, an anti-choice voting record does not a 'progressive' make...

"I think there for I am"....A DEMOCRAT



"Don't call Dennis Kucinich a progressive b/c he's a dreamer at best."

read your own posted crap
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=159265&mesg_id=159724&page=

someone took a wrong turn in the raod back at the fork!

[w4rma]

33. I have no problem with bashing Lieberman, because he is bashing me

I consider it self-defense.

[Andy_Stephenson]

60. Lieberman sold the liberals out...

He is a spineless simpering twit. Hardly the figure of a man I want leading the country.

Lieberman is full on re:puke: lite now. Just like Kerry.

[Woodstock]

127. I've got to draw the line at Lieberman - I'll always bash him

because he's the one the establishment at the DNC/DLC wants, and he'd be an unmitigated disaster as a nominee. To me, bashing Lieberman = saving the country from another 4 years of Bush. If they don't get this message from Democrats, where will they get it?

[tjdee]

14. And what do you make of this statement by Gore?

He was as against the war as anyone, but he said this:

"The removal of Saddam from power is a positive accomplishment in its own right for which the President deserves credit, just as he deserves credit for removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. But in the case of Iraq, we have suffered enormous collateral damage because of the manner in which the Administration went about the invasion. And in both cases, the aftermath has been badly mishandled."

http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html

Is this not the exact same thing the pro-war Dems have said?

[w13rd0]

27. Well, Gore is correct...

...the world is FULL of self-important, tyrannical dictators (some of them here in the good ole US of A even). In many ways, the world would be a better place if they could all be removed from power with the push of a button, no civilian casualties and no destruction of infrastructures as a result. I see nothing wrong with that statement.

On Kucinich bashing. Several of the supposed DK supporters have gotten pretty, well, green, about their support of Kucinich. I think that's something that rubs many the wrong way. Those kinds of scortched earth tactics win no friends or allies.

Of the Democratic candidates, who could you see not endorsing the nominee and running third party or independent?

I myself thought the Taliban should have been removed when they started blowing up the Buddha statues. There was an actual international movement to get involved then. But the Bush regime completely ignored it...

[JohnKleeb]

31. (not talking politics) I have heard that bush was trading with the Taliban

I will stay democrat if Kucinich doesnt win, he himself wont go, most Kucinich supporters are democrat loyalists really, they have progressive third party view points but they are democrats.

[tjdee]

46. Just wanted to get others' thoughts on it.

I don't have a problem with the Gore statement either.

What I'm putting forward is that maybe the pro-war Democrats may have had that in mind when voting for the resolution. That removing Saddam was good...but Bush screwed it up. A few of them have pretty much said that. But they have lost votes over it and Gore isn't.

I don't know--I was just throwing it out there and wanted to hear others' thoughts on it.

[JNelson6563]

55. what you post also makes me think

of someone else's statement from another time on this same issue, perhaps you've seen it?

In his statement of September 16, 1998, Wolfowitz ridiculed Clinton’s policies toward Iraq and said, “Administration officials continue to claim, as Assistant Secretary Martin Indyk did in testimony to the Senate last week, that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. This is wrong.”

Wolfowitz then articulated how, with patience and diplomacy, a critical mass could be reached by supporting dissidents in their eventual overthrow of the Ba’athist regime. “he key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam,” he said.

He detailed the patient commitment that such a policy would require however, such an action would deliver much stronger international support than American militarism. He said, “Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different American policy, one that can rid them of the danger that Saddam poses. And Saddam's supporters in the Security Council–in particular France and Russia–would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq.”

http://www.republicons.org/view_article.asp?RP_ARTICLE_ID=717

Isn't it interesting? Why didn't our Dems take this stance? Not as sexy as war? Safer politically?

Julie

[SweetZombieJesus]

34. Well, I'm not a Gore fan

I didn't bring him up, because I don't feel like being pilloried by the St. Al people, but now that you mention it, Al, while not as bad as the Three Falsettos, isn't exactly the trench warrior for peace a lot of people like to paint hiim as either. If Gore is so concerned about pointing out the fallacies and bald-faced, howler monkey lies in the case for war, why wait until now for the stirring, call to arms speech? Yeah, I know he gave speeches before the war, but Gore should have been making this speech every day, all over the country, to anyone who would listen, from the minute Bush started talking about Iraq. In fact, he should still be fighting them over 2000, but he let the DLC muscle him out in favor of the jellyfish/Basset hound hybrid Lieberman.

Gore's no villain, but he's not exactly someone I count as one of my heroes either. He's done his part, but as the supposed heir to the Big Dog's throne, he could have done a lot more. He didn't, and as such I have a hard time respecting him as much as I do Dennis, or even Bob Graham.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just some Trojan horse Green sent here to disrupt and push the party "far-left", right Carlos?

[dansolo]

42. Al should have been speaking out more

In the lead up to his announcement that he wouldn't run in December, he said that he would be giving several major policy speeches early this year. I was really looking forward to them, but they never happened.

[w13rd0]

82. Are you certain they didn't happen?

Many policy papers and speeches have been given over the past year, some of which have a distinctly "Gorian" sense to them...

[unfrigginreal]

48. For Christs sake ZombieJesus

How can you even put Kucinich in the same breath with Gore? I can't believe that you would consider Dennis even close to the statesmanship of Gore.

I'd go into detail about Dennis's negatives but you know what they say about having "nothing nice to say."

[Andy_Stephenson]

64. OMG that is funny! I can see it now

"the jellyfish/Basset hound hybrid Lieberman."

[blindpig]

101. I hate to defend Carlos..........

But even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while. To wit; third parties will never take power in this country because we don't have proportional representation. Our winner take all system gives the established parties a lock. The only way to change this country short of revolution is for progressives to take over the Democratic party. Not retake, because progressives never owned but a small piece in the first place. Even in the best of times hacks & fixers within the party have worked overtime to destroy progressive policy for their masters.
Kucinich is the best chance I've seen my lifetime(49yrs) for us turn the suicide machine of western civilization around, if its not too late.

[JNelson6563]

53. but they aren't saying this:

"It seems obvious that big and important issues like the Bush economic policy and the first Pre-emptive War in U.S. history should have been debated more thoroughly in the Congress....."

http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html

I agree with President Gore on this one.

Julie

[Larkspur]

91. No, it's not

Earlier in the speech Gore chastised the Congress, of which the Dems who voted for the war are a part of, for not engaging in a full debate on the consequences of war against Iraq. The Dem strategy on the war last year was this -- Vote for it, pass it quickly so that we can turn the campaign message back to "pocket book" issues. Well, they voted for the war, it passed, but the Dems never got the campaign back to the domestic issues and they lost control of the Senate.

The statement you quote by Gore was also said by anti-war advocates, including Dean. No one loved Saddam on the anti-war side, but as Dean and Gore said, there was no evidence to support a unilateral war against Iraq.

[donco6]

25. OK, we won't talk about Kucinich at ALL . . .

. . . just like everybody else.

[JohnKleeb]

26. no bring up his positive things

and that we should be respecting him for his many respectable views.

[Terwilliger]

28. I need to see Dean's hand

cuz I haven't seen it yet...and I have seen Dennis' And it's good.

[w4rma]

35. Massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=43435&mesg_id=43435&page=

[SweetZombieJesus]

36. See, that's why I like you Terwilliger

I may be a lifelong Democrat, but that doesn't mean I trust them completely. I may support Dean, but I can't trust him or any politician completely, and I refuse to put the donkey blinders on that a lot of posters here have.

On behalf of the true Democrats here, you know, the ones who care more about right and wrong than partisanship and "winning", I don't blame you or any other Greens for 2000. People who live in glass houses yadda yadda yadda.

[JNelson6563]

56. Agreed.

I disapprove of bashing of the candidates. I would be glad if my fellow Dean supporters didn't bash. I know Dean gets bashed plenty here but two wrongs don't make a right (or your cliche' of choice here).

Besides, let us not sink to the level of the reich-wingers.

Julie

[fabius]

57. Dean supported here won't bash any...

...Democratic candidate EXCEPT Lieberman with his latest BS Dem bashing. Holy Joe is losing it.

[Kanola]

87. As a Dean supporter

I loved that Kucinich stood up to Blitzer and stated that he thinks Bush/Cheney are involved in the Enron scandal. We need more of this from our Dems, not evading or waffling on the issues.

[Woodstock]

131. I agree - I say more power to Kucinich

The last thing we need to do is supress anyone who is speaking up against the regime.

[blm]

88. And anyone who is TRULY for the environment should

give no compassion to ANYONE who stood up with the enemies of the environment and supported Bush on Yucca Mt. and Sierra Blanca.

And anyone who is TRULY for gun control should give no compassion to ANYONE who stood with up with the enemies of reasonable gun control, Bush and the NRA.

[Le Taz Hot]

90. I seem to recall at least two threads

I started. The first was how I shook the Congressman's hand while I was working a Dean booth at the CDC convetion and commented on how his comments were a class act.

Yesterday, I pleaded for candidate supporters to call their respective headquarters to see if there was any way they could make it out to California before October 7 to support voting "no" on the recall. That post died a quick and lonely death.

You might want to consider that all Dean supporters do not bash candidates -- in fact there are very few who do AND they're the same people. The same applies to supporters of other candidates. Lieberman is a different story as he declared war on ME, not my candidate and even though I haven't jumped in on the "bash Lieberman" threads, I've been sorely tempted.

Please do not throw all of us in the same category. Thanks.

[Terwilliger]

103. I would never throw you into that category, Taz

that said, there's does seem to be an informational "troop" going around making flak. Maybe you other Dean supporters should watch out for them.

[Brian Sweat]

117. What, did someone say something really nasty like

Kucinich is a good candidate, but Dean would make a better president?

[Terwilliger]

124. no, somebody said Kucinich would make a better president

and some people don't like that idea...and some people treat Dean like they treated Gore

[Woodstock]

126. Is saying Kucinich is unelectable bashing?

Really, what is it that you are seeing from Dean supporters? I hadn't noticed Kucinich bashing from them in particular. Most people say they think he's unelectable, but not just Dean supporters.