This campaign is not just about "Who can beat Bush"

[GOPFighter]

I've been thinking this over for awhile.

If the Democratic candidate beats Bush, he will have to govern in the most hostile environment we've EVER seen. Think Clinton had it bad? Think again. Our President will have to work with an extremely hostile congress. He will be vilified daily by the most vicious talk-radio known to man. He will be investigated by the Scaife-funded right wing "journalists. His policies will be "proved" wrong by the Scaife-funded think-tanks. He and his progressive programs will be condemned from pulpits and by the Fallwells and Robertsons. Take what Clinton was subjected to and double, maybe triple it.

To be honest, I would rather lose the next election than to elect someone who folds or runs in the face of the vileness the Right will heap upon him. That's one reason I like Dean. He's obviously a fighter, unlike most of the Democratic politicians I've seen up until recently (Sen. Byrd of WV is one exception). The next four years (whether we win or lose) is going to be a war. It will be dirty, it will be rotten, it will make all our stomach's turn. It may be a fight to the death of the Democratic Party. The GOP want to rule, not govern, and they will do whatever it takes to crush the Democrats. I think a party lead by Dean has the best chance to not only take all the sh*t the Right will be dishing out, but dish right back out at them.

GOPFighter

[funky_bug]

1. Sorry to disagree

but after watching my job, my children, and my community suffer from No Child Left Behind...

after watching the names of the men killed in Iraq (over oil and Halliburton stocks) rise daily...

...after spending my little Bush tax cut, only to have my tuition double in the last three years, my property taxes go up, and the cost of nearly every necessity skyrocket...

...after being lied to again, and again, and again...

...after he installed Pickering just hours after placing a wreath at Martin Luther King's memorial...

...after learning 80,000 jobs in my home state will be cut so chimpy can put a man on the moon...

...after Patriot Act...

For me, this election IS about "Who can beat Bush."

[GOPFighter]

14. I stand by my original statement

I'm think about the long term good of our nation. It will do us no good if we win the White House and get rolled by the Right (I'm not saying Dean is the only candidate with a backbone, just that Dean has displayed more backbone than the others so far). We'll again be perceived as liberal whusses. If we win the Presidency, we must win back the country too and that's not going to be easy!!!

True, in the short run a Bush victory in 2004 would be disastrous to a lot of people, but I liken America to an alcoholic right now. The majority of Americans are angry and frustrated with their lives. They scared to death of the future and they are ripe for right wing propaganda and fundamentalist Christianity. Most Americans don't have degrees in an age where a college degree makes a big difference in salary and upward mobility. They know they can't afford college for their kids. They're pissed off at life and they are in the mood to kick ass, anyone's ass. They hate diplomacy, they hate France, our kicking Saddam's ass made them feel powerfully. Hey, We're number one!!! Screw the world and their opinion of us!! They love Bush 'cause he kicks ass too. And he's a Christian so whatever he does or says must be okay. I think, like an alcoholic, this country may have to hit rock bottom (recession/depression, 20% unemployment, middle class in the tank) before these people wake up and see they've been suckered.

[funky_bug]

21. And I by mine n/t

[Fleshdancer]

27. Did you actually read the post or just the title?

The thread is about who can effectively deal with an extremely hostile Congress and RW media.

[lancdem]

2. I agree that it's going to be a war

I would think Kerry, Edwards and Clark would know that. At least I hope so. My main priority is getting Bush out so he can't do any more damage. And four more years of Bush would give the GOP even more time to consolidate power in their effort to turn this country into a one-party state.

[Memekiller]

3. I agree with most of your sentiments...

...but there are other candidates who have shown resolve. Clark fought the army brass for military involvement in the Balkans, and fought a timid administration for the use of ground troops. He took on the current administration's plans to invade Iraq, testifying before congress on the "anti-war" side. Then Kerry showed resolve when Bush attacked him on his cursing and once when Bush challenged him on his criticism of the war (his vote on the resolution not withstanding).

But Dean deserves a lot of credit for showing the others that it's worse not to stand up to Bush. I'll give you that. He showed us the benefit of backbone, God bless him.

[mmonk]

4. we have to beat him

before we can reach the task of governance.

[JuniorPlankton]

5. Yes, it could be bad but

if we loose, it's going to be much worse.
Think how much irreparable damage the current administration
can do in another four years.
You can debate which Dem is the best, but any would be better than Bush.

It's better to be in a dirty fight than be totally subjugated.

[GOPFighter]

23. Welcome, Junior Plankton

IMO, a President who is overwhelmed by the opposition (and it will be vicious!) will do harm to our cause, and will be able to do nothing to stop the RW Congressional agenda. You saw what they did to Clinton, and he was as skilled a politician as they come. Look what the RW has dome to the Democrats in Congress. They are about as effective as a placebo on cancer!

[Adjoran]

6. Yes it is

The right has been vocally complaining about not getting their spoils for controlling all the branches of government.

If Bush wins, we will see "Bush Unbound" by political niceties, able to feed the hungry wolves on the right until they are satisfied.

My fifth-favorite Democrat would appoint better judges and cabinet officers.

Some people around here need to wake up and smell the coffee! It isn't "Morning in America" this time. It isn't about you. It isn't about your candidate, however great he is. It's about America, and it's about the future.

[shance]

7. Governor Deans candidacy has created a community.

Youre right GOP, this may be a great opportunity for us to keep building our momentum for 2008, and be in a rock solid position there.

Im not sure I will vote for Hillary Clinton after watching some of the low-class antics of the Washingtonians during this primary. Just ONE more example of bizness as usual.

Dont people realize that is what is killing our country??

[John_H]

8. This campaign is ALL about beating Bush--and saving America

Any candidate on that list will stop the war Chimp is waging on America--every single one. You may believe the "Indistinguishable Rag" but recent history proves you dead wrong. The country and the world would be a different place if Gore were in office and all the "Gore is GOPLite" people know it.

You go ahead and stay home if your guy loses. Just stay out of the way of the rest of us. We've got a war to fight.

[shance]

15. Really? By supporting IWR, budget - have ALL candidates

really challenged Bush?

I think Gore is a different breed and in a different category than John Kerry or John Edwards, both good men, but there are doubts how strong they would fight against the Bush policies, especially Kerry.

I think Americans must address the electronic voting issue. This is the elephant in the living room (interestingly Kerry and Edwards have not addressed), and we dont stand a chance if Republican privately owned companies essentially own our votes and voting data. With no way to re-count or retrieve tangible evidence of a persons vote, theres no bigger issue we now have in my opinion.

[oasis]

16. True. Beating Bush is number one priority. Those hoping for a messiah

to lead them in a 2008 third party movement may be able to rally many supporters AFTER November. Four years is enough time to build a formidable party with the right messenger.

[GOPFighter]

18. Whoa!!!

I didn't say I won't support another candidate if Dean doesn't get the nomination, but if you think a Democratic President is going to
magically make a difference, you're dead wrong! A Democratic President won't get SQUAT from this Republican Congress. Anyone who beats Bush is going to slandered, investifgated, vilified, and lied about every hour of every day. Beginning with RW hate-radio hosts, the establishment will quickly try to turn the entire country against him. Only someone skilled at fighting back and rallying the Democratic base can survive and make a difference.

I will support, and vote for, any of the remaining Democratic candidates. I am angry and I'm a fighter but I would rather have an enemy in the White House to fight than try to support a President who presides in the vein of the current crop of wimpy, confused Democrats we have in Congress.

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. The question is, beat him at what?

The candidate who can demonstrate that he will be able to serve as a more effective figurehead for PNAc will get the most money, and therefore "win."

see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=122222

[zbdent]

10. Maybe we should set up a banner for 11/3 (if the election actually is

left in the hands of the voters)

"Mission Started!"

No wonder the right is filled with people who want to carry concealed handguns. Guess they want to make sure that the revolution can start one minute after they lose.

[LTR]

11. I agree with your post

And think the very same way you do.

After looking at all the positions, I feel Wes Clark says exactly what I am thinking.

From the economy, to international issues, to terrorism, to the environment, to labor, and to overall honesty, I feel Clark is the best man for the job. I don't need anyone to scream for me. I want a solid game plan for cleaning up the mess.

Not to mention, he takes no shit from nobody. I enjoy him swatting down RW thugs without even breaking a sweat.

The fact that Clark is a good bet to beat Bush is just icing on the cake.

[Rowdyboy]

12. Nothing or no one is worth losing the next election

No candidate, no issue, nothing.

On that point I must remain inflexible.

[NNN0LHI]

13. Rather lose the election? Try this again after you sober up n/t

[shance]

17. Why do most ignore the biggest obstacle to our winning: electronic voting

Forget who our candidates are for a minute. In Sundays New York Times paper, we had an editorial citing the examples we are screwed for the next election with electronic voting.

WHEN THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO GET IT?????

Its NOT about the candidate, its about the SYSTEM folks......

the candidates are pawns as well, especially the Democrats who refuse to address this issue.

[GOPFighter]

20. Geesh!

Yes, I'd rather lose the election than win with a President who can't handle the SH*T the Right is going to slam in his face starting with day one. I only mentioned Dean because many are turned off by his strident manner and angry demeanor. I think they might be making a mistake.

[Rich Hunt]

19. that's right

I urge everyone to get involved in your local elections as well.

[Nashyra]

22. There are alot in congress that are sick and tired

of the * and his cronies. Perhaps when they get a real commander in chief they will get back to governing the country. Most law makers exexcept for the extreme right do not like what the * has done to this country, but they don't have the balls to stand up to Cheney.

[GOPFighter]

24. Good point

I hope you're right.

[bain_sidhe]

25. This is part of the reason I'm supporting Clark

If the Democratic candidate beats Bush, he will have to govern in the most hostile environment we've EVER seen. Think Clinton had it bad? Think again. Our President will have to work with an extremely hostile congress.

It's not the biggest reason - the biggest reason I support Clark is that I truly believe that he would be the best President for the country - but alongside that reason is my belief that a Clark Presidency would face a less hostile Congress than either a Kerry or a Dean Presidency. Here's why: If... er... WHEN Clark wins, it will be (IMHO) with a fair number of the voters those Republicans count as their "margin of victory" in their own elections. I think they'll think twice before being openly hostile to him. Add to that the fact that I think Clark will have long enough coattails in the south to keep at least 3 of the southern Senate seats we have dangling in the wind in the next election. Maybe enough to keep all of them, but in any case, enough to insure that Republicans don't get a veto-proof majority there.

And one more thing - I think Clark would win more "red" states electorally than any other candidate. Instead of a nation that's blue on the coasts and solid red in the middle, we'll be a more "polkadot" nation, and that (I think) would prevent the propagandists from using the whole "coasts against the heartland" angle.

Now this may not be the ideal situation for the most left among us - bringing in "the center" is something they've been less than thrilled about. But I think it's necessary to at least make a *start* at realigning this country toward a Democratic majority - after which, I think we CAN move the center more to the left. But I don't think we can do it with a candidate perceived to be from the left, because the propagandists can use the "wild-eyed liberal" boogyman to harden the opposition to our candidate. We need a "stealth lefty" like Clark!

But, again, this is just MHO... YMMV.

[ShaneGR]

26. Disagree

I'd rather have the worst Democrat than Bush. Except for Lieberman.