Some observations regarding DU vs the majority of the American public

[MurikanDemocrat]

The DU is a lot more left leaning and activist than the majority of the American public.

The majority of Americans are NOT making IWR and the PATRIOT Act a litmus test for their choice of candidates.

The biggest factor with the public is that they are angry with Bush and they want him the hell out of office. The record turnouts at the primaries have to be keeping Rove awake at nights, because it’s a damned good sign for Democrats.

The people voting in these primaries are not "sheeple"; they are making an informed choice. It's just laughable to say that a couple months ago people were making the “right” choice because they were well informed and politically astute, and that now that the voting has started people are making the “wrong” choice because their IQ’s suddenly all took a nosedive and they are allowing the media to chose for them. What happened is that people did NOT allow the media make their choice for them.

Darn that will of the voters! Don't you just HATE when that happens?

There is no question that Kerry is abundantly qualified to be President, and ridiculous to suggest that there would be no difference between him and Bush. That's just the obnoxious ranting of someone having a tantrum.

And if it makes any non-Kerry supporters feel better, I think a good deal of what we are seeing DOES have a lot to do with electability. But what electability means to the majority of voting Democrats is not the same as what electability means to the more left leaning activist membership of DU. Here electability is stuck in the past with the IWR and the vote for the PATRIOT Act, to name a few examples. For the majority of voting Democrats electability is not dwelling on the anger or staying stuck in the past but MOVING FORWARD and electing someone who can FIX all the mess that this dimwitted neocon sonovabitch and the rest of his criminal cohorts got us in to.

What really frustrates me, if you want to know the truth, is people who insist this election has to be about radically changing the entire Democratic Party overnight. That is just not realistic, and that is not going to happen no matter WHO is in the White House. Not Dean nor Kucinich, nor even frickin Nader would be able to turn the entire Democratic Party on it's head and change it overnight, or even in 4 years time. Things just don't happen on that kind of a timetable.

So, and this undoubtedly won't win me any points with the extreme left here, I really don't have a lot of sympathy for the threats and the tantrums about leaving the party or withholding votes or support if certain people don't get their way in the choice of the Democratic nominee. Because change happens slowly and their expectations are unrealistic.

I don’t get everything I want with ANY Democratic nominee, EVER. And frankly, I resent the emotional extortion and blackmail games played by a small percentage on the furthest left suggesting that the vast majority of the Democratic membership should sacrifice THEIR preferred choices to appease the entire laundry list of the smallest percentage of the Party.

The majority of Democratic voters are simply not going go along with a radical agenda, and the Democratic Party is not going to commit suicide to appeal to the small percent that might go Green and abandon the greater numbers left of center. Logic dictates that's not ever going to happen.

The Democratic Party HAS moved to the right over the past generation. This did not happen overnight and it cannot be remedied overnight. Change is going to have to come slow, by working withIN the party. And that doesn't stand a chance at all if Bush gets another term in office. If Bush makes the next USSC appointments as well as the other judge appointments next term, we are FUCKED for another generation, if not longer. And that’s only ONE of the MANY problems that will get worse if Bush gets another term.

We desperately need to get a Democrat in the White House in 2004. That's the first step.

Thank you. That will be all.

[shredder]

1. Why should we just change the label on the door?

I would much prefer changing the whole structure of washington. Kerry is just another Washington politian riding the democratic train while throwing all his votes to the repubs..... or forgetting to vote in the first place. Kerry has sided with bush on more issues than any of the other canidates. ABK!

[GodHelpUsAll2]

5. Excellent question

It's far easier to slap a fresh coat of paint on a rotting wall than to actually fix the problem. Problem with that. After the paint peels off, you still have the rotten wall!

[The Magistrate]

8. You Would Prefer To Change The Whole Stucture Of Washington, Sir?

Down to the aromic level, or would you halt with rearranging the street plan and masonry?

My own preference in impossible dreams runs to unspeakable delights and unnameable desires, but each must amuse himself in solitude as he best can.

It is odd how a Senator credibly charged with voting to the left of Sen. Kennedy looms to you as a great ally of reaction. It raises questions of how good a match your attention to these matters is to your zeal in expression....

"It is wrong to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

[CalProf]

51. You, Sir, write the most interesting sentences in this entire forum.

And I always enjoy reading what you write.

It's not just the structure, but the referents as well keep my attention.

Thank you.

[Dookus]

9. which politician

would change all those things? Kucinich?

Remember, Presidents don't have the power to make laws. How would a Kucinich presidency acccomplish what you want? He can't do it by fiat. You think a (likely) republican congress will "change the whole structure of washington"?

I don't.

[CrazyHarry25]

103. Not only has he sided with Bush...

...he's now changed his mind on those issues because it's politically beneficial.

[The Magistrate]

108. Oh, Say It Ain't So, Joe!

A politician acted to benefit himself politically, you say! Gad, the horror! The horror, Sir!

[Arlington]

2. wow

a reasoned argument.

I will still vote for Dean next week.

But I agree with you on all counts.

[MurikanDemocrat]

12. Thank you, and

I support you 100% in your choice of candidate. That's what primaries are for.

[The Magistrate]

3. Well Said, Ma'am, Well Said Indeed!

The need of the hour is to evict the criminals of the '00 Coup from office: no progress can possibly be made in any matter without this being done. All persons of left and progressive persuasion must unite in this, and see it accomplished. One does not have to go the whole hog with any particular candidate to see that he is certainly better, for the people and the country, than the reptile currently ensconced in the Oval Office.

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs from Waterloo."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[geniph]

92. Emphatic agreement with both of you

that's certainly what I saw in our caucuses - people were uniting to defeat the radical neocon agenda, and as several people put it, "I'd vote for a bar of soap before I'd let Bush win another election."

Bloodying one another over ideological purity only hands the Department of Interior, the Attorney General's office, the Department of Health and Human Services, any available Supreme Court seats, the State Department, etc., etc., etc., back to the PNAC oligarchs who are presently running our country into the ground.

[The Magistrate]

94. A Pleasure To See You About The Place, Ma'am

It seems to have been a while....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[geniph]

102. I've been hiding in the Lounge

not having any particular taste for circular firing squads and feeding frenzies. ;-)

[The Magistrate]

109. The Lounge Is A Treasure, My Friend

You know my own tastes run to blood sport, and that can be found here at any hour; even Israel v. Palestine is tame by compare....

[waldenx]

4. slow change ??

already testing the excuses for if Kerry gets elected and fails to change anything?

[DjTj]

10. Of course some things will change.

At the very least, some tax cuts will be rolled back, which lays a foundation for future progressive programs.

Clinton didn't exactly lead the kind of revolution we may all have wanted, but at the very least we made progress on gun control, put health care reforms on the table, and we certainly turned around a lot of those Reagan tax cuts.

[CrazyHarry25]

104. Are you in favor of higher taxes?

Why, exactly, do you think this is a good idea?

[BruinAlum]

106. Not for raising taxes, for rolling back the tax breaks for the rich

The intention for which was gutting the surplus, social programs, imposing an astronomical deficit, and shifting the tax Bordon on the middle class.

[DjTj]

13. Of course some things will change.

At the very least, some tax cuts will be rolled back, which lays a foundation for future progressive programs.

Clinton didn't exactly lead the kind of revolution we may all have wanted, but at the very least we made progress on gun control, put health care reforms on the table, and we certainly turned around a lot of those Reagan tax cuts.

The beauty of democracy is that it doesn't take revolutions to bring about change. We can take small steps. The right wing realizes this but too often we don't. Even a thousand mile journey begins with a single step.

[yowzayowzayowza]

6. Nominate for...

GD2004P post of the month!!!!

[arendt]

41. Give me a break - see my post below. n/t

n/t

[The Magistrate]

56. And A Break You Shall Have, Sir

You need only indicate where you wish it delivered....

Ms. Democrat's comments are sensible and heartfelt, and well worth taking serious heed of.

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[MurikanDemocrat]

59. LOL! Thank you, Sir

:)

[corporatewhore]

7. My main issue is freetrade i believe most americans dont like outsourcing

even lou dobbs

[MurikanDemocrat]

18. I think even a lot of Republicans are angry about that

[patriotvoice]

11. Not to be an alarmist, but ....

The record turnouts at the primaries have to be keeping Rove awake at nights, because it’s a damned good sign for Democrats.

According to the data I've accumulated for my 2004 Election model this is not as stellar a primary year as it may seem. Here is the difference between this year's primary numbers and 1992, 1996, and 2000:

1992: -548,669
1996: 218,278
2000: 164,083

The most alarming figure, I've found, is that comparing the 1992 and 2004 primaries (which are the most similar as far as candidate field is concerned), we see a net loss of almost 550,000 primary voters. I should emphasize that until all primaries have been held and all precincts are counted, this is just a working figure.

If I were Karl Rove, I'd be more worried about attrition from Independent and unregistered voters than these primary numbers.

The full spread is available at:
http://www.ideacode.com/~bishop/home/2004/election%20forecasting.xls

We are the Slaves in the Land of the free
Who's the aggressor? Is it you or just me?
We are the victims in this war of the Greedy
Suffer in Hell. Why don't you hear me

Be my Evildoer
--Suicide Commando

[DjTj]

15. something doesn't make sense...

...the Arizona turnout this year is 3x what it was in 2000. Is this all Republicans voting?

...the Washington turnout looks like it is 5% of what it was in 2000. That can't possibly be right.

[patriotvoice]

23. Uncertain

Yes, the states that have major improvements in voter turnout I've chalked up to Republican-party dissertion, Independent attrition, and energized Democrats.

Washington, you will notice, is an incomplete data set. My figures only have 99% of the precincts reporting. That last precinct could hold a large number of voters (eg Seattle Metropolitan). Or, more likely, because of huge technology layoffs in Washington state many Democrats simply don't live there anymore.

[geniph]

93. Two things contribute to those Washington state numbers

a) Washington state is not having a primary this year at all, and
b) Caucuses always draw fewer voters than primaries, because they're not as easy

We had the largest caucus numbers in state history. Almost 200,000 people showed up at caucuses statewide, which blew the state Democratic party chairman away.

[The Magistrate]

95. That Is An Excellent Sign, Ma'am

The rank and file of the Party mean business, and no mistake, this year....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[patriotvoice]

98. Yes, and here's a follow-up cross-reference

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=295535

In 2000, there were 475,000+ raw votes (according to the FEC), but I'm assuming that was from a primary, which would've lasted all day. If 200,000 people showed up for a 30 minute only caucus, I'd say turnout was incredible.

[MurikanDemocrat]

16. I don't understand the figures in the link

But it shows an electoral win for Democrats so that's good enough for me!

Would you mind elaborating on the attrition from Independent and unregistered voters that Rove should be worried about? That sounds interesting.

[patriotvoice]

21. Attrition

When I ran the 2000 election year through my model (i.e., making no assumption about increases in Democrat voting), I found that if 75% of the Independent/Unaffiliated people voted Democratic, Gore would have won. This is reasonable as Independents usually vote Democrat; also the 75% figure was arbitrary.

Anyway, there were almost 4 million votes for neither Bush nor Gore in 2000. If Democrats get most of those, Bush will lose, unless Rove can find a way to manufacture Republican votes.

[MurikanDemocrat]

22. Good news!!!

[Tim_in_HK]

24. One other thing that you may have to keep in mind

When looking at the primaries in total (after all 50 states have held theirs), if current trends continue, with Kerry already winning so many, later primaries will most likely have fewer people partake in the process if it appears to them that Kerry will be the presumptive nominee.

My understanding is that in previous primaries, at this stage of the process (i.e., the same number of states having had their primaries), the race was still quite fluid (didn't Clinton not win a primary until the 9th state held its primaries in '92?). Based on that, it is possible that in '92, people remained engaged in the process for a longer period of time b/c they supported their candidate, and their candidate had a chance of winning the nomination.

This time around, that dynamic appears to have changed, and I wouldn't be surprised if the number of primary voters starts to decrease if current trends hold out and Kerry continues to win.

[MurikanDemocrat]

26. SAw an article here earlier tonight suggesting just that very thing

That once the nominee becomes apparent the turnout may drop some.

[patriotvoice]

29. Voter apathy

Democrat primaries have, traditionally, not succumb to voter apathy, because Democrats (unlike Republicans) will often not compromise their fundamental position to meet a party goal.

This election is very different. ABBA and "electability" are the words of the season. Anyone to the left of Bush and his cabinet is considered A Good Thing, so this is an historic Democrat party moment: we all agree on one thing and are willing to choose a candidate that will win, regardless of how strictly the candidate aligns with our personal Democratic values.

How will that affect Democrat voter apathy? I don't know. It may add to it, or my guess, is that we will still see lots of energized primaries and a very energized general election.

[Tim_in_HK]

68. Yeah

While I think that turnout may decrease in the primary if/when a presumptive nominee increases, I don't think that will affect the GE.

I think we're gonna have a very energized general election, on both sides.

That is why I am momentarily changing my preference for Dems and saying, Go Roy Moore!

[Tansy_Gold]

42. Check your information

Most of your so-called "net" loss is in Washington; all other states showed significant gains.

You might want to check how Washington held its primary/caucus in 2004 compared to other years. I just don't think the whole state went from 475,000 primary voters in 2000 to 23,000 in 2004.

[patriotvoice]

46. Do you have a specific reference?

I am using 99% data from both CNN and MSNBC. As I said in my original post, until the FEC issues information, it's not official.

I find the information difficult to believe as well, but the numbers themselves are not lying. If anyone can point to a source that's more authoritative than CNN/MSNBC (as they both agree) or provide information that shows the FEC information is incorrect (rather unlikely), I'd be grateful.

edit: as follows

Washington's presidential preferential primary, formerly scheduled for March 2, 2004, has been cancelled by action of the Washington Legislature and Governor (House Bill 2297, signed into law Dec. 9; visit the Washington State Legislature web site for the text).

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/presidential_primary.aspx

Caucuses are meetings of Democrats in your precinct to discuss issues and vote on candidates for president. Voting begins at 10:30 AM and ends no later than 11:00 AM. You can then leave, or stick around for further issue discussion.

http://www.wa-democrats.org/

So it seems there was only a 30 minute window for Washington state Democrats to vote in the primary. This has to be the reason for the discrepancy.

[geniph]

96. A caucus is NOT a primary

and we had nearly 200,000 total caucus participants. Yes, you have to show up by 10:30 on caucus day to participate. It was finished by about 12:00. That's why many people don't like the caucus compared to a primary; it's much harder to get to a caucus that occurs at a specific time than it is to simply show up and vote anytime on election day, or mail in an absentee ballot. Many people also don't like the idea of sitting around and defending your choice of candidate; although most caucus participants were not at all confrontational, some people just don't like the whole idea. You also have to seek out location and time of your precinct caucus (not to mention know what precinct you're in) in order to participate. So you get far fewer participants at a caucus than a primary.

I believe a primary is fundamentally more democratic, but the Party apparatus likes a caucus better. It permits them to maintain a bit more control. The majority of the state's voters would prefer to go to a primary system.

Look about halfway down this article to see what the Democratic party chairman said about estimated turnout.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/election/2001853413_caucus08m.html

[lcordero]

14. heh

The DU is a lot more left leaning and activist than the majority of the American public.

Oh really? Most Americans want decent jobs, job security, education, healthcare, and a government that works for them instead of against them.

The majority of Americans are NOT making IWR and the PATRIOT Act a litmus test for their choice of candidates.

So you think so? wait until the Repukes start saying that which ever DLC/PNACer went along with their agenda and enabled them.

The biggest factor with the public is that they are angry with Bush and they want him the hell out of office. The record turnouts at the primaries have to be keeping Rove awake at nights, because it’s a damned good sign for Democrats.

Wait till they find out the truth about Kerry.

The people voting in these primaries are not "sheeple"; they are making an informed choice. It's just laughable to say that a couple months ago people were making the “right” choice because they were well informed and politically astute, and that now that the voting has started people are making the “wrong” choice because their IQ’s suddenly all took a nosedive and they are allowing the media to chose for them. What happened is that people did NOT allow the media make their choice for them.

Darn that will of the voters! Don't you just HATE when that happens?

Again, they will find out soon enough...when it's too late.

There is no question that Kerry is abundantly qualified to be President, and ridiculous to suggest that there would be no difference between him and Bush. That's just the obnoxious ranting of someone having a tantrum.

And if it makes any non-Kerry supporters feel better, I think a good deal of what we are seeing DOES have a lot to do with electability. But what electability means to the majority of voting Democrats is not the same as what electability means to the more left leaning activist membership of DU. Here electability is stuck in the past with the IWR and the vote for the PATRIOT Act, to name a few examples. For the majority of voting Democrats electability is not dwelling on the anger or staying stuck in the past but MOVING FORWARD and electing someone who can FIX all the mess that this dimwitted neocon sonovabitch and the rest of his criminal cohorts got us in to.

Promoting somebody on past performance has always been part of a more just society and rewarding cowardice and nepotism has not.

The majority of Democratic voters are simply not going go along with a radical agenda, and the Democratic Party is not going to commit suicide to appeal to the small percent that might go Green and abandon the greater numbers left of center. Logic dictates that's not ever going to happen.

So fixing problems and demanding that problems get fixed the right way and TODAY is a "radical agenda"? So looking the other way when their is a problem is a "moderate agenda?

We desperately need to get a Democrat in the White House in 2004. That's the first step.

The first step is to take the corruption out of the party before it ever gets into power. It hasn't been done so it doesn't deserve to hold the reins. Case closed.

[Arlington]

19. You wrote:

"The first step is to take the corruption out of the party before it ever gets into power. It hasn't been done so it doesn't deserve to hold the reins. Case closed."

So what is your solution? I mean, one that exists in the real world.

[lcordero]

27. Solution? There is no workable solution

The next 30 years of American history are going to be dark and there is nothing that anybody can do about it.

[eileen_d]

30. If that's what you visualize

then that's what you'll get, I guess.

[MurikanDemocrat]

33. LOL! I see

There IS no solution. But you will arbitrarily blame Kerry.

You people just kill me.

[DjTj]

57. What about the 30 years after that?

...I personally plan to live longer than 30 more years, and I care about what will happen after that.

If things cannot be perfect now, I would rather take a step in the right direction. I will choose the lesser of two evils because it will move us towards a better tomorrow.

I'm not just concerned about tomorrow, I'm concerned with the day after that and the day after that...

We need to take steps to get there, and I will vote for forward progress.

[eileen_d]

20. That's a cold case, and I'm re-opening it

The first step is to take the corruption out of the party before it ever gets into power. It hasn't been done so it doesn't deserve to hold the reins. Case closed.

Assuming that by "the party" you mean the Democratic party, please answer these questions:

1) Do you consider the current alternative, the Republican Party, deserving of the power it currently has in the executive, legislative and judicial branches?

2) How pure and perfect does the Democratic Party have to be before you deign it "ready for prime time"?

[lcordero]

32. the lesser of two evils is still evil

1) Do you consider the current alternative, the Republican Party, deserving of the power it currently has in the executive, legislative and judicial branches?

My question has always been, is the Democratic Party that much better?
I refuse to base my vote on fearmongering and I, above all, will not compromise. Compromise has gotten us into the fix that we in right now.

2) How pure and perfect does the Democratic Party have to be before you deign it "ready for prime time"?

When the Democratic Party grows a pair and starts defending the downtrodden, and the people that have been loyal to them instead of shunning them.
When candidates beside Clark, Kucinich, and Sharpton start telling the truth instead of going with the "official" story.

on edit: when the Democratic Party starts showing that it has a plan to uplift everybody instead of clipping the common person and stomping the them in the face.

on edit again: when money and influence peddling stop being the main focus.

[eileen_d]

35. Well, you didn't answer my first question.

And if you don't compromise, how do you participate in the political process at all? How do you participate as a member of society?

That's all I have to say, since I see in another message you believe we're all doomed to an oppressive future. My sig says the rest for me.

[lcordero]

39. How about this. No and neither does the alternative.

[MurikanDemocrat]

47. Well you are just a ray of sunshine

The world is doomed.

Thanks for playing.

[The Magistrate]

36. Trite Sentimentality, Sir

The greater of two evils is still the more evil, and to fail to oppose it remains to be of material asistance to it. The world is not here as a sort of jungle-gym upon which you are to demonstrate that you can remain unsullied by sin. "Action is shrouded in evil as fire in smoke," and life is largely an exercise in doing evil in the hope good might come of it; ask your next meal what it thinks if you disgree, and do not imagine plants would feel any different than animals in the question. No one gets out of this place with clean hands who does not die at birth.

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[lcordero]

53. Call it what you want

I will not vote for somebody that I feel is slimy no matter how bad the alternative.
I will die (literally) before I ever help a new crook into the white house.
The 145th Street bridge may start looking tempting should I be involuntarily extended.

[The Magistrate]

55. In Other Words, Sir

You cannot distinguish between between a forger and a murderer, but want each hanged equally, as each has transgressed. It is a posture suited only to persons who have never given two minutes consecutive thought to the meat of moral questions. Your position remains that you would be of assistance to the greater evil, by refusing to make any effective opposition to it, and your reason is that you cannot bear the least trace of soil upon your own hands. Hands can be washed, fellow, after what needs doing has been done....

"Saints should be presumed guilty until proved innocent."

[lcordero]

60. lemme see

You cannot distinguish between between a forger and a murderer, but want each hanged equally, as each has transgressed.

Being left out in the cold with no hope as opposed to being outright killed don't look like good options. I'd settle for being outright killed if it was 100% guaranteed.

Your position remains that you would be of assistance to the greater evil, by refusing to make any effective opposition to it, and your reason is that you cannot bear the least trace of soil upon your own hands. Hands can be washed, fellow, after what needs doing has been done....

I still don't feel that the lesser evil is effective opposition. There is no reason to compromise myself into a slower spiral down the toilet when the conclusion is still going to be the same.

[The Magistrate]

61. An Amatuer Nihilist, Then, Sir?

If your situation is as dire as you imagine it to be, then the only hope is to stretch out the time: something might turn up. You are, to put it bluntly, wrong that a lesser evil is not effective opposition to a greater evil. Your isolation is of your own device, and not inherent to the situation; you simply impose standards on the world around you none will ever meet. You cannot properly bewail a lack of choice, for you have made one already, and it is to be impossible to please. But no one save yourself imposed that on you.

Once the Sage wrote: "At birth a man is soft and flexible; at death a man is stiff and hard. Therefore it is the supple who is the disciple of life, and the rigid who is the disciple of death."

[lcordero]

65. the lesser evil is merely the abettor of a greater evil

My life can potentially be on the line because of a big lie and I do not find that acceptable. That alone rules out Kerry as an option.

It's one thing to bend, it's another thing to be bent into something that I no longer recognize in the mirror.

[The Magistrate]

80. The Abettor Of The Greater Evil, Sir

Is the person who will not oppose it, by the available effective means. Such persons are essential to its triumph, and the various excuses they raise for their collaboration with what they claim to oppose, but will not act against, are in fact mere confessions of moral cowardice and intellectual bankruptcy. There is no greater moral failing then valuing one's own purity over the prevention of material harm to one's fellows.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

[The Magistrate]

28. There Are Several Problems With Your Effort, Sir

The membership of this forum is indeed well to the left of the general populace of our country; it is even somewhat to the left of the rank and file of the Democratic Party. That the people of our country "want decent jobs, job security, education, healthcare, and a government that works for them instead of against them" is true, but most of them define these things a little differently than many here, and concieve of different ways to achieve these goals than might appeal to the more radical.

It is quite true the people of our country are unconcerned with votes on the war resolution and the various surveillance measures passed in omnibus after the attack on New York. The great majority of the people, remember, supported the invasion of Iraq, however that approval was obtained. That is why the resolution passed. The line of attack you envision will not occur. The enemy will not declare that Sen. Kerry "enabled" them; that is a feeble radical-speak no professional would essay. The enemy may raise a charge that Sen. Kerry cannot criticize the war because of that vote; he will reply by charging the administration lied to the Congress and the people, and thus each occassion for the charge will become an occassion for reminding the people of those lies, and foster the anger many feel sincerely at being decieved and frightened.

Your "truth" about Sen. Kerry is no truth in fact, but merely your ideological views, which most people do not share; if they did, the country would be regularly electing left figures to high office, and it does not do so. Sen. Kerry has been a prominent figure in public life for several decades, and persons who are aware of politics in this country have been able to form their own appreciation of his qualities for good or ill, and these clearly are, in the majority of cases, different from yours.

Your insistence on sudden and abrupt change is foolish: the world does not work that way. Radicals have managed to contrive sudden and abrupt change only when unusually favorable conditions allowed the successful use of violence by insurgents, and our present condition is far from that one. If you want change, you are going to have to persuade a great majority of the people of the country to agree with you both that great change is needed, and that the changes you propose are practicable means of achieving it. You will need a number of things to do this; a new vocabulary, a willingness to respect the people as they think themselves, a mass organization, and a good deal of money. These things are not whomped up overnight, and never come into the hands of impatient people.

"Politics is no the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disasterous and the unpalatable."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

17. I agree wholeheartedly with all of these observations.

Getting the shrub out is THE first principle in this election. We can't do a damned thing without accomplishing that. The whole Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Rice machinery MUST be removed, and smashed to pieces if possible. Otherwise the media will still be in thrall, and this machine will grab more and more power unto itself. I feel it is almost too late already.

[oasis]

25. first things first. (eom)

[ulysses]

31. sigh

I don’t get everything I want with ANY Democratic nominee, EVER. And frankly, I resent the emotional extortion and blackmail games played by a small percentage on the furthest left suggesting that the vast majority of the Democratic membership should sacrifice THEIR preferred choices to appease the entire laundry list of the smallest percentage of the Party.

Please direct me to the post where ANYONE here has EVER said that the Democrats must "appease the entire laundry list" of anyone.

[ulysses]

37. anyone?

Surely it must be out there - we've certainly heard the accusation often enough.

[MurikanDemocrat]

40. I've seen this sentimentality expressed over and over again

or I wouldn't have mentioned it. I didn't keep a scorecard. You can take it or leave it, that is my opinion, I stand by my perception of what I've read here over the past months.

You are welcome to your opinion, and certainly entitled to disagree.

[ulysses]

43. disagree I do.

Having been here for two and a half years, and having been involved in a lot of these arguments, I've never *once* seen a demand for wholesale adoption of a particular set of beliefs, goals or stands. I've asked to be directed to such posts before, too, and no one ever seems to keep score.

Maybe we're reading different sites?

[The Magistrate]

44. You Are Senior To Me By About A Season, Sir

How would you characterize the frequent comments by people to the effect that they will not vote in the general election for the party's nominee, because of some particular vote or past action by the figure who may become the nominee. Comments such as that have been frequent of late, far too frequent to keep track of individual instances. They certainly seem to me to consititute a demand, by a person who makes such a comment, that their beliefs and goals and stands be adopted.

[ulysses]

69. not a demand for the adoption of a whole platform or "laundry list"

as was the original poster's contention. Even absynthe, who I understand was a mutual friend of ours and who, imo, was the most truly radical of those who get labeled "radicals" here, never did that to my recollection.

While I may not plan to withhold my vote over a particular instance, I can certainly understand how and why others might. I withheld my vote from Bill Clinton in 1996 over welfare "reform", but that was not the same as demanding that the Clinton administration adopt every one of my goals, an idea I'd long since given up by that point.

[The Magistrate]

81. Fair Enough, My Friend

But it seems to me more an instance of imprecise expression in the moment's heat than of misunderstanding or distortion. Those who threaten with-holding their vote often do list reasons why they do so, with either the statement or implication that if placated on those lines they would do otherwise. It does seem to me a problem; cadre ought to understand the requirements of a mass line, which must move many who are not particularly sophisticate in their political understanding, and not insist on a line tailored to their own understanding only.

Our friend Mr. Absynthe is much missed, and it would be interesting to know his views on this campaign. It could be we would have to cross words on the matter, but that never affected our mutual regard.

[ulysses]

87. if it was imprecise expression

then many here on DU are afflicted with an inability to express themselves precisely when addressing progressives. I've heard the same complaint/accusation, as I say, any number of times and never with any backup. It's of a piece with the "you have expectations of a pure candidate" canard, does little to foster honest discussion, and much to foster misunderstanding and discord.

It could be we would have to cross words on the matter

:) I've thought a couple of times that he'd probably whack me upside the head for my Dean support. Yeah, I wish he was still here.

[Crunchy Frog]

34. I'm pretty left leaning

although my chosen candidate is not percieved as such by most people. My biggest litmus test is my own assessements about a candidates electability, (I realize that many people legitimately differ with my assessments). Another litmus test for me is which candidate the corporate media seems to not want. If my guy was being treated well by the media I would be somewhat suspicious of him. It is a plus that I believe my candidate would do more than most to shake up the party and the system in Washington. However, we probably will never have a chance to test that theory.

I will strongly support whoever the eventual nominee is. Getting Bush out of the White House is my highest priority too.

I have never been an activist before this election cycle. W has inspired me.

[arendt]

38. What an exaggerated hatchet job on anyone anywhere to the left of JK

This post, unfathomably lauded as "high-road" , collects the most
extreme leftwing positions, glues them onto anyone left of Kerry,
and winds up arguing for Bush-lite.

Details:

> The majority of Americans are NOT making IWR and the PATRIOT
> Act a litmus test for their choice of candidates.

We start right in with the exaggeration. You don't have to
make these issues a LITMUS TEST to be deeply concerned
about them and to want them discussed in a partisan manner
by the Democratic candidates. I keep reading that the constant
pounding Bush is taking in the Democratic debates IS hurting
him. So, why shouldn't we keep pouring salt in this wound of his?

To dismiss these items from the campaign is ridiculous. We don't
care about the most illegal, trumped-up war in American history that
needlessly spent $100B and 500 soldiers' lives and is still counting?
We also don't care about the shredding of our Constitutional liberties?

Pray tell, if we do not dare mention these CRIMES, what guarantee
do I have that they will be investigated and prosecuted, not whitewashed
and pardoned, by a Kerry administration with wonderful advisors like
Rand Beers? I don't want a future replay of what we just saw with
Eliot Abrams, convicted felon, being given a high appointment by
the follow-on GOP administration.


> But what electability means to the majority of voting Democrats is not the
> same as what electability means to the more left leaning activist
> membership of DU. Here electability is stuck in the past with the IWR and
> the vote for the PATRIOT Act, to name a few examples. For the majority of
> voting Democrats electability is not dwelling on the anger or staying stuck in
> the past but MOVING FORWARD and electing someone who can FIX all the
> mess that this dimwitted neocon sonovabitch and the rest of his criminal
> cohorts got us in to.

Let's see, you seem to be saying: get over the IWR and the PA.
Where have I heard that before? Why, gosh, the GOP told me
to get over election-theft 2000, and so did John Kerry. Now he
is telling me to "get over" the most INSANE administration to
ever be given power over our lives and our money.

What am I allowed not to "get over"? Bush's 40 year old cowardice.
Gee, you tell me that we should "move forward", but Kerry's only
live issue so far is 40 years old. What humbug on your part. You
just want to "move forward" past any serious examination of JK's
potential weaknesses as a Bush-lite candidate in the GE.

> What really frustrates me, if you want to know the truth, is people who insist
> this election has to be about radically changing the entire Democratic Party
> overnight. That is just not realistic...

Once again, the strategic exaggeration: anyone who talks about
change, regardless of pace, is talking about RADICAL change.
Sorry, but I do not buy this stretch.

People turned out for Dean because they were fed up with the
appeasement of the DLC, the failure of members of Congress
to stand up and be counted for bread-and-butter Democratic issues.
Those people wanted change, and they got it, in less than a year,
under the most dense cloud of conservative flak.

With winner-take-all elections, we are forced to work with one of
the two parties. Guess which one is available to those without a
trust fund? The Democratic Party is my party, and that is where I
do my work.

> not Dean nor Kucinich, nor even frickin Nader would be able to turn
> the entire Democratic Party on it's head and change it overnight, or
> even in 4 years time. Things just don't happen on that kind of a timetable.

This sounds like the Cheney chorus:

....we will be at war for the indefinite future, maybe twenty years.

Its another preemptive exaggeration. Where do you get off telling us
that four years is an unachievable timetable? The turnout for Dean's
message reshaped the Democratic Party message in one year. Now,
I'm not saying we can clean up the party machinery in one year. But
I do not buy your "who can say how long" baloney.

Arguing for unspecifiably slow change in the face of the current crisis is
equivalent to arguing for no change. Speed counts in a crisis, or so I kept
hearing on DU for two years, as Bush shredded everything in sight. Now,
you tell us to just kick back and let John handle it? I don't think so.

Are you telling me that I have no right to try to work to change the
Democratic Party from the inside? Do you think I can't walk and
chew gum at the same time? I can vote for Kerry if I have to, and
I can still work to get rid ot the corrupt hacks in the party machinery
and hold Kerry's feet to the fire about attacking BushCo.

I guess democracy in action like that seems "unrealistic" to you.

> So, and this undoubtedly won't win me any points with the extreme
> left here, I really don't have a lot of sympathy for the threats and the
> tantrums about leaving the party or withholding votes

Once again, you club anyone slightly left of center with the most
extreme positions. I, personally, have never advocated leaving
the party (see above, it is a mathematical sure loser in winner-
takes-all elections), and I have said since day one that I would
vote for Kerry (my post to that effect is archived on DU).

So, pardon me if I resent your lumping me with the lunatic fringe,
telling me that I am making threats and throwing tantrums.
How would you like it if I lumped you with Joe Lieberman, for
whom the DLC is just fine and there is nothing at all wrong with
IWR or PA? Tell me, would you like me to turn this rant inside
out and accuse the Kerry people of being closet Liebermans?
Because that is exactly the tactic you have taken in your post.

> The majority of Democratic voters are simply not going go along
> with a radical agenda, and the Democratic Party is not going to commit
> suicide to appeal to the small percent that might go Green and abandon the
> greater numbers left of center. Logic dictates that's not ever going to
> happen.

Politics is not about logic anymore, its about manipulating people's
emotions. And this post is doing a great job of that. I see you repeated
the word "radical" one more time, to demonize anyone who dares
to disagree with you.

And, now you are really trying to sneak one past. You try to claim
that the roughly 30% of the party that still votes for Dean and
contributes to him are somehow no more important than the
3% that the Green Party can muster. No sale. 30% is not 3%.

We have a right to be heard. We have broken no rules. Make
your call again AFTER Kerry has locked up the nomination,
and I, for one, will listen. But, you certainly must understand,
that ordering around people whom you need as if they were disobedient
children is not the best way to win their hearts and minds. (Or
are you a member of the Charles Colson club? - as in:

....when you've got 'em by the short and curlies, their hearts and
....minds will follow.

I am not going to sit here and let DLC apologists turn the Democratic
Party into a carbon copy of the Stalinist tactics that we see inside
the GOP. I can express an opinion contrary to YOUR CANDIDATE's
opinion and still be a member in good standing in this Democratic
Party. I can work at the local level to get rid of useless hacks, and
give my money to people who are working for the people, not
to a bunch of insider lobbyists.

> Change is going to have to come slow, by working withIN the party.
> And that doesn't stand a chance at all if Bush gets another term in office.

Wow, finally SOMETHING WE AGREE ABOUT. We agree that we
can't let Bush win, and that we must work for change inside the
party.

Now, if you would only get that it is not a capital offense to disagree
about the speed of that change.

arendt

[MurikanDemocrat]

45. You make the erroneous assumption

that my reference to the small percentage of the most left leaning liberals and activists included ALL DEAN supporters. I said no such thing.

In fact, I believe that the majority of Dean supporters have always understood that this election is about removing Bush from office, no matter WHO the nominee is, and will vote for whoever that nominee is in the general election. I believe that, just as I would vote for Dean, or Sharpton, or Lieberman for that matter, if they were to get the nomination.

I stand by all of my original comments. They represent my honest observations and opinions. You are free to disagree.

[arendt]

48. I assumed nothing. You failed to include any exemptions in your...

original rant. If your rant had said

> I believe that the majority of Dean supporters have always understood that
> this election is about removing Bush from office, no matter WHO the
> nominee is, and will vote for whoever that nominee is in the general
> election.

Then I wouldn't have had the need to rebut you. But your rant didn't,
and given the overall WWF tone of GD -P2004, the whole thing sounded
like an anti-Dean hit job in which the labels "Green" and "Kucinich" were
being used as stand-in punching bags for Dean.

It is only when I pointed out that every word you said COULD BE
applied to any Dean supporter that you rushed to deny that.

Maybe you want to think about how your overly-general rhetoric
could be losing you more supporters than it is gaining.

arendt

[MurikanDemocrat]

54. My post was not a legal document. I don't need to include exemptions

You read additional meaning into my post that wasn't there. I can't be responsible for your misinterpretation or oversensitivity.

Nor was my post about asking for support for Kerry. It was about my observations regarding the differences between DU and the majority of the American public.

You don't like my rhetoric. I'm not too impressed with yours, nor am I too impressed with the hostile outburst you just had here.

Thanks for playing.

[arendt]

72. So, you take no responsibility for the unintended consequences...

of what you say.

> I can't be responsible for your misinterpretation or oversensitivity.

How self-righteous of you. Consider the following scenario:

A policeman is chasing a dangerous "radical". He pulls
out his gun and shoots in the general direction of the radical.
But, the radical is in a crowd, and the cop hasn't bothered
to yell "get out of the way" or similar words. He just blazes
away, and its up to anyone in the vicinity of the radical
to get out of the way.

You, sir, just blazed away at your target, and I happened
to be in your line of fire. I have every right to be upset at
your unqualified generalizations, as they could harm me.

> You don't like my rhetoric. I'm not too impressed with yours,
> nor am I too impressed with the hostile outburst you just had here.

I had a "hostile outburst". What a joke. Your entire post was
one long hostile outburst against "dangerous radicals". You
keep trying to hang these labels on me. But I will tear them
off as fast as you stick them on. You started this, and you
can't blame me for defending my position.

I think you are a very sloppy writer, who has fallen back on the
standard currency of this board - outrage, real or feigned (who
can tell anymore?).

arendt

[BruinAlum]

73. Good grief!

You compare an opinion on a message board to a policeman chasing a dangerous suspect with a gun?? That's a pretty radical analogy

I agree with Murikan. Your misinterpretations and oversensitivity are on you, and your own responsibility. You are taking things to ridiculous extremes.

[arendt]

76. Wow, a tag team. You guys are really clever.

Let's see :

Murikan shoots off his mouth.
I call him on it.
He says words to the effect of "don't get legalistic on me"
So I offer an analogy.

And you jump on me, repeating Murikan's untrue smear
words "misinterpretation" and "oversensitivity". When,
in fact, my post is a rebuttal of those words.

Let's see. I can't use logic. And now you say I can't
use analogy. Just what is legitimate, according to you?
Can I throw a pie in your face, or is that off limits too?

Didn't you get the irony in my analogy? I put "dangerous
radical" in quotations. I was dumping on the whole thread.
Obviously not, because you took me seriously.

The verbal level of this board has dropped a lot lately.

arendt

[KoKo]

50. Well......Lieberman is gone......so change can come a little more swiftly

than you surmise. And, without a "vibrant" left pulling the Dem Party, the folks out there might have thought that "Joe" was just fine.

I understand your post. But, I won't give up where I am urging for reform of the Democratic Party. Every time I see Tom Daschle or hear him whine....I think about his lobbyist wife and how he sold us down the river by caving when Jeffords switched, giving Bush everything he wanted to start the dismantling of America.

Where was he even in the last months when the Repugs were stealing Memos from the Democrats? What about the Plame Affair. All recent all times when Daschle in an "ELECTION YEAR" for G's Sake should have been stirring up a Major Rumpus.

No...our party is a mess. How can we rabble rouser lefties here change it....well Liberman says that those docile Dems out there get it. They are Mad as Hell...they just maybe aren't as vocal about the change in the Dem Party as we are here.....but it burns in their minds.

[MurikanDemocrat]

58. Don't get me wrong, I would NOT have been happy with Lieberman

But fortunately nobody took that jerk seriously.

I appreciate your comments and I agree reform is needed. A lot of it. We need the rabble rousers!

And I'm not happy either with a lot of the compromises that took place during this administration with Daschle and the other Dems. Frankly I haven't completely come to terms with all of it yet. They are in a completely Republican dominated Congress with a Republican President.

With the Republicans controlling all three Branches I wonder how much is possible for the Dems to accomplish on the one hand. And this being the most oppressive Republican administration we've ever seen at that. Still, I do wish the Democrats would stand together on some of these issues. I know compromise is inevitable at times, but some of this HAS been hard to swallow.

I still think it can change. I just don't think it can happen fast enough for some people. Even if we do get the White House, we need to start gaining seats in the Senate and House to really make a long term difference. That's going to take a long term plan.

Thanks for your comments.

[RichM]

49. A few of the many objections that could be raised to this --

The majority of Americans are NOT making IWR and the PATRIOT Act a litmus test...
- If the "majority of Americans" is to be accepted as a valid measurement of anything, then Bush is trustworthy and a "strong leader," because the "majority" has viewed him favorably for most of his time in office.

The (majority of) people voting in the primaries are indeed "sheeple," because they are Americans - and therefore grow up watching TV, & being subjected to a steady stream of propaganda that trains them to docilely submit to the prevailing system, rather than developing a critical understanding of how the system functions.

It's just laughable to say that a couple months ago people were making the “right” choice ...
- Who the heck said that, or anything close to it?

ridiculous to suggest that there would be no difference between him and Bush...
- The fave strawman of Dem Party loyalists. No one claims there would be "NO difference." The point is how much difference, and what kind of difference. For example, do you think Lyndon Johnson's management of the Vietnam War was much different than Nixon's? It was somewhat different, to be sure -- but was it deeply and meaningfully different? No. And that's the difference between a Kerry and a Bush. Same basic thing, dressed up in different clothes.

Not Dean nor Kucinich, nor even frickin Nader...
- Dean is not remotely the same thing as Nader and Kucinich. To you, all lefties are alike, even "lefties" who aren't lefties.

won't win me any points with the extreme left here...
- What do you imagine the "extreme left" is? People who use the word "extreme" in this context usually couldn't tell you the first thing about what the "radical agenda" of this diabolical-sounding "extreme left" actually is. // Less money for the Pentagon; more for health care, education, & environmental protection. Progressive taxation and reining in big business. Breaking up media giants, defending jobs & reproductive rights. Separation of church and state, protecting the Bill of Rights, & a few other things. Do you see anythere there that merits sinister labels like "the extreme left?"

the Democratic Party is not going to commit suicide to appeal to the small percent ...
- The Democratic Party already has committed suicide - precisely by ignoring the interests of the 50% of adults who don't even bother to vote, as well as by ignoring the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." Even if the party wins back the presidency (hardly a sure thing), it will apparently be with a candidate who voted with Bush on several key issues, and was conspicuously quiet the rest of the time, while all the outrages of the last 3 years were piled on. And even then, there is no hope whatever of regaining Congress. The party is consigned to minority status for as far as the eye can see.

[The Magistrate]

52. A Small Point, Mr. M

If a majority of the people of our country is not to be accepted as a valid measurement of anything, what mechanism for governance would you have replace elections won by a majority vote?

[RichM]

62. A humble attempt at response, Sir.

The phrase in question was offered in the lead post in this context:

The majority of Americans are NOT making IWR and the PATRIOT Act a litmus test for their choice of candidates...

The majesty of majority opinion was not referenced here as a mechanism of governance. It was invoked, rather, to argue that since primary voters are apparently ignoring Mr. Kerry's IWR & PA votes, these matters must not be terribly important. The poster was trying to build the case, IOW, that great concern about these matters is simply a type of neurotic fetish on the part of "DU extreme leftists," & that this is "proven" by the behavior of primary voters.

My counter was intended as a simple reminder that majority opinion is far from infallible, & frequently ridiculous. Here we're speaking of "majority opinion" as general opinion - not as a mechanism of governance.

[The Magistrate]

63. Fair Enough, My Friend

But an election is, after all, only a special case of majority opinion. My own belief the people ought to rule does not include any particular confidence they will always agree with me, nor come hedged about with caveat that should they fail to do so, they are incapable of rule.

It does seem to me that in viewing election campaigns, what the people do and do not pay attention to deserves some study, and some heed. The rank and file of the Democratic Party turning out to vote in primaries does not seem to attach much importance to votes for the war resolution, and the increased powers of surveillance. This would indicate they offer little prospect for traction as issues among the people. Success in politics requires discovering what the people are concerned by, and convincing them you are too. It does little good to tell them they should be concerned with something they are not; in fact, they tend to resent that, and to reject the figure who does it, as someone who speaks down to them.

[MurikanDemocrat]

64. Boy, you presume an awful lot into that one phrase.

Incorrectly so, I might add

Did you also consider this part of my original post?

Here electability is stuck in the past with the IWR and the vote for the PATRIOT Act, to name a few examples. For the majority of voting Democrats electability is not dwelling on the anger or staying stuck in the past but MOVING FORWARD and electing someone who can FIX all the mess that this dimwitted neocon sonovabitch and the rest of his criminal cohorts got us in to.


My point was that what I see here is more of a fixation with those votes. What I see with a few DU members is that these votes ALONE are a litmus test for whether they will vote for the Democratic candidate in the GE, go Green, vote Bush, or stay home.

My observations with the public is that they are not stuck in the past or in anger mode, but on SOLUTIONS, and MOVING FORWARD, and electing a Democrat who can FIX the mess Bush got us into.

So, they are using different criteria to judge the Democratic candidates than many DUers are.

I never said the votes were not important. You presume way too much. What I will say is that I will not use those issues as rigid litmus tests to the detriment of all other criteria in selecting the best candidate.

[RichM]

66. I believe I summarized your viewpoint accurately. The additional

passage you cite leads to the very same assessment: you are basically trying to say that the IWR/PA votes are not of decisive importance, & that to be greatly concerned with them is a neurotic fetish ("fixation" in your own word) on the part of DU lefties.

Of course, my summary of your view has a more contentious ring to it than the phrasing you chose. You opted for the ol' "rigid litmus test" formulation. On the surface, that seems to lead to a position easier to defend. After all, no one likes something as unreasonable-sounding as a "rigid litmus test," right?

However, the IWR is indeed a "rigid litmus test" for me, & other "fringe leftists" like me. That's not because we're really "rigid." It's because war is a breathtakingly serious matter, and wars which are 100% based on laughable lies are even more serious. Anyone complicit in such enterprises is guilty of something unconscionable. Mr. Kerry voted for the IWR because he lacks the integrity to stand up for decency in a matter of gravest significance. He chose to pander to the baser instincts of the public, calculating always the potential effect on his political prospects. I'm not going to vote for someone like that. I will indeed use the IWR as a litmus test, & I'll be proud of it.

As for the jive about "anger mode, solutions, moving forward" -- it sounds like you're listening to too many IBM commercials & "Beltway Boys" blather sessions on your TV.

You purport to want to elect a Democrat "who can FIX the mess Bush got us into." That process cannot begin without 1) publicly admitting the war had a great deal to do with oil, 2) relinquishing all US claim to control of Iraq's oil, & 3) getting US troops out of Iraq and paying reparations. John Kerry won't do any of these things. (Dennis Kucinich will -- but of course, you don't like him. He's one of those lefties you're so scornful of.) Kerry's management of the war would likely be comparable to Nixon's taking of the reins from Johnson. The style of management changed, the party changed, but the object of the war did not change. // Continuing the occupation is a criminal policy. Kerry wants to continue the occupation - as do ALL the Dem candidates except DK & Sharpton. This is no trifling matter, no matter how many braindead Americans can be induced to believe that it is.

[MurikanDemocrat]

67. You again presume incorrectly

You've decided, in your infinite wisdom, that "of course" I don't like Dennis Kucinich. That indeed, he is "one of those lefties" that I'm scornful of. That's some crystal ball you have there.

Well I suggest you change the batteries in your crystal ball, because so far your assumptions with me have all been off base. My original post was offered as my observations and interpretations of what I see with the general public as opposed to the more demanding left leaning members of DU. I'm not so concerned with whether my opinions meet with your approval, however.

Dennis Kucinich is my first choice, if it should so please you to know. There are a couple different tests available to test ones suitability among the candidates with their positions and voting records. I get a 100% on Kucinich on both of the tests I've taken. That surprises you, I know. Because you have decided you know a lot more about me than I do.

As far as the rest of your post, I'll pass, other that to say I stand by my comments as originally written in the initial post.

[arendt]

77. People sure do seem to "presume" a lot about your post...

perhaps that is because it was a vaguely worded
screed. It did its intended ideological damage
(lefties are evil radicals), and now you are in
damage control/deflection mode.

I repeat my earlier question: if this is how Kerry
supporters treat others at this point, when Kerry
has not yet won, what kind of hectoring can we look
forward to if he does win?

You acknowledged in your original post that people
would not necessarily like what you said, yet you
continue to be supercilious towards everyone who
calls you on your demonization of anyone who opposes
business as usual with a DLC candidate.

Why can't you admit that what you said IS open to
an ALTERNATIVE interpretation, and such interpretation
is not, per se, evidence of "radicalism"?

arendt

[The Magistrate]

84. It Is Not A Question Of Supporters Of Sen. Kerry, Sir

It is a question of persons who are serious about evicting the worst elements of reaction from office, and persons who are serious about striking postures of daring radicalism that will do nothing to achieve that end. Those of the latter persuasion, for all their pretense of fighting the right, are in fact an element the right depends on for success. During the general election, persons who insist they will act in ways that will bring material benefit to the criminals of the '00 Coup can certainly expect to be taken severely to task for their self-indulgence by those who are serious about improving the condition of the people and our country.

[arendt]

99. Can you talk to me instead of preaching to the audience over my head?

I think I have established by now that I am not
a Kucinich or Green supporter. I am angry and
Howard Dean expressed my anger when no one else
would. I personally visited Kerry's office twice,
begged him to vote against the war. His people
just blew me off, politely.

So, tell me, was I "striking a posture of daring
radicalism" to go to Kerry's office, which is my
right and duty as a citizen?

If not, then why do you bring it up in responding
to ME personally.

----

You very carefully choose to say "the worst elements
of reaction". But, this is exactly the issue under
discussion. Who, according to John Kerry, are these
WORST elements? You imply that ONLY these elements
will be evicted. So, I want to know just what I get
in return for my vote.

Of course, I get rid of Bush and his Cabinet. But,
how many of his appointees will get a free pass for
their fox-inside-the-henhouse depredations of their
agencies, their deliberate selling out of our government
to the highest bidder? How many bogus judges will be
called out on *legitimate* charges, as Roy Moore was?

Now, I am more than willing to be mollified by a list,
by some names. But, I am unwilling to accept anything
from anyone on faith this election.

I do not think this attitude falls into your category
of "self-indulgent". I would say that I am being vigilant
for my democratic (small d) rights.

If you think that by naming names, Kerry would be hurting
his message, then pray tell, just exactly what kind of
campaign is he going to run against the most slippery,
slimy bunch around? With these bums, you have to name
the name, put the evidence on the table, break the arm
of the slimeball who tries to tear up the evidence, and
then drag the judge over to the table to look at it.

I think naming names and calling crimes crimes is essential
to keeping the pressure on Bush and the PNAC. Every death
of a soldier in Iraq, after the Kay statement, is a crime.
Everyone who is not on the take can clearly remember that
Bush pushed for the WMDs, pushed to attack Iraq. Its in
Paul O'Neill's book.

Why does Murican claim we have to get over IWR and PA?
What is wrong with making these people sweat for their
crimes? The rightwingers love to watch the cops close in
on the perps. Why shouldn't the perps be GOP?

arendt

[The Magistrate]

100. That Is Who It Is My Intention To Address, Sir

If you are willing to vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party, should this prove to be Sen. Kerry, there is no particulat issue between us. If you intend not to do so, for whatever reason, the effect of your action will be to assist the victory of the criminals of the '00 Coup and retain them in office, and we are enemies to the knife. It is a simple enough matter, as most serious things are.

There is no real question about who are the worst elements of reaction in our polity: they are the criminal crew currently ensconced in usurped office, and woking night and day to injure the people and the county to their own profit. There can be no sensible question over this, only a certain scrabbling to justify acting to assist them while invoking left purity as the justification for the deed. New adminstrations generally toss out the political appointees of the previous one, and that can be expected to occur. If you imagine more than a handful of people will bother to look over a list of mid-level functionaries to be axed, let alone be moved in their votes by such a list, you are mistaken.

[arendt]

101. I do not play the foil for anyone.

> If you are willing to vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party,
> should this prove to be Sen. Kerry, there is no particulat issue
> between us.

I beg to differ.

I intend to do more than vote, I intend to participate.
But, at the moment, it seems that Kerry supporters are
engaged in an ideological loyalty oath campaign.

I find the mere presence of such a campaign to be a
negative event that can and will be used against us
in the GE. (Example: how can the Dems complain about
GOP ideological rigidity when they are disciplining
their own party in much the same ideological manner?)

Witchhunts are not a Democratic Party tradition. The tradition
is that we let the fringe mouth off because we never had
them anyway. We let the intelligent people think it through
and come to the right conclusion. The difference in atmosphere
is one of the distinctive features between Democrats and
Republicans.

I find the witchhunt against ABK at this early point in
the delegate count to be an uncomfortably Republican
atmosphere, and I am speaking out against it. (Use it or
lose it. First they came for the Greens, but I wasn't a
Green, so I did nothing. Then they came for Kucinich...)

At a moment of rigid orthodoxy in the GOP and screaming media
conformity, the Democratic Party is the last place I can express
my opinions (which in any other developed nation would be
characterized as middle-of-the-road).

If you find anti-witchhunt to be an unacceptable POV, methinks
you might be in the wrong party.

Once again, I do not have to support Kerry's supporters'
tactics in order to be able to vote for him.

arendt

[The Magistrate]

107. So You Will Vote For The Party's Nominee, Sir?

That seems to be the gist of your closing comments, and is all that concerns me here.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[arendt]

111. I already said "yes" 3 times. Will you stop this witchhunt?

How many times do I have to sign your @#$%^ loyalty oath?

This is starting to feel like that bit from Catch-22 "The Great
Loyalty Oath Campaign".

Your focus is too narrow.

I repeat, these tactics alienate people. Myself included.

arendt

[BruinAlum]

70. Bravo! Excellent post!

The name of this game making sure Bush doesn't get another 4 years. Jesus Lord I never dreamed he could do so much damage is such a short time.

I agree with your sentiments 100%. Thank you for putting it into words and stating it so well for me.

[dusty64]

71. There is no doubt.

The results of all the Democratic primaries have mainly served to remind me that I am a minority within a slight majority. I certainly hope that I am not ignored or taken for granted however and definitely do not want to be marginalized in the quest for the votes of that large "mushy middle".

[molly]

74. When Kerry was getting demeaned by posters

here on DU late last summer, I posted that DU was not a reflection of the general public. We know that now!

:yourock:

[Monument]

75. AMEN!

[MadHound]

78. A rousing endorsement for the Same Ole Same Ole

Congratulations, you have made a fine arguement for mediocracy. However what is needed in this time and place is a real change in the Democratic Party, not just a whitewash to marginally cover past mistakes.

"The DU is a lot more left leaning and activist than the majority of the American public."

I beg to differ with you here. In poll after poll, when asked about specific issues, Americans come out looking just as liberal as we here at DU. This fact can be confirmed if you go read the last couple of chapters of Michael Moore's latest book, check out some Jim Hightower, check out various polls at the NORC website<http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/>, look at Gallup polls, etc. On issues ranging from abortion to gun control, from deficits to publicly financed election campaigns, the American people come across as very liberal. The kicker is that since the demonization of that word by the Limbaughs of the world in the past fifteen years, the American public doesn't want to be called a liberal. But if you look at their actions and opinions it becomes all to obvious that they are.

And yes, this election is about radically remaking the Democratic Party. It is about either completing the coronation of the DLC/New Democrat wing of the party or about reaffirming and reenergizing the traditional Old Democratic Party values. If you cannot see that this party is split into two diametrically opposed camps, then your political sense is far gone beyond help. With the New Democrats you find a party philosophy that is as close to the Republicans as one can be without actually being called one. More focused on winning no matter the cost, New Dems are entirely ready to slash social programs, outsource union jobs overseas and whatever else their corporate masters wish them to do, just so long as they WIN. Old Dems, the leftist base, wish to see a roll back to the traditional values that our party stood for. Working for the little guy, helping the helpless, speaking truth to power. This upcoming election will more than likely see the triumph of either one wing or the other. And quite frankly, if the New Dems win out, it will signal the end of the Democratic Party.

Think I'm over the top in this assesment? Think I simply engaging in hyperbolic rhetoric? Think again bub. Look at the numbers. As the New Dems increased their power, Old Dems and Independents fled the party. We have an increasing number of people who are so disgusted with both major parties, to the point that there is a record number of people NOT voting. Listen to the man on the street. More and more they are taking up the call of third parties, the Greens, the Socialists, the Libertarians. These people see that their needs aren't being met, nor their voices heard in the New Dem's party. This phenomenon isn't simply here at DU, it is nationwide and spreading like wildfire.

And while you are calling for moderation, saying that the Democratic party can't be changed overnight, there is one Democratic candidate who has a plan to do just that. Dennis Kucinich is calling for publicly financed election campaigns, and while he is running in this election, he is taking NO corporate campaign donations. How radical, how wonderful, how in step with the American publics' wishes. Roughly eighty percent of Americans are in favor of these changes(more info can be found here<http://www.fordfound.org/publications/ff_report/view_ff_report_detail.cfm?report_index=397---> and here<http://www.grannyd.com/>). And this quite frankly scares the New Dems as badly as the idea of a heroin drought scares an addict. New Dems are all about retaining the monetary power they have accumulated over the past fifteen years. The idea of being responsible to their actual constituents scares the shit out of them. And thus they marginalize Kucinich(a man slightly to the right of FDR) as a hopeless kook. God forbid, he'll take the money out of politics.

And this is why the Patriot Act and the IWR vote, among others, are such a big deal. It starkly shows that our represenatives ARE NOT doing their sworn duty, which is to respond to the majority wishes of their constituents. IF THEY HAD BEEN DOING THEIR SWORN DUTY THEN NEITHER ODIUS ACT WOULD HAVE MADE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE, MUCH LESS CONGRESS!! Instead Dems and 'Pugs alike responded to the wishes of their corporate masters, and sold out this country of ours like a two dollar snitch. And yes, the general public beyond DU realizes what has happened, and they are pissed.

And this anger is driving force behind the DLC/New Dem mantra of ABB. Hoping to whip up a frenzy of fear, the DLC/New Dem meme is that Bush is the devil incarnate. And yet they refuse to deal with the stark truth that they and their minions have empowered this very evil they cry against. IWR, Patriot Act, Medicare, tax cuts 1-3, all of these and more have been aided and abetted by the very Dems who now cry ABB. Gee, do you think that we wouldn't be in this mess if those self same Dems would have cried out against the very issues that they embraced? But gee Wally, that's not what their corporate masters wanted them to do, so instead they danced the corporate dance. Only now, when their jobs/power/money is on the line do they express regret, crying that they were fooled by the King of all Knaves, Bush. Now that's a hoot, being outwitted by a simpleton. How dumb does the DLC/New Dems think the American people are?

So rant and rave all you want to folks, but the American people ARE waking up to the reality of the two party/one corporate master system of government. Even the DLC senses it, hence this sudden outpouring of anti left propoganda(the DLC being against the left, in the context of the Democratic Party is in itself disturbingly telling, don't you think?). Contrary to your little rant above, the DLC/New Dems want the American people to remain sheeple, and are doing their best to maintain that status quo. But it isn't working, and a new day is dawning. And while the DLC/New Dems will most likely win this round with their ABB meme, in the long run they will lose the war, and fade into history. Because as it has been proven time and again, the American people want a party to represent THEM, not the power/money elites.

[The Magistrate]

82. There Is A Problem With This Analysis, Sir

It is true that, taking questions issue by issue, a majority of the people indicate support for positions that could well be described as left and progressive. Yet in most cases these same people will brindle in anger if called left or liberal. This is the real problem confronting persons of left and progressive views in our country today. Responsibility for it lies with the left itself, and nowhere else. It proceeds, in my view, from the tendency of activists to talk down to the people, to present themselves as persons of superior sensibility and moral worth to the general run, and to display a complete indifference to the various group identities so important to most people. These make it impossible to consolidate any mass identity with the left among the people, and doom most leftist effort to sterility. If you wish to move people, you must first respect them as they are, and approach them on their own terms.

[MadHound]

85. Ahh, but historically people didn't mind the liberal tag

Even as recently as the early '80s, a liberal was proud to be such. It had nothing to do with the politicians and activists approaching people on their own terms, since the liberals who were doing the talking, along with the audience they were talking to were both cut out of the same cloth. IE you had college activists talking to college audiences, blue collars union reps talking to blue collar audiences. There was no, and still is no activist-audience disconnect.

Instead, like I stated earlier, the word liberal was demonized by the right wing pundits, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and the like. And when this started happening the Democratic Party failed to do anything to correct it, and have in fact participated in the demonization process. You have to look no further than the DLC to observe Dems trashing the good name of fellow Dems.

I think that you are buying into the right wing spin if you believe that leftist and liberals proceed from the view of superior sensibility and moral worth. I fail to see this trait in the nominees from the left end of the spectrum(Kucinich, Sharpton) nor in the writers from the left side(Moore, Hightower, Ivins, etc), nor in the activists of that side. In fact I see quite the opposite, with the conservatives trying to dictate from on high, indifferent to the needs of the ordinary person.

This I feel is an issue that has been fought in the media, and probably can only be won in the media. Until you start having Democratic leaders up front declaring that they are liberal and proud to be such you can count upon further demonization of that good name.

But unfortunately it seems that since a fine liberal tradition is an anethma to the corporate powers that be, it seems that the corporate masters will continue to issue orders to villify the left. And those orders will be followed by the corporate whores on both sides of the aisle.

[The Magistrate]

86. You Would Do Well, Sir

To refrain from accusing those who disagree with you of being dupes of the media and other sinister forces against which you hold out somehow yourself. My views are my own, the product of a long and observant life refined by a good deal of study and thought. You fail to perceive this trait of moral hectoring, clearly, for the same reason a fish fails to perceive it is wet.

You would be wise to look more closely into the history of these matters; things you ascribe to the eighties are much more appropriately placed to the fifties. The divorce between the left and the working class of the country occured during the sixties and seventies; the principal reasons for it being concerns of patriotism and life-style. It was not the result of media manipulation but of genuine distaste for the expressions of left activists.

The result has been that the left has become rooted in the academy and privilege, and concentrates most of its efforts on self-indulgence. Left activists ceased to be concerned much with material matters, and fell to brow-beating the people for not seeing their shining light and accepting their leadership. The result has been marginalization, and rejection of the label by many who's beliefs would fall well within the penumbra of liberalism in the thirties and forties and fifties. The phenomenon is very similar to that of all the people, particularly young women, who want equal pay for equal work and to rise to positions of authority on merit and to not be harrassed by sexual innuendo where they work, and angrily deny they are feminists. It does no good to say they are rejecting a caricature of feminism when they do so; it is the responsibility of an idea's promoters to see to it they cannot be effectively caricatured.

[MadHound]

88. Well, one thing is certainly obvious

That being your distaste, your dislike of the left and most things liberal. Your broad brush attacks on liberals is something that has become common amongst those who pride themselves on moderacy in their political dealings. Your belief that the left has "ceased to be concerned much with material matters" is disproved over and over again, most lately by the protests against the Iraq War. And while I would call people such as Kucinich and Wellstone dedicated and passionate in their liberal beliefs, I certainly wouldn't say that they "brow beat" anyone. And quite frankly, you've lost almost all rhetorical credability with the following statement: "The result has been that the left has become rooted in the academy and privilege, and concentrates most of its efforts on self-indulgence." You obviously having been paying attention to several political/social movements the past twenty years, things like enviromentalism, globalism, poverty and the list goes on. Who are the folks who do the grunt work in these organizations and movements? It certainly isn't 'Pugs, or even conservative or moderate Dems. It is much more likely to be those "elites", the liberals, out there doing the dirty work. Gee, who was it again who orgainized the anti Iraq War protests? Certainly not those residing in the cushy seats at the DLC. They couldn't be bothered. Nope, it was those "self indulgent" folks from the left, over at Not In Our Name and ANSWER.
And if I remember correctly, it was the centerists who were wringing their hands that "OMIGOD! The Communists are running the protest show! This will reflect badly on us! We must do something! Sheesh, talk about self indulgent and self centered, well there is a shining example, straight from the DLC moderates.

As far as your historical observations go, I'm sorry, but your wrong. The split between the left and the working class DID NOT occur until the early eighties, or have you forgotten Reagan Democrats? You may have had a long life, but a lot of us have had a long life also, and many on the left are better students of history. And your hesitancy(bordering on denial) of the medias' role in the marginalizing of liberals strikes me as almost pathological. What, you don't think that Limbaugh and his ilk HAVEN'T had an impact? You don't think that the media sways peoples' worldview(including your's and mine)? Then let me ask you one question. If this is the case, why was one of Reagan's high prioties when in office was the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine? Why did he wish to make a one sided world view possible on the nations' airwaves? Was he just full of it, or did he actually have a point in acheiving success in this matter?

One other matter, that I wish you to reflect on dispassionately. Do you not display, with your measured tones doling out insult after insult, the same sort of "elite" "moral hectoring" that you decry in others? Are you, with this grand display of sophistry and semantics, simply engaging in projection? Something you should think about.

[The Magistrate]

91. Wear It In Good Health, Sir

Several points may be worth a small engagement here.

My comments on electoral matters proceed from considerations of strategy, which requires an appreciation of what can be achieved with the means available. To pursue an unattainable goal is folly; conditions must be adjusted to make the goal attainable. The headlong charge fails always against a prepared and resolute opponent.

The left in this country has indeed become rooted in the academy and in privilege. It has ceased to be a mass movement, and this can be demonstrated by any election result over the last several national contests. You may complain of this all you please, but you cannot adduce numbers in support of your protest.

Your attempt to adduce "Reagan Democrats" in support of the late date for estrangement rather gives away the game. These are the same people who voted for Wallace and Nixon, in '68 and '72; working-class voters reacting against their perception that the left was un-patriotic and concerned more with tearing down things they valued than building up things that would bring them benefit in their daily lives. Whether that perception is accurate or not is beside the point: it exists, is deeply rooted among the people, and cannot be ignored as a factor in political calculation.

You will have to explain to me, Sir, why you feel the media does not influence your view, but defines mine. It should be interesting and amusing to read. It is natural enough, when persons disagree with you, to hunt up all manner of explainations for it, without admitting the possibility the other view might be as valid, or even more valid, than one's own. Hence the popularity, among those who hold views not too wide-spread, of various manipulations and conspiracies, and general foolishness, as explainations. The truth is that political engagement is a taste like any other, not too different from following stock car races or collecting Franklin Mint commemorations. It is not a particularly wide-spread taste. Most people have enough in the immediate circumstances of their lives to engage the bulk of their attention, and pay attention to political concerns only when these force themselves upon their notice, and when they do, their chief desire is to get shut of them as quickly and painlessly as possible, and get back about their routine business.

[PATRICK]

79. I echo that big time and one more.

I agree heartily with what we are seeing IF it works out that way, because I know I don't speak for all the voters, have an infallible gut or crystal ball.

Just to accentuate the positive so as not to beat up on the disgruntled- who definitely are hurting because of their commitments. Except for the extremes of competition- which we take more personally than do the candidates trading barbs, we have excellent choices and the best have made the final four. The way the system works is not very satisfying but a large part of that stems from a larger system of money and media the Party does not control and is itself oppressed by. It might be a failure of nerve to hope for a rich candidate and an early decision but the leadership can pretty much bite its nails or sulk for all the vital influence it has over the voter.

Things will change. Gradual change may mean decline or stagnation to many but it means the world is saved to progress as it must. What is coming in the future, without Armageddon or plain stupid mismanagement, is the end of human evil in its large forms- if we survive and earn our right to give birth to the future. It will fall as swiftly and thoroughly as the Berlin wall and it will seem strange that the Bushes ever existed as forces on the world scene. The foundation of pyramid greed on which our economic advancement seems to depend will be supplanted. Then humanity might reshape itself to a new destiny.

If we survive and the best thrive and manage the planet's affairs, that is.

It might seem as if we are just holding on, that cycles will repeat, that it would always be the same forever, but it can't and won't. It can and will get better- or we all die. I think the world's peoples sense this however poorly equipped(leaders especially) they are to adequately express it. Fighting for rights and ideals will not be won perfectly, but the struggle must not end. One day it simply will be over, one way or the other, whether we have earned the right to evolve to survive the progress we have ourselves made.

Beyond that I don't know. How it will happen and how smoothly no one can foretell, but the hope is very very real and the end is not historically very far off. Conservatives imagine a PNAC century and on and on and on- a river of blood and molten gold for the golden barge of a few self made gods. They think small and mask the fear of small men. All that will pass away in a millennium whether they win a century or not. A sliver of historic time, a time of birth. It is hope I smell in the wind, like land after a long sea voyage. It is evolution entering a new phase of swift self change and above all it must have hope, compassion, intelligence and hard heroic work- or the birth will be hard and countless innocents will suffer needlessly.

I sure am not going to surrender than out of spite or hurt to the worst scum homo sapiens has ever produced, simply because we are all flawed creatures at present. Whatever we live to see, you can tell that things move exceptionally fast and then faster in modern times. It will change. The garbage can only rot and pass away. It simply can't win- though we might all lose if we don't fight for hope.

This is not New Age mysticism by the way.

[kiahzero]

83. Patriot Act should not be a litmus

It excludes Wellstone, for crying out loud...

But oh, that's right, it's just being used as demagoguery.

[creativelcro]

89. The DU also lacks the common sense a lot of people have...

[MadHound]

90. Oh my, nice gratuitous shot there

Not a great way to win friends or influence people around here.

[creativelcro]

105. Do you want to be my friend ? Pleaseeee.... I need an online friend....

[leyton]

97. Hear hear!

I agree 100%. The expectations here for a revolution are too high - I don't think Dean will bring a revolution. None of these candidates, except for possibly Kucinich, are truly different from normal politicians. Sadly, that's how things are.

And I agree 110% on the voters not being sheeple. People here aren't any smarter than the average voter and I see just as many people here succumb to ultra-left propaganda such as "Laura Bush is a cold-blooded killer" or "Bush owns the media." Sorry, but the world isn't black and white, and the GOP is not Satan. It's more like one of his minions. :)

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

110. Thank you! And well stated.

Emotional extortion and blackmail games by a very small percentage of the left threatening 3rd Party bids or withdrawal of support if a radical agenda is not adopted that the majority will not approve of are simply unrealistic. It’s a murder-suicide pact and the Party is never going to agree to it.

I resent it too. There is such a thing as priorities and knowing when to chose your battles. As far as I’m concerned, the biggest priority we have in this election is making sure Bush doesn’t get elected in November, and there is NOT ONE of the current candidates that would not be a better choice that Bush. NOT ONE.

If you want to vote 3rd Party, that is your right. Do it. If you want to vote for Bush out of spite because Howard Dean did not get the nomination, then do it. And please seek therapy. But don’t come to me or the Party with emotional extortion or blackmail demands, because it will get you nowhere. The votes lost from the moderates would exceed those gained. The math doesn’t work in your favor.

[oasis]

112. Thanks, somebody had to say it, and you've said it well. (eom)

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

113. kick for an excellent post

[oasis]

114. sensibility kick.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

115. Yes, there is more "third party" talk again tonight. *sigh*