Look all this talk on 'voting third party is a vote for Bush' ...

[MrSoundAndVision]

marginalizes the debate. I mean, yes

(Votes for Kerry) - 1 < (Votes for Kerry) + 1

but it's really not about that all. To say that I should vote Democrat regardless only gives the Democratic establishment reason to ignore my concerns about where the party stands now and where it's going, which they have done. I mean, Democrats aren't going to win with this Anyone But Bush policy, it's just not direct, clear, and honest enough. The ABB policy only gives Democrats an excuse not to be clear on what they represent and intend to accomplish in office, and that's exactly what many have used this opportunity for.

So no, I won't be voting Kerry if he gets the nomination. I guess I can say that pretty confidently as I am sure he won't be vowing to cancel NAFTA/WTO, provide universal healthcare, or turn his back on the Halliburton's contaminating our democracy.

And for god's sake, John Kerry hasn't said a damn word about media consolidation in this country, the REAL problem in my opinion. I won't start on that...but I mean, what's a bigger issue right now, really? I mean, I'm a Kucinich supporter, and my in-laws in Indiana told me that the local media there calls Kucinich 'Kucincious' (like Confucious). We have a problem America.

Just some thoughts, I hope you enjoyed.

[NWHarkness]

1. And I hope you enjoy 4 more years of Bush

[EXE619K]

8. "Those who do not stand with the President, stands with the Terrorists!"

My standard reply to the ABB crowd.

[Sagan]

12. Yeah, well...

The ABB crowd, as you call it, seem to understand the realities of the electoral system in this country.

Insult all you want, but as a Dean supporter, I'm happy to have a core group of folks that I know are stalwart in their vociferous opposition to the Bush regime.

You can play starry-eyed dreamer or hardened skeptic or whatever attitude you are copping all you like. It doesn't change political realities.

[EXE619K]

18. Interesting....

I'm rather surprised that my "standard response" was taken as an insult. If you would like to speak about realities, well, my "standard response" is nothing but...that.

A person's vote IS his/her voice. What more is there for the average Joe nowadays for his representation in body politique?

You're absolutely right.

Political reality will never change.

[eileen_d]

21. edit: What Sagan said.

n/t

[EXE619K]

34. ABB message is counter-productive.

Those who will vote third party this year, or any other year for any reason, chooses to do so because they have a very good reason for doing so.

Whether, they're "mis-guided" or they're on the 'righteous path" is NOT for others to decide.

It is the Individual, who holds the right to vote to decide.

Threatening a person for their beliefs and the sheer non-sensical critique of that person's choice is truly ridiculous.

After all, this is America.

No?

[eileen_d]

47. That's not necessarily what ABB means, though

One can be "ABB" and still respect other people's right to vote third party.

That's my position. I plan to vote for the Democratic Party nominee because my priorities as a voter are to get Bush out. To use your own words: Whether (I'm) "mis-guided" or (I'm) on the 'righteous path" is NOT for others to decide.

If another voter chooses to go third-party because they do not want to vote for the Democratic Party nominee... fine.

I know there are other ABB people around that pick fights with third party voters, but I'm not one of them. I've basically agreed to disagree with their action, but not with their right to vote as they please.

All I would ask of the third-party voters is that they respect MY right to vote ABB and refrain from calling me one of the "sheeple."

[EXE619K]

51. That's exactly what my "standard response" is meant for.

It's a statement that counters a disagreement in preference.

Because, I'm sure that you have noticed that for every "I will go third party" thread, there are ten more "enjoy four more years of Bush!" responses to the original sentiments.

It's hardly, something that the ABB crowd should fear.

No?

[eileen_d]

56. Yes, of course I notice those responses

"Enjoy four more years of Bush" - I don't like or agree with those responses, although I can understand where they're coming from.

Your "standard response" still doesn't seem very effective to me. But maybe it will work on someone else.

Have a good evening.

[EXE619K]

64. For clarification:

My "standard response" is not meant to "change" anyones mind.

Most of those who have decided their course of action in November(whatever that may be) have done so and will not be swayed.

My response, is a protest and a comparative look at the past and that's exactly what it is.

And good evening to you...as well!

:-)

[Sagan]

27. If that is your explanation...

Then you totally contradict your entire argument. If everyone's voice is their own, then the "ABB crowd" has every right to make their own decisions and, having made them, do not deserve your comparison to the Orwellian cants of the Bush Administration.

The "ABB crowd" has made up their minds that any candidate opposing Bush would be better than him. You would be far better served trying to disprove that than just trotting out RNC doggerel as some kind of counterpoint.

[eileen_d]

28. Very well said. Thank you.

I should go back and delete my other post. I don't think it even makes sense anymore. Oh well... :dunce:

[EXE619K]

44. By stating my "standard response"....

Did I actively try to change the voting preference of any ABB crowd? Have you seen me start a thread by saying that people should "GO" third party this year? Afterall, this is a "response" to the "enjoy four-more years of Bush" garbage.

As I've stated, you or any other person can vote however you would like, however, people who choose to go third party will decide also.

People who are leaning to the third party option this year, or any other year will vote however it may please them.

Where's the contradiction?

[zoeyfong]

93. Back at ya.

You are clearly are going to be more upset with 4 more years of bush than i will be, since you actually think kerry is better than bush. i really couldn't care less which one of them wins. And please, no one lecture me on 'practicality' or 'reality.'

The 'reality' is that dems have been losing all across the country for a long time, and every time they lose they abandon yet another fundamental principle or two and prostrate themselves in front of the latest polls of the ignorant, apathetic masses. Hardly an image inspiring confidence in and respect for the democratic party.

Now we are about to nominate a man who by all appearances made a calculated political decision to get americans killed for nothing, either because he didn't have the courage to stand up to bush, or because he thought a pro-war vote would improve his chances in his upcoming presidential bid. The repubs are already nailing kerry on his hypocrisy and opportunism regarding the war, and unfortunately he has neither the will nor the ability to effectively answer their charges. Here is the 'reality;' the democratic party is on life support. We are completely shut out of power. If any democrat wins in november, it will be entirely due to bush's disasterous stewardship of this country; it will *not* be because the american people have any deep affinity for the democratic party.

Years ago republicans devised a very effective strategy to get and maintain power; they play to the cultural supremacy issues of middle/lower class whites in order to get the votes to be elected, meanwhile they do everything possible to redistribute wealth upward to the aristocracy, who in turn finance republican political campaigns, think tanks, etc. And to make sure that they define the 'popular wisdom' on which the masses base their voting decisions, they have gradually insinuated themselves into control over ever-growing media empires. Clearly, their stategy is working.

Folks, it is way past the time for the Democratic party to start thinking farther ahead than just the next election. Nominating the candidate named by republican controlled media outlets as 'electable' is not going to cut it as a long term strategy, neither is 'wait till after the election' to make changes. The reality is that the earth is not going to stop turning in Nov. 2004; and the democratic party had better have a strategy for success that goes beyond that time. Putting forward John Kerry as the Democratic nominee for president will only distract from and delay the formulation and implementation of that strategy. That is 'reality,' for all you realists out there.

P.S. Better read this fast before the mods yank it for being anti-kerry.

[Cocoa]

2. that's not going to work this time

the Nader factor will be very close to zero.

[corporatewhore]

3. yep a vote for a pro free trade cannidate is a vote for

Outsourcing of american jobs
Slavery
privatisation of public services
theft of land that belongs to indigenous people
the rape of the earth
a system so oppressive it leads people to armed revolution
the infestitation of GM foods
bill of rights for corporations

[Peeance Freeance]

4. Third party vote or staying home is one less vote Bush has to earn

Obvious to all thinking people.

[John_H]

5. (Votes for Kerry) - 1 < (Votes for Kerry) + 1=4 more of chimp.

at's the easiest math of all time.

[Iverson]

101. Lyszenkoism

Soviet Russia tried to make science subservient to ideology, and it set back their agriculture a generation.

What a shame to see you replicate that argument, although in a more condensed and simpleminded form, on a progressive website where the discussants are supposed to differentiate themselves from the mainstream by being more open-minded.

Of course, they didn't have to worry about the additional layer of corrupting the meaning of democracy by eliminating choices. That's another thing we shouldn't be doing.

[MrSoundAndVision]

6. No...

I hope enjoy your 4 more years of Bush. Because I'm saying here and now if John Kerry (or many of the other candidates) would step up and commit to extinguishing the corporate contamination of our democracy then we wouldn't only beat Bush, we'd solve the problem in this country.

So stick it :)

[Kanary]

71. That's a VERY big "IF"

He's nowhere close to that commitment.

Kanary

[anti_shrub]

7. I just don't understand the logic

Of ensuring another Bush reign just because the Dem candidate isn't left enough.


Seems awfully republican, "they won't nominate a guy I like so screw 'em" even if it means you'll hurt your country by not removing the madman at the controls.

[maxanne]

11. nice

so voting my conscience makes me a republican? Are you thinking that insulting and berating people is the way to bring about party unity?

[corporatewhore]

14. if freetradeis your issuethan they mightmean a texasgoper

they have a moreprogressive policy on freetrade they want the fuck outta nafta/wto/imf... this is one issue we could unite the left and right on but no we are pushing a pro free trade pro outsourcing pro slavery cannidate to the front

[MrSoundAndVision]

17. what?

the 'ek you mean?

[corporatewhore]

19. the texas gop has a more progressive view on free trade than kerry

they want out of NAFTA/WTO/IMF

[SEAburb]

107. since when is a backward step called "progressive"? //nt

<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>

[MrSoundAndVision]

15. Look

If you find yourself putting words in someone else's mouth maybe you should slow down and do a little thinking.

The madmen at the controls are the corporations of this country who have, contaminated our democracy, not W. That guy is just a frat boy. So here we are with a media saying that John Kerry has been saying something APPEALING all along, and you expect me to agree?

John Kerry was the non-candidate back when debate was allowed. He was the guy singing 'George W. Bush' this or 'George W. Bush' that when others were saying we should cancel the WTO. This guy is the fall guy, and not because of me and my views, or the slave trade that made your fucking shoes, it's because he doesn't say anything.

[Guaranteed]

100. Excellent, MrSound

You are a fucking righteous man. Loved your posts.

[MurikanDemocrat]

9. You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig.

3rd Party is still an OPPOSITION Party.

NO SALE.

[MrSoundAndVision]

16. Well I am...

internal party dissension for now, probably opposition later unless you (and the rest of the party) start demanding our party leaders stand up for what is right, rather than ensuring their careers continue.

[MurikanDemocrat]

30. I don't respond to emotional extortion or blackmail

You can do as you please with your vote and Party affiliation.

I believe some reforms are needed, but will not sign on to the notion that this or any single election is or should be about a complete restructuring of the Democratic Party. The majority of the Party is never going to sign on to a radical agenda like that.

The Party HAS shifted to the right over the last generation and bringing it back toward the left is not going to happen overnight or even in 4 years. It's going to take 10 years to undo SOME of what that dimwitted fuckwad bastard currently squatting in the White House has done IF we are lucky enough to keep a Democrat in the White House and IF we are lucky enough to get some support in Congress. Right now the Republicans hold a majority in Congress.

I make no apologies for my support of Kerry or for being a member of the Democratic Party. Kerry has a most liberal record and long history of supporting liberal and progressive causes.

I have no intention of trying to talk you or anyone else out of taking their votes elsewhere, whether it be to a 3rd Party, to Bush, to simply stay home on election day. In return, I would appreciate it if you would not resort to emotional extortion or blackmail tactics to try to get me to change my vote. Thank you.

[NV1962]

10. Yes, I enjoyed

Let's "bifurcate" here a bit, however:

1. Discussion / debate on which Democratic candidate to vote for
   
2. Discussion / debate on voting for a non-Democratic candidate

On point #1, bring it on! Debate is healthy and necessary.

On point #2, bring it on! Education of the dumb masses with another 4 years of Bush is a steep price, but hey: if necessary, sacrifices must be made for a thorough education on real life politics. Nothing better than having a reality check. Learn to survive, live to learn, and prey you're the lucky bastid that manages to survive over the cadavers of the poor bastids that are presumably served by that "principled" non-Democratic vote...

What price self-righteousness.

[lovedems]

13. Make that argument to all of the families of dead soldiers

and those coming home missing limbs and taking pills to survive the trauma because Iraq and Afghanistan will be just the beginning. I appreciate your argument for a better democratic party but I will stick to taking my chances for a better country and as long as bu$h is pResident, things will get worse rather than better. Was Kerry my first choice? Not really but for some reason some strange reason I don't the country my kids grow up in controlled by a bunch of loony right wing Supreme Court Justices. So this election isn't about MY needs.

[MrSoundAndVision]

20. I'd say a lot to them...

I'd ask them if they had noticed that a lot of the people here back home who purport to want them to come home or whatever support a guy who refuses to even address the issue. John Kerry hasn't said he'll bring them home now. SO I'd say to them support Dennis Kucinich for goddam president, and if he doesn't get the nomination, continue to work to bring them home by supporting someone who will.

JKerry is obviously part of the problem.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[NV1962]

31. Incorrect

See: http://johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/index.html

Essentially, he wants to make sure the reservists aren't as irresponsibly overstretched as they are now, mostly by increasing the "regular" US Army troops by 40,000 and so premanently bring the reservists home; furthermore, he wants to internationalize presence there, which further reduces the necessary number of US troops there.

Take a look at his Iraq proposals in that link - Kerry makes a lot of sense, and in effect differs from Dennis Kucinich only that DK wants to completely phase out US military presence in Iraq, which in real terms won't be possible (in logistical and political terms) before about two years, from the moment of being sworn in; it's mostly a difference in timeframe, not primarily in scope, as far as US troops presence is concerned.

[maxanne]

59. increase how?

The military isn't being flooded with enlistees - which is part of the current problem. Where will these "regular" troops come from?

[NV1962]

65. Quoth Kerry:

The highest form of service is military service. America's military is having trouble recruiting and is increasingly relying on the reserves for active duty. John Kerry believes we must change that. The complicated missions we face and technologies we use depend on it. In a Kerry Administration, no university that receives federal aid will be allowed to ban the ROTC from their campus, except for religious reasons. And the ROTC scholarship program will be adequately funded so that students can attend the college of their choice. John Kerry will also make modernizing our GI benefits a top priority, because no program has been more successful increasing educational opportunities for veterans while also providing an incentive for the best and brightest to make a career out of military.

See: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice/

[Forkboy]

68. So he's counting on 40,000 new recruits?

And he's hoping they can be trained and ready to go when? Just how long is he planning to stay in Iraq?

And when will these kids get to "attend their school of choice",before or after they get shot at or blown up?

[maxanne]

69. puhlease

that is a bunch of doublespeak BS. Hardly anyone is signing up right now. Right now is when we need these regular soldiers. ROTC isn't going to do dick right now. Kerry will do the same thing Bush is going to do - the DRAFT.

[NV1962]

83. Double reply (incl to Forkboy)

I'm awfully sorry, but I couldn't find the part where Kerry pledges to have 40,000 people come out of whatever place and fly Iraqward on the very day he's sworn in. Therefore, I can't but assume he's referring to a target of 40,000 new recruitments; their deployment will undoubtedly follow logistic and strategic common sense. I would presume that somewhere between 6 and 24 months things can be done; all this hinging on a substantial improvement of benefits - reservists having trouble to pay their (war-induced!) medical bills is just one of the things that can't be allowed to continue. And that's where Kerry's idea centers: making a military career a more attractive option. I'm positive that with all unemployment, a substantially improved "deal" will attract many thousands of new recruits.

Then, Forkboy: on to the less attractive aspects of becoming a soldier, such as you mentioned, like being shot at and/or blown up: *BREAKING NEWS* - word just came in from Kerry's HQ. They can now confirm that there is an inherent risk of bodily harm when enlisting in armed forces, a risk which is substantially increased when deployed in active theaters. These negative side-effects are probably new to the American public but... Do you think that offering more and better empowerment resources (e.g. education, other benefits) to volunteering recruits will discourage them too much? Who knows... Something tells me that -- of the 40,000 desired new recruits -- a very substantial number will come from underprivileged communities, to whom the net balance of the deal (including a serious risk) will look an awful lot better than where they come from.

[Forkboy]

86. So he plans on using the poor to stock the Armed Services then?

Mark Clinton's recent words well,"When you find yourself in a hole stop digging!"

[NV1962]

87. No, he plans in making America stronger

Unfortunately, the prospect of serving that purpose is disproportionately unattractive to preppy white boys, as historic data will show you. Some things never change, n'est-ce pas? Then again, Mr Kerry awaits your proposals to recruit more sons of rabidly white millionaires and hawkishly white influential politicos with wide open arms.

Good thing I discovered that Kerry's AA record isn't too shabby, either.

I might actually end up liking Kerry!

[lovedems]

33. I like DK too. I have to prepare myself for the eventual nominee

whoever that may be. It is still early. But Kerry is a hell of alot better than bu$h. He might not be the perfect solution to what ails our nation but I would rather take my chances with him than not vote at all or vote 3rd party.

I have 4 young boys and I don't want them to grow up in a constant state of war, I don't want them to grow up in a society that says if you are poor that is your own damn fault, I don't want them to grow up thinking intolerance is a way of life, I don't want them to grow up in a country that is hated by the rest of the world, let's not get into the deficits, the draft and SCOTUS.

I think the last 3 years have been miserable and I think if the chimp gets 4 more, the last 3 years will have been the tip of the iceberg of the devastation that will creep across this country.

If that is a chance you are willing to take, fine. I won't tell you to be ABB but when I see voters who scream they hate so and so and won't vote for so and so, it my kids future (all kids) that is at stake and it really pisses me off. I am not ready to pass on a country that is fucked up beyond belief to our kids so I will opt for voting for the democratic candidate, whoever that is in the end. You are free to do as you chose. That is what is beautiful about democracy. It might not be around long, enjoy it while you can.

[Samantha]

36. Yes, Kerry is obviously part of the problem

Bush* is the problem. Kerry is a Bush* enabler. Not too much difference. I am not voting for either of them, and I really have to laugh at the guilt trip people try to lay on us for refusing to vote for a candidate who does not represent our interests.

What has happened is that the DLC refused to have an anti-war candidate. Kerry or Edwards will get the nod. Kerry is the first-choice since "it's his turn" and Edwards is the spare in case anything happens to Kerry's candidacy. Can't have Kerry imploding and Dean moving up, can we?

Once the DLC candidate has been finalized, the base will be made to feel guilty if it does not go along.

Guilt trip # 1 - a vote for anyone but the Democratic candidate is a vote for Bush.*

Guilt trip # 2 - abstain from voting, and if Bush* wins, it's Your Fault.

It's so James Carville ....

[IndianaGreen]

43. Guilt trip #3: If Kerry loses in November, it is the base's fault

Even if we voted for Kerry, we will be blamed for our lack of enthusiasm, for holding our noses, for having supported candidate _________ in the primaries, for being anti-DLC.

They will use this to push the party further right, claiming that Kerry was "too" liberal.

[GreenArrow]

58. "They will use this to push the party further right...

claiming that Kerry was "too" liberal."

Scary thought, and sadly, all too likely to be true.

[zoeyfong]

94. Possibly, but that strategy has been tried and failed many times.

However, i wouldn't put it past them. My hope though, is that after enough losses they will put 2 and 2 together and try growing a backbone and standing up for some principles.

[MrSoundAndVision]

22. and what a despicable thing to say

Check your facts, and be careful about who you support.

[lovedems]

41. Despicable because 2 wars are enough???????

I don't get it.

[corporatewhore]

25. kerry gave w the permission to use my father in a fake war that is

something i dont dismiss easily

[lovedems]

48. I am not asking you to dismiss it. I am saying that I don't want

another fake war. I am sick of living in a constant state of war against an enemy who I am told simply hates freedom loving people. If the chimp gets 4 more years, I would expect more war and further hatred of our country.


BTW, my step-brother was over in Iraq and my cousin could soon be deployed. I want an end to this madness.

[IndianaGreen]

26. How many Democrats voted for the war, or for PATRIOT?

I just want to make clear that those that voted for the war and for PATRIOT, and remain unrepentant, are no friends of peace and no friends of civil liberties.

This is something that transcends party labels!

[zoeyfong]

95. Right on!

[SWPAdem]

23. Wow....

that's certainly a NEW argument for purity, conscience, whatever, you want to call it, but it's still a vote for Bush. MY vote of conscience is getting rid of Bush, first and foremost, PERIOD.

[IndianaGreen]

29. And what happens after Bush is gone? Will Bush's policies be changed?

I haven't heard the front runner say that he is going to ask Congress to repeal PATRIOT. I haven't heard the front runner say that he will bring the troops home and end the occupation of Iraq ASAP.

What I have heard the front runner say is that he wants some cosmetic changes to Bush's policies: minor tinkering with PATRIOT, keep the troops in Iraq until things quiet down and the UN is able to manage things. Those are not changes in policy, but tweaking of existing policy.

Changing Administrations is an exercise in futility if the only difference is going to be the names of the contractors that will get the Iraq contracts.

[maxanne]

32. the front runner

wrote parts of the Patriot Act, and has announced his intent to enlarge the military presence overseas.

meet the new boss...

[Cocoa]

38. you mean Kerry?

I know Edwards and Graham had roles in drafting it, I didn't know about Kerry.

What parts did Kerry "write?"

[maxanne]

46. here you go

http://www.cair-net.org/muslimvote2004/issue1.html

[eileen_d]

49. Kerry wrote money-laundering provisions of the Patriot Act

Interesting...

Proposes evaluating expanded surveillance powers and repealing sneak and peak

So... will Kerry change Bush's policies? I guess he just might.

[NV1962]

50. Huh?

Is this what you mean?

Senator John Kerry (D)
Voted for the PATRIOT Act
Authored anti-money laundering provisions of the law
Co-sponsored S.1709 or SAFE Act and S.1507 or Personal Records Privacy Act
Proposes evaluating expanded surveillance powers and repealing sneak and peak

Official Website:
http://www.johnkerry.com/

Also Visit:
John Kerry For President Blog

What's wrong with the anti-money laundering provisions? Remember how post-911 there was talk about unlawful gains through call options in companies that were particularly affected that day, and how tracing the money was difficult? Or do you oppose his opposition to keeping sneak and peek on the books, and instead prefers a more cautious route?

:shrug:

[maxanne]

54. I oppose

his voting for it in the first place, just as I oppose his voting for No Child Left Behind and IWR. I also oppose his stance on NAFTA and WTO.

[NV1962]

61. Let's keep things separate here, OK?

He voted for the Patriot Act, and he also favors letting it sink with the sunset (clause)

Check this comparison:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.security.html

About NAFTA and WTO, well - you know I'm not happy with it either. But "repeal" of NAFTA is impossible without breaking up WTO, and that's about as likely as manned flights to Mars within the decade.

Pro fair trade, pro internationalizing labor standards (via bilateral agreements) and pro putting national sovereignty back on the table again (slapping the savage "free traders") - all those are Kerry positions. Where's the beef, in comparison with Dean and Edwards?

I mean, have you looked at this:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/trade/

(Edited to add the word "manned" in flights to Mars - DÔH!)

[NV1962]

72. Now about NCLB

With the NCLB we're talking about one of the few candidates who has taken the "unfunded mandate" aspect of that law (which on paper looks good, provided one omits other, related issues such as English Only for example) most strongly to task - because he knows what the (deliberate) lack of appropriation is wreaking. And he's not merely taking NCLB to task - he has concrete proposals to fix it.

To wit:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/education.html

John Kerry believes that the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act -- ensuring that all students learn to high standards and closing the achievement gap -- are the right ones for America’s children. However, to date we have fallen short of these goals due to insufficient funding and problems with the law. Kerry will make important changes to the No Child Left Behind Act to help students reach high standards.

• Judge Schools On More Than Just Test Scores. Kerry believes that we need to consider indicators of school performance other than simply test scores. Kerry will revise the accountability standards in No Child Left Behind to include ways of assessing student performance in addition to testing. Under Kerry’s proposal, states will construct a set of leading indicators, subject to review and approval by the U.S. Department of Education, which will comprise part of the school's assessment in the NCLB accountability framework. Possible indicators include graduation rates, teacher attendance, parental satisfaction, and student attendance.
  
• Reward States That Implement High Standards. Kerry is also concerned that No Child Left Behind unintentionally rewards states and districts with low standards and penalizes those with high standards. Since schools, districts, and states are punished if they fail to make adequate progress, the incentive is to set expectations lower rather than higher. Kerry will work to include incentives in the law to reward states, districts, and schools that implement higher standards.
  
• Ensure the Law Works for States, Schools, and Teachers. John Kerry will also support reforms that give states and school districts greater freedom to target assistance to schools with the most extensive academic difficulties; ensure that the federal government provides funding for professional development requirements in the law; require that every single group or program that receives funding from No Child Left Behind fully complies with federal civil rights laws; and close loopholes in the law’s definition of “highly qualified” teachers.

(the IWR thing has been beaten into a boring pulp, so I'll pass on the umpteenth revisit of that, beyond his essential point there: he wanted to provide a "backbone" to the threat of using force, but he also wanted the President to return to Congress for specific permission to go to war. Not a very convincing argument, but "passable" IMO)

[maxanne]

76. if this law

needs so much revision, he shouldn't have voted for it in the first place. All those standards he's waffling about now were present when he voted for it. And it's typical Kerry - make a crappy vote (Patriot Act, IWR) than attempt to cover his ass by complaining about it.

Your defense of the indefensible is valiant.

[NV1962]

84. Tell me something

Is appropriation part of the same bill when voted on?

Also, as to the standards that, according to you, he "waffles" about... Do you really find it questionable that while Clinton's Goals 2000 was butchered by Republicans (on the grounds of "interfering with state sovereignty" as their mantric excuse was then) and precisely now (under Bush) more strict standards are introduced, even with (new) corrective mechanisms -- in NCLB -- that were plainly unthinkable under Clinton, and that therefore the opportunity to move at least partly in the right direction was seized, instead of blocking the whole deal, forfeiting the opportunity to "fix" things on the second run, instead of pushing things into (probably) the second term, after 2008?

Senate reality isn't as pretty as we'd like it to be. Which speaks more to the murkifying effect on their campaigns of having Senators run for office. But that's the profession, not the specific profile / background / persona of John Kerry.

According to Kerry, the Patriot Act will extinguish itself. He didn't want to give Bush any excuse to blame Democrats on a wanting anti-terrorism record; he also didn't want to give Ashcroft carte blanche to rewrite the Constitution - hence Kerry's agreeance with the provisions of that Act, including (especially) the sunset clause. Now that Bush has had all instruments in his hands, guess what Kerry's strong argument is now? Correct: Mr Bush, you're a miserable failure.

Nothing wrong with that, IMO.

[SWPAdem]

40. Sorry, but I am firmly in the ABB camp

The "frontrunner" is not my candidate of choice but I know FOR SURE that Bush ABSOLUTELY will not repeal the Patriot Act or bring the troops home. I do know that a Democrat WILL NOT appoint anymore assholes like Scalia to the Supreme Court and WILL be more likely to have some interests similar to my own. That is enough for me.

[IndianaGreen]

45. We are discussing the Kerry Administration--ABB no longer applies

Or did you think that getting rid of Bush was all there was to this?

Bush = Hitler!

Once we get rid of Hitler what do we do? Do we replace the PNAC imperialism with the "compassionate" PPI imperialism? I think not! Imperialism is inherently evil, no matter how it is packaged.

[SWPAdem]

52. Why, pardon me sir,

I thought that if we only could elect John Kerry that the world would be filled with love, butterflies and sunlight. Get off your high horse. I will say it one last time, MY CONSCIENCE ONLY ALLOWS A VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE. Got it?

[maxanne]

57. good for you

now kindly stop trying to jam your conscience down my throat.

[SWPAdem]

60. If you will return the favor

pretty please

[IndianaGreen]

62. I am discussing the world after the election, assuming Kerry wins

What then? How do we insure that Bush's policies are changed, and changed substantively.

What's the point of ABB if by mid-2005 we find ourselves being forced into "first amendment zones" and the FBI is still conducting surveillance of peace groups, and PATRIOT is still on the books, and the war in Iraq is still going on, and Plan Colombia still continues, and the Kerry Administration tries to topple Chavez in Venezuela and continues to bar Americans from traveling to Cuba and keeps the embargo in place.

[JaySherman]

77. On what facts do you base those assumptions? nt

[SWPAdem]

82. Let's just call the election off, OK?

Since Bush=Kerry=Republicans=Democrats, and voting for a candidate that cannot win is self-defeating, there is absolutely no point in even holding an election. Perhaps, we can use the money saved to give Halliburton another contract or something.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[maxanne]

39. last I knew

this was still a democracy, and we are free to vote as we see fit.

On some of these "with us or against us" threads, people make the plea that every vote will count - and then someone comes along accusing those with a conscience of being a Bush supporter. Bludgeoning and berating are certainly curious tools for creating party unity.

[tedoll78]

89. First, I call you on your straw man fallacy:

Please note that I never claimed that this wasn't a democracy.

Secondly, in the spirit of it being a free country and all, I have the right to question the intelligence levels of those who vote directly against their own self-interests.

Any intelligent person knows that Bush is a giant threat to the well-being of this planet and to our country. If I have the power to stop this murderer from getting back into office, I'm going to use it. I suppose that's the difference between you and me. In the end, should Bush be victorious in November, I won't be the one with blood on his hands. And don't give me that tripe about Kerry supporting the war; I'm willing to bet good money that as Commander-in-Chief, Kerry would NOT start an unprovoked war.

(disclosure: I say this as a Deaniac. Got the t-shirt, the bumper stickers, the multiple donations..)

And any intelligent person knows that Kerry (or any of the other candidates) would be a vast improvement over Bush in a wide, wide variety of issues. I seriously question the mental capacity of anyone claiming to be a liberal/leftist/etc while refusing to vote in the g.e. for one of the most liberal Senators we could nominate today. If you have a problem with that, so be it.

[snoochie]

103. Why are you willing to bet Kerry wouldn't start an unprovoked war?

He said he didn't think imminent threat should be the criteria. He said developing threats should be acceptable as a justification for pre-emptive war himself.

[kodi]

37. you had your chance to impact the nominee, now shut up and vote

or don't you understand how things work?

you could have become active in the structure of the democratic party and amplified your singular vote. did you?

did you lick envelopes, make calls, paint campaign signs, drive old people to the polls election day for your local democratic party?

how about volunteer work for the democratic party, did you attend or sponsor party functions? donate time and or money to the party?

how about being a democratic ward person for your neighborhood, did you do any of these things that would increase your enfranchisement?


if you did, then you know how things work. if you did not, then your bitching about how you didn't get your favorite flavor is bogus bullshit.

this is what howard dean has been trying to get across to people, that we have to do it ourselves, nobody will do it for us.

and if one is not willing to do hard work in politics to get their way, and still complain about the flavors, just shut the fuck up.

and vote.

[maxanne]

42. I did all those things and more

and I don't appreciate you telling me how to think and what to do. I don't appreciate it loudly and colorfully, in fact.

[kodi]

53. so have and still do i, & you had better read my post again

because its obvious that i was not telling you how to think and what to do.

[maxanne]

55. oh really

I guess I misinterpreted shut the fuck up and vote? :eyes:

[GreenArrow]

63. no, you didn't misinterpret anything

.

[NV1962]

85. Is that sarcasm when you state "just shut the fuck up" or what?

If it isn't, I don't think you have much reason to advocate any Democratic candidate.

If it is, please accept my apologies - my annoyance threshold for "STFU" type argumentation is very low these days.

[genius]

66. I would like to see the third party talk moderated

This board does not seem too friendly to Democrats these days. Most of the postings here are pretty disgusting.

[eileen_d]

67. Well frankly, it's not too friendly to third party voters either

I would like to see people agree to disagree, and get on with what they're doing, without calling each other "traitors" or "sheeple."

I should probably just hide these threads... *sigh*

[Forkboy]

70. Onwards to the Purge!!!

rah rah rah!

[maxanne]

74. is honest discussion

so frightening to you?

[genius]

78. The Democrats are getting moderated

when they object to extreme postings. We want honest discussions. I do not believe that the majority of those calling for a move to third parties are Democrats or third party people.

[maxanne]

81. well genius

you'd be wrong about me. I've been a Democrat for 30 years. I ran for office in 2002 as a Democrat. I've "known" some of the people on this thread since 2001 - and you're wrong about them, too. I know what kind of smear you're trying to make - (you don't want to say the "R" word) - and I know how wrong you are.

Censoring those with whom you disagree is not how honest dialogue occurs.

[zoeyfong]

97. Dems should win *respect* first; winning elections will follow.

I can assure you that i am a life-long liberal and democrat, and i am really getting fed up with this party's inability or unwillingness to have any principles, or much less stand up for them. I mean, it would be one thing if we were winning (but even that wouldn't justify abandoning principle to the degree it has been), but we're losing all over the place, and the party's response has been to search for even more ways to demean and debase itself in its shameless vote-grovelling effort. There is no substitute for a consistent display of strength and integrity in attracting loyal supporters to a party, and i suggest that we give that a try before short-sightedly going for a win with the so-called 'electable' candidate.

[Kanary]

79. Actually, it's not too friendly to anybody

As has been pointed out, the candidates get along fairly welll.

Too bad the same can't be said here.

Reallly too bad.

Somewhere along the line, the idea that we are all entitled to our own thoughts and ideas and decisions has been lost.

Kanary

[zoeyfong]

96. No way. Censorship doesn't make the dem party stronger any more

than it makes america stronger. Those of us talking about third parties/write-ins, etc. are and would like to be democrats, by and large, but the democratic party is not an end in itself, it is a means by which people can try to improve america, which presumably is everyone's goal. Free, uncensored debate is necessary to improve both the democratic party and america. I suppose there could be a place for 'me too' mutual admiration societies, but i hope this isn't it.

[bowens43]

99. When you don't like the message , censor it?

unbelievable.

[JaySherman]

73. Well now MrSoundAndVision

Can you 'envision' what America will be like under another four years of George W Bush? How do the words corporate fascist police state sound to you?

I don't love Kerry by any means, but if you think Kerry will be worse than Bush, you're off your rocker.

This will be painful for a lot of us, but we can't put the cart before the horse. Universal healthcare and corporate reform are but a pipe dream right now. They'll be a distant fantasy if Bush wins. We gotta get him out first. Then we gotta work on taking Congress back from the Repugs. Put aside your personal political interests until 2005 at least.

Otherwise, do us all a favor, and stay home.

[Tinoire]

80. Nobody owes you or me or anybody else any "favors"

We cannot possibly hope to win this election on favors and empty slogans.

We are in more trouble than I thought if we are reduced to asking people to do us the "favor" of not exercising their constitutional right to vote.

Shall we turn into fascists too to fight fascism?

ABB, like everything else the DLC ever thought of, is doing more harm to the party than Rove in all his glory.

I wish the damn slogan would just go away and the Democratoc Leadership get on with what they're *&^ing paid to do and that is to take good old-fashioned stands and give people something to vote FOR as opposed to telling them they must vote against something/one.

[JaySherman]

88. The sad reality is

We have allowed our system to sink so low that we face having to vote a plutocrat in, in order to vote a madman out. It's too bad it has to be this way, but it this unfortunate stark reality. It's no longer a matter of issues. Our very democracy, or what little is left, is at stake here. Did I wish for it be this way? No. Did any of us wish that we would live to see America become a country that more resembles a third world dictatorship the land of freedom and opportunity we were promided as children? Maybe it never really was. But what's happening is real. We've got to face it and deal with it.

The problem with us lefties is we are by our very nature disunified, decentralized, fractuous, and fearful of authority. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It's what separates us from the Republicans. But it's also what makes us our own worst enemy. While they are unified behind their madman leader, steadily overtaking every aspect and institution of our society, we're still here squabbling amongst ourselves. It's not fascist to be united against a common foe. We need to put aside our political agendas momentarily or the things you wish for may not happen in our children's life times.

It's about getting rid of a madman in what may be our last non-violent chance to do so. What you or I wish for doesn't matter. What matters is the difference between George W Bush (and those who follow him) and John Kerry. While both may be plutocrats, it is becoming clearer by the day that Bush is criminally insane, and his followers may not be far behind. John Kerry, love him or hate him, is not by any stretch of the imagination.

It's clear what has to be done at this point. Get HIM and THEM out of the White House or our wishes and dreams will become so nightmarishly far from reality as to be unimaginable. Let's take care of business in '04. Will it solve all our problems? Not by any means. But after that maybe we can work on kicking the Republicans, and their Democrat enablers, out of Congress so we can start taking it back for the people. From there maybe we can build on our successes to start a movement for real social change in America. However, none of that will come to pass is the Bush Administration is allowed to reoccupy the Whitehouse in 2004.

[NV1962]

90. One-worded question: how? - n/t

[poskonig]

75. Chief Justice Scalia will be making law for FORTY YEARS

I hope you enjoy it, along with fundamentalism in the schools, environmental laws and corporate regulations deemed "unconstitional," etc. The stakes really are this high.

[w4rma]

91. I was ready to ask other Democrats to support Dean in the general election

And I am ready to support any of the other nominees that other Democrats support. IMHO, you cannot, credibly, ask others to do this for your choice, if you were never willing to do this for theirs.

[NV1962]

92. Ding ding ding!

Of course you're right.

I don't think that this wave of harrassment of people who are simply expressing their doubts about the current frontrunner -- and by extension what they fear is the general direction of the wider Democratic agenda -- serves a purpose other than 1) how strongly we feel about the high stakes we have in these elections 2) the uneven playing field for different candidates 3) the rotten state of affairs in this world.

Come November 2, things will be much more clearly defined: Bush will lose to the Democratic nominee - badly. And if we keep focused, we'll be able to get Congress back as well.

One vote at a time, and that means more than simply knocking on every door: it means actually answering when the door opens and someone takes the trouble of showing interest in our wares.

[BruinAlum]

98. Voting third party IS a vote for Bush

A 3rd Party vote means helping Bush, and the most fascist neocon criminal bastards in American history to ever occupy the White House retain the Office. So, no, I have no appreciation professed purity and principle. To suggest that electing a Democrat will be no better than Bush getting re-elected is ridiculous on it's face, and flies in the face of common sense.

The purpose of this election IS to beat George Bush. The ABB mantra is overrated and picked over to excess by those who already disagree with the candidate or are already inclined toward a 3rd Party. Every election is about beating the opposition. Anyone WOULD be better than Bush. He's been a fucking disaster, and we can't afford or survive another 4 years of this.

No, I don't enjoy the thought.

[Iverson]

102. a modest dissent

I would argue that it trivializes the debate, not marginalizes it. The debate is already so cheapened and driven by spectacle that bromides about third parties don't marginalize it, although they do seek to marginalize third-party voters.

Now that you've indicated that you won't vote for an opposition party member who helps Bush's agenda, be prepared to be accused of helping Bush's agenda.

If you think you're going nuts, reread Catch-22.

[papau]

105. voting that does not help remove Bush is voting that helps Bush - problem?

There is no Catch-22 - just logic

Those that want a pure reflection of their opinions - as if this were a Brit parlimentary election rather than a winner take all US election - should indeed not vote for the Dem opposition to Bush.

Just do not pretend that the right wing cause of Bush getting elected in 04 was not helped by your decision.

And I feel that helping the right wing cause of Bush getting elected in 04 is a great deal more anti-left, anti-liberal, pro-war than any set of policy ideas or past votes of the Dem running for Pres could ever be.

[Iverson]

106. You mentioned logic. Of course there's a problem.

If I don't accept the premise that "if you're not wiv us, you're agin' us" from the radical right, then I sure as hell don't accept it from someone who might otherwise be my ally.

This notion of helping Bush by declaring my vote not to be captive to Democrat X is illogical. Helping Bush get elected would be constituted by voting for him, making financial contributions, or making other in-kind contributions. Note that I do not refer now to helping him after he is elected by voting along with him.

Reserving a vote for a candidate who might represent my interests instead of act against them is called the democratic franchise.

Clear?

[papau]

108. If logic says your guy is a protest vote with no chance, then it turns

it seems to me into a - with me - or against me - situation.

3rd party that does not draw equally from the other 2 parties must by definition advantage one of the 2 parties. And since 3rd party members must know this, they are in effect agreeing to election the one of the two parties that are advantaged by their existence.

A parliment would be better perhaps - so that small parties got representation - but that is not the way it works today.

Not rocket science - just logic

Now when I was in Virginia the choice was GOP vs GOP called Dem, and the control of Congress was not on the line - nor was the result of the state vote for Pres - so I did what I am saying not to do - I voted 3rd party.

This election - in my opinion - is just too important. Continued GOP control destroys my grandkids future, and must be stopped - so I hold my nose for the greater good - I think I am doing the patriotic thing - and I recommend it for others!

peace

:-)

[NV1962]

109. Congress *is* a parliament

It's the electoral system for the honorable delegates that works against a more plural representativity.

And yes, I broaden the target for my criticism to the electoral college as well.

[snoochie]

104. I wonder how different the political landscape would be

if both democrats and republicans would stop listening to the corporate media spin.

Obviously many republicans don't like the way republican leaders have governed, but they vote for them anyway, unity and all. We by and large have done the same thing.

Can anyone make a good argument that this has helped ANYONE? Besides corporations, obviously, since they're the ones telling us who we absolutely MUST vote for, or the big bad boogeyman will get us.