I probably won't be voting for Kerry in November

[unfrigginreal]

I originally thought that I would be able to cast yet one more vote for the Dem nominee regardless of who it was but I don't think I can bring myself to vote for Kerry. I see him as the epitome of why Democrats have lost control of both chambers of Congress and the Presidency. A posturer that has yet to find a special interest that he couldn't do business with.

Yeah, I know that if Kerry wins the nomination and I don't vote for him then I'll be passively supporting Bush, right? Well, big deal. Kerry spent the last 3 years supporting Bush. Had he shown any inkling of putting up a fight, rather than making nice with one-sided compromises then I might feel differently.

The big winners in a Kerry-Bush race would be the "new" middle class, the upper class and corporations. Regardless of whether Kerry or Bush wins, jobs will still leave the country and the well off will continue to do better while the under $50,000 yr. folks will struggle even more.

I'm still hoping that Dean can catch a new spark but if he doesn't then I hope that Edwards can make a run at Kerry.

Good Luck tomorrow Doc!

[Goldberg]

1. Awww...geez...another one of these threads...

All I'm going to say is: ABB 2004.

[SWPAdem]

26. I ask myself

why do I even open these threads?

:argh:

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

[Goldberg]

30. I'm asking myself that now....

I don't understand why people don't understand the concept of "ABB."

[SWPAdem]

38. Or why

they expect an enthusiastic reception of their decision!

[Gore1FL]

44. Or why a decision based on spin

is a worthy decision.

[atre]

93. Kang or Kodos?

Does it really make a difference?

[library_max]

121. Yeah, because if it was in a sci fi holiday segment of a cartoon show

it must be true.

[atre]

134. Did I ever suggest it was true? It was an analogy.

Some people here really have a bit too much bitterness and anger.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

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

[okieinpain]

78. hahahahahaha, like your post. I not a big kerry fan either, but he

get's my vote in november. I would rather have my flavor of bush, then the neo-cons.

[bobthedrummer]

87. I just voted for Dennis Kucinich

in November I'm ABB.

[Jackpine Radical]

94. And I voted for Dean

but in November the issue will be to get Bush out.

[Snivi Yllom]

91. yes another of these threads

Imagine how people will feel about them as they still appear in November.

[Ficus]

107. still annoyed

as we cruise to victory.

[Snivi Yllom]

129. victory...one battle

but we are still losing the war, badly.

[Ficus]

143. I ain't at war with you

or anyone else except George W.

I'm not going to beg people to vote ABB though. I'll just go on about doing my thing as the Democrats win this year!

[eileen_d]

2. OK!

It's your vote. Use it as you see fit.

[KissMyAsscroft]

3. Edwards is the same as Kerry!

You should read up on the candidates' voting records a little more!

The fact that you think Kerry is the same as Bush really illustrate how ignorant you are about the man's voting record as opposed to Bush's.

But hey, Gore and Bush were the same thing, right?

Thanks a lot Nader!

[dkf]

55. Nah, Edwards has more scruples than Kerry.

based on how they ran their campaigns.

I could vote for Edwards. I can't vote for Kerry.

[library_max]

65. Don't vote for the campaign.

The campaign isn't going to be president. The candidate (one of them) is going to be president. I've been disappointed with many aspects of Kerry's campaign too, but you need to look at his 35-year political record to see what an enormous improvement he will be over Bush.

[LynneSin]

85. Don't fool yourself that Edwards has more scruples than Kerry

Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt all ganged up together to attack Dean in hopes of getting Dean out of the frontrunner position and allowing one of them to take over. Their plan was to get rid of the Democratic Outsider (Dean) in hopes that one of the Insiders (Dean, Edwards, Gephardt) would take the frontrunners place.

If you think Edwards has better scruples then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

:eyes:

[Carolina]

123. exactly

less baggage and less of a waffler, too.

Not to mention easier on the eyes and ears. Some may sneer at such superficiality but it does matter. People tune out quickly if the person does not APPEAL to them on some level. Edwards has not yet been infected with Senate speech and cuts to the chase. Great stump speaker despite the repetitive 'mill worker son' theme.

BTW: it is easier to believe the populism message coming from him as well.

[BL_Zebub]

100. Not entirely true

Yes, Edwards has voted for far too much of the Bush agenda, and I'm not comfortable with that. But he's not Skull & Bones, not PNAC (to my unholy knowledge), and as a plus, he's not a fan of NAFTA. So Edwards before Kerry, easily.

But Dean remains the best choice to take on the unelected fraud.

[togiak]

4. Vote your heart

Obviously you have to vote your heart. But remember, that is what the Nadar voters thought. If you think that Bush is bad now, just wait till his second term. You will see things that will make you wish you had voted Dem.

I'm not too jazzed about Kerry either. I think that he is way too compromised by his votes over the past few years. He like many other Dems let Bush steamroll him.

[unfrigginreal]

11. Thanks for the thoughts

It wasn't an easy conclusion for me to come to. I was a regular basher of those that claimed Bush and Gore were no different in 2000. I'm not a Green nor will I ever be one, it's just that we're not getting any closer to real Democratic governing by running politicians that are great at politics but don't stand for anything.

I've only felt this way about one other Democratic politician and that was Torricelli.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

15. What's undemocratic about it?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

24. Ah,I see

you were speaking of democratic with a large D,not a small d.

Sorry for my confusion.

[mountainvue]

6. Enjoy

another four years of the Bush Cheney junta.:)

[La_Serpiente]

7. I'm not going to demand how people should vote

your vote is your vote. Use it wisely is all I say.

[Tinoire]

8. This sentence about sums up my feelings

if Kerry wins the nomination and I don't vote for him then I'll be passively supporting Bush, right? Well, big deal. Kerry spent the last 3 years supporting Bush. Had he shown any inkling of putting up a fight, rather than making nice with one-sided compromises then I might feel differently.


Edwards is as far as I can compromise and that's because he's anti-NAFTA and honest about his IWR vote- honest enough to say he wasn't mis-led.

[HuskerDem]

27. Tinoire, you are a person I respect

I would just ask you this. Do you believe in your heart of hearts that John Kerry would have sent all our kin off to die and sacrificed all those thousands of civillians as President?

I HATE Kerry's IWR vote, but I'm still able to see the difference between him and bush.

I think the best way to affect change in this party is from the inside out............ not by breaking up. We tried that already and the results have been deadly.

I hope the Kucinch, Dean and Clark grassrooters are able to congeal into a common cause movement and reshape the party. We will have to, in order to be an effective force in the future.

Putting a Democrat in the White House is a good first step in that process, even if it is a conventional one.

[Kanary]

35. And I will ask you this.....

I have posted several times that I will be *VERY* negatively affected not only by another term of Bushwa, but also by a Dem who continues the policies similar to Clinton, and continues the cuts to the safety net, which will be the end of me. Hardly ever a response to that.

So, since you want us all to cast votes ABB, even if it ends up killing us (literally), are you willing to *also* go the extra mile, and hold Kerry's feet to the fire, and do as much protesting against cuts to the safety net as protesters were willing to do against the war?

You see, your needs are important to you, but mine (my very life!) is also important to me. And, if that doesn't matter to anyone, I find it very difficult to see why I can't just watch out only for me, as others are doing for themselves.

It really does go both ways.

So... what about it... would you do that?

Kanary

[indigo32]

108. Kanary... it's for people like you I WILL be voting ABB in Nov

I'll be honest with you. I've not been greatly affected by Bush on a personal level. Not particularly scared of a second term for myself, though I probably should be. But... in NOV (I'm not talking about primary time mind you, which for me will be Mar 2nd), I feel I'd be letting the friggin WORLD down if I didn't vote as effectively Anti-Bush as I can. SERIOUSLY. Do you really feel that Kerry (whom I don't like personally but will vote for in Nov) will affect you as adversely as Bush? Would a third party vote for a losing candidate help you? Do you have TIME to wait through another Bush Presidency. And BTW YES I would be happy to hold Kerry's feet to the fire as I have all my reps.

[Kanary]

118. YES

I believe that Kerry "will affect me as adversely as Bush".

I've said this several times here on DU, as clearly as I know how. Clinton got cuts through that hurt many people. There has been no follow up to find out how they are faring, and whether any have died because of his cuts.

Kerry will do the same. As someone on this thread already indicated, he will keep the military budge high, and cut social programs. That means housing, etc. Without housing, I can't make it. I'm too ill to live on the streets, for *ANYONE*.

So, yes, that is affecting me "adversely". I don't know how else to get it through to people. For the middle class, maybe there aren't adverse affects. For those of us on the bottom, we're holding on by our fingernails. There isn't anymore to be cut without "adversely affecting" us.

I hope that's clear enough. I really don't want to have to shout it. I would really hope that Dems of conscience could hear what I'm saying.

And, if you think the media has been blocking out coverage of some of the candidates, I'm sure you can understand that the same thing will happen with those of us who cease to exist because of more cuts. We simply won't be noticed. We're of no consequence, and we know that.

I'm glad to hear that you are willing to keep riding the Dem president, whoever that turns out to be, and protest further cuts. It will take LOTS of loud voices to make sure that nobody dies from further Dem cuts.

Thank you.

Kanary

[indigo32]

119. Oh I understand what you are saying....

I know that Clinton did harm, and these have VERY REAL affects on people. Personally I would have to disagree with you about Kerry initiating as big cuts to social services as Bush. Of course if its YOU who gets cut it doesn't matter does it. I just know that I do have contact with (am in fact friends with) people who recieve SS and housing and all the rest... and they have faired worse under Bush than Clinton. Again... I'm not argueing that Clinton was a saint.
The question you didn't answer was...so should I really vote for neither? because I believe that would effectively assist Bush... and I'm lost as to what purpose that serves.
I truly meant what I said....it is not for me that I'll be voting D.

[Kanary]

130. Glad you understand.

And, yes, I think Kerry would/will sell out poor folx even more than Clinton did. Maybe it doesn't look to you like it got worse, but for those of us at the bottom, I can tell you that it, indeed, got worse. And, as I said, nobody has really tracked those who lost their welfare support, so nobody knows how many deaths resulted. They're invisible, so it doesn't make any sense to me to claim that they were worse off under Bush. Dead is dead.

What people here, for the most part, simply don't understand, or don't WANT to understand, is that when you're worried that you're even going to survive, all the talk about "You have to vote for X, because of the Supreme Court Justices" simply mean ...zilch. People say they want the votes of the poor folk, but seem to have little real understanding of what they're expecting of them.

Obviously, I can't tell you who to vote for. I'm for Dennis Kucinich until the bitter end, because he's the only one who will fight for me. The others can't even SEE me.

My main point is that if you're voting for Kerry, or Edwards, and think they are just fine because it will be better for you, that you can't just walk off and forget the rest at that point. You still need to hold their feet to the fire, because they're going to make more cuts, and more cuts and more cuts. And nobody will even notice.

If you all can get out in huge numbers to protest a war, then doggone it, why can't you do the same for people right in this country who are on the very edge of survival, and facing more and more cuts?

Are we chopped liver?

Kanary

[Tinoire]

39. In my heart of hearts yes I do & I've been saying that for years here

Can I explain tomorrow? I am really tired and just lost the post I spent over 30 minutes typing to you.

Clinton was going to start this war (google OSU Berger Albright Iraq) but he couldn't get the support of the American people. Never forget that we starved and sanctioned Iraq for 8 years under Clinton and that Albright thought 500,000 children dead from the sanctions was an ok price to pay. Clinton was too smart to start the war without the proper support from the people and, I think, I hope, not immoral enough to allow the "catalytic event" (9-11) called for in the PNAC plan. Also certain Republicans had busily calculated that it would be more lucrative for them to lead the war. Clinton wanted to take Saddaam out badly and Gore (according to Clinton) even more so.

Before dying over 7 years ago, my father foresaw all these wars in great detail because the West needs oil badly and "the boys are going to be digging everywhere and under any pretext". Yugoslavia was just step 1. Look at a map of the Macedonian region and see where Kosovo, the new Republic of Albania and all the pipelines are located. At that time, he was so convinced, so clear that he told me where to put whatever money I had so that it wouldn't disappear in the coming stock market crash. (I couldn't put it in the companies he recommended and went with organic milk instead which did just as well). Then Afghanistan. Then Iraq.

1. Our way of life needs oil badly (just check what we're doing in Venezuela)
2. Our way of life needs to stop all this nonesense of OPEC countries dumping the dollar in favor of the Euro or gold
3. A little re-arranging of the geo-political scene was very advantageous to us and our ally in the regions

Don't forget that under Clinton we starved and sanctioned Iraq for 8 years and that Albright puclicly stated that 500,000 chidlren dead of our sanctions was an ok price to pay.

I understand your reasoning on the 3rd party thing totally and am torn, very torn on the issue so I just re-examine the house to see if a fresh coat of paint and new shingles on the roof are going to be enough or if I need to build a new one before winter comes.

It's our entire system that's at fault and right now, I just see the same interests always behind the scenes and just the figure-heads changing like a cosmetic changing of the guard.

I don't know what I will do in Nov. I don't know how much further I can bend. And that was just the war- you don't even want me to get started on NAFTA and other tools of corporate globalization that also have a hand in the current war. NAFTA, did you know, has language cemented in it calling for "utility privatization"- that includes water. Water which is a basic human right! And Kerry is on board with that. With the war. With occupation. Frankly, I am crushed that this is what our Primaries have wraught. And go back and forth between my conscience, my heart and my fears of what we know we'll get under Bush.

That's the nutshell of the much lengthier post I composed but lost :(

I hope it made sense and am more than happy to continue this discussion tomorrow.
Peace :)

[Carolina]

127. Tinoire

don't forget that Clinton inherited the Iraq situation from Daddy Bush and that he had to fight an obstinately partisan Republican opposition Congress from 1994 on. WE, Democrats, were slackers because having won the presidency, house and senate in November 1992, we kicked back and relaxed only to lose Congress in 1994 and then have the repukes try, by every means short of assassination, to take away the presidency as well thereafter.

Clinton never had the undergirding of a fawning media or supportive Congress to challenge the Bush legacy in Iraq. Recall the hue and cry over Somalia, yet another inheritance from Poppy? I agree that welfare reform was wrong as was NAFTA but Clinton's administration was a constant fight to keep the right at bay.

And I'd take him back any day.

[charlie]

45. "...that John Kerry would have sent all our kin..."

You're looking in the wrong direction. Can he resist the pressure to send our kin into future military entanglements is the big question. Republicans are now blessed with a cudgel the haven't enjoyed the use of since the days of the Red Menace -- the so-called War On Terror.

LBJ was one of the meanest take-no-shit characters to ever sit in the Oval Office. But even he was fearful of the "soft on Communism" tag. Although he promised otherwise, and did not believe it was a worthy effort, he couldn't countenance the idea that southeast Asia would fall to the Reds during his administration, and expanded US involvement in Vietnam. At the end of his term, there were a half million troops in that hellhole, over 1 in every 400 Americans.

Suppose a few Beirut barracks type bombings occur in Iraq. And the Republican controlled intelligence committees ginned up and released reports pointing to Hassad as the real mastermind behind bin Laden and Islamic terror. Would Kerry hold firm and not strike westward into Syria? Could Kerry resist a Republican-manufactured tide of public outrage, clamoring for him to flatten Damascus?

I don't know. I have my doubts.

Kerry has twice faced Presidents who cynically used the blood of Americans for their own political ends. It's because of his experience with Nixon that I don't readily accept his claim that he didn't know that Dubya would lie to him.

...

On edit: I'll be voting for the man, should he be the nominee. Wanted to make that clear and save some here the effort of having to craft a witty self-satisfied snark just for me.

[zoeyfong]

50. Couldn't have said it better myself.

At least if it is bush who continues this madness there will be no doubt as to which party is responsible. (that is, unless more spineless dems succumb to the 'patriotism' cannard and jump on board behind the next war.)

[regnaD kciN]

57. To answer your question...

I would just ask you this. Do you believe in your heart of hearts that John Kerry would have sent all our kin off to die and sacrificed all those thousands of civillians as President?

...yes, I think that if polls had shown a sizeable majority of the voting public in favor of it, Kerry would have loosed the dogs of war -- while all the time coming up with a persuasive-sounding "explanation" of how, by going to war, he wasn't really going to war. It would be just a "police action," you see, not meant to occupy Iraq, but to "hold Saddam accountable" for his WMD program. Then, when it turned out that there were no WMDs, he would be shocked -- shocked! -- that bungled CIA intelligence had led us to this pass.

The one difference between Bush and Kerry would be that, once public opinion turned against the occupation, he'd be turning the job over to the U.N. in record time.

Sorry, but that's the opinion I have of John Kerry's ethics...an opinion formed over watching his record over the years of the Bush regime. Remember, I was once an outspoken Kerry supporter, and was touting him for the 2004 nomination (if Gore didn't want it) almost immediately after the 2000(s)election -- but I got my eyes opened, big time. Now, I think I would have even preferred Lieberman as president.

:-(

[flpoljunkie]

74. The populist Edwards voted for the China trade deal in 2000.

Edward's populist campaign was born on the steps of the City Hall in Nashua, NH, on January 3rd with his "Two America's" speech.

Edward's populist rhetoric belies a number of his votes in the Senate. Besides the China trade deal vote in 2000, Edwards voted in 2001 for the bankruptcy bill, an egregious giveaway to the banks and credit card companies. Edwards also voted against increasing the renewable energy standards, to weaken the Safe Water Drinking Act, to continue factory farms (i.e., hog farms) and to limit the liability of the nuclear industry.

Consider these votes when you consider your vote for the Democratic nominee. John Kerry's lifetime record of fighting and voting for civil rights, consumer rights and the environment speaks volumes; his is not an election year conversion.

Edwards and Lieberman were considered to be the two candidates preferred by the DLC. Yet, despite Edward's increasingly populist rhetoric, his position in the debate Sunday that we cannot have it all and balance the budget is right out of the DLC/Clinton playbook. This devotion to balancing the budget is also a hallmark of the Dean campaign--courting Dean's supporters, perhaps?

[mzmolly]

104. That sentence struck a chord with me too. As did your comments on Edwards

Dean
Edwards
Kerry
Bush...

In that order.

Not sure what I'll do come November though.

[feistydem]

9. That's a shame...

...and it is short-sighted. But it is certainly your right to feel that way.

Nevertheless, I hope your attitude is in the minority.

Women's reproductive rights, free speech, the right to a fair and speedy trial, environmental stewardship, and the separation of church and state --to name but a small few-- are serious issues that will be in grave danger should Bush be re-"elected."

Even if a Democrat doesn't like Kerry, it's hard to imagine one would think Bush is a better option.

[GabysPoppy]

67. Great response

How anyone can't grasp the concept of ABB is totally beyond my comprehension. Why doesn't everyone who proclaims they want real change in the country and world realize the journey will start with the first real step forward and not three steps backwards?

A non vote or non support of the Democrat candidate regardless of who it turns out to be, is totally insane. It will already take a generation just to reverse the past four years. How many generations can you add to that if we wind up with four more years of this horror?

I ask these people if we have that many generations left to even have a chance of reversing that damage he is capable of inflicting?

[AngryYoungMan]

10. So because of Kerry's voting record, you will:

a) write Dean in

b) vote for Bush

c) stay home


????

I am determined to keep a civil tone here but I just don't understand this thinking at all.

Are you planning on spending the next four years in some region of interstellar space where Bush's evil can't get to you? Because there's nowhere on Earth to hide from a second Bush admininstration.

[Raster]

12. I don't get it...

...after everything we've seen, how could anyone not support whoever is running against $hrub?

Right now, I'd friggin' vote for Mickey Mouse if I thought it would put an end to fascist bullshit.

[Tinoire]

14. Then do so. Meet the Left on a half-way compromise

It's precisely the unwillingness of the establishment and non-populist voters to meet the Left half-way on key issues that is causing this.

[library_max]

73. The platform isn't even written yet.

Why don't we wait for the convention and see what's in the platform before we decide that the "establishment" isn't doing anything for the Left?

[kiahzero]

142. ... huh?

How is voters voting for Kerry the unwillingness of the establishment and non-populist voters to meet the Left half-way on key issues?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[The Blue Knight]

18. Don't vote for the Dem this election? Don't fucking bitch about Bush's 2nd

term.

[regnaD kciN]

58. Damned if you do and damned if you don't...

As I see it, if you don't vote for the nominee (presumably Kerry) this November, you have no right to complain about Bush for the next four years.

BUT...

...likewise, if you vote for Kerry, you have no right to complain about Kerry when he triangulates his way to "the center" and sells Democratic Party ideals down the river, as I have no doubt he will.

:-(

[shivaji]

16. No shit, Kerry voted for Bush 14 times in 3 years....so not voting

for Kerry once is no biggie. Go Dean.

[eileen from OH]

17. See, this is what I can't figure about Dean supporters

And I AM one. . .the last person who would want us to stay home is the Governor.

I'm with him till he drops, but HIS is the one endorsement that will count for me. I'll vote for Kerry, and say a silent thanks to Dean while I do it. I can't think of a better tribute to what the Governor has done this election than to cast a vote for the Dem nominee, no matter who it is. I got into this election because of Dean and HE got into it because he knew how bloody important it was to energize the party and get Bush out. He's already won in my book EXCEPT if his supporters stay home.

eileen from OH

[The Blue Knight]

19. Think of a vote more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry.

[zoeyfong]

53. I appreciate Dean's loyalty to the dem party, but my loyalty is to

justice, truth, and the betterment of the universe, and if the democratic party abandons that, then i abandon it.

[library_max]

76. So you're voting for Superman, then?

Oh wait, that was "truth, justice, and the American way." I get my slogans mixed up sometimes.

If you're for the betterment of the universe, help us get a better president than George W. Bush. Kerry may not be your choice among Democrats, but he's obviously better than Bush. Politics isn't about finding a candidate you agree with 100%. It's about picking the best of the real alternatives. In this country, that means the Republican or the Democrat. When you opt out, you leave the decision to those who don't opt out, a majority of whom may turn out to be Republican. How the hell does that contribute to the betterment of the universe?

[zoeyfong]

137. Please, there is such a thing as long term strategizing.

I believe that for the democratic party to continue electing spineless, opportunist, republican enablers *prevents* the election of more capable people who would better the universe at a faster rate and without as much collateral damage. I would agree that kerry is incrementally better than bush, but this seems to be more accidental than anything else, and in my calculation, electing him will only continue the long term net losses the democratic party is suffering. As with the bush budget, the problems are structural, and enron-like slights of hand are not going to reverse them. The only thing politicians understand is winning and losing, and the only way the electorate can make them change course is to show them the door, republican or democrat alike. Btw, I am a realist, and i am all for taking half a loaf when i can't get the whole one, *except* when taking half the loaf is the very thing that prevents me from getting the whole loaf.

[library_max]

146. There is also such a thing as fantasizing.

And such a thing as basing one's politics on name-calling. Neither one gets us anywhere.

You're basing your strategy on a fantasy. You are not going to "show them the door" by rejecting both Republicans and Democrats alike. You're just going to remove yourself from the decision-making process. Take as an example any election. You don't have to vote for the Democrat or the Republican, but if you don't, your vote will count for nothing. Do it ten times, ten wasted votes. Do it a hundred times, a hundred wasted votes. No matter how many times you do it, you will never change anything, except for the effect of denying your vote to the candidate closest to your viewpoint (effectively helping your worst enemy). You can only show one candidate the door, and you can do it only by voting for the other guy.

The whole loaf you want is actually a pie in the sky. There is no term long enough for achieving the impossible by utterly ineffective means.

[zoeyfong]

147. You either misunderstand, or are fantasizing yourself.

The fact is, that if democrats lose a few times in a row due to low dem turnout or green party splitting, they will reconsider their strategy. If in effect, *democrats* show democratic candidates the door, they *will* change their strategy. That's not fantasizing, that's reality. Politics is all about winning and losing; as a 'realist' you should know that. Now it is possible that after suffering such losses the democratic party could simply abandon the left completely and move further right in order to pick up votes. The 'move right' strategy has been tried several times and failed, so my wager is on dems finally trying a move the other way. Personally, i'm going to write in a Dean, but you are really dreaming if you don't think not voting has an impact on the eventual winner. If 538 more democrats had been motivated enough to show up at the polls in Florida in 2000, Al Gore would be president now.

[library_max]

148. The problem with your theory is the math.

When the left makes itself impossible to please, the Democrats can court their votes only at the expense of center/swing votes. Generally speaking, they lose more than one center/swing vote for every purist-left vote they get. Plus, the center/swing voters they lose will probably vote for Bush instead, so it's actually like losing two votes for each vote lost.

Don't believe me? Look at history. When is the last time this theory of yours worked? When is the last time either major party starting listening to its extremists after they staged such a snitfit? Florida Greens who voted for Nader cost Gore the election. They "showed him the door," and held it open for Bush. You'd think if your theory ever had a chance of working, it'd be this year. But did it? No. It didn't work because it doesn't work and it isn't going to work.

[zoeyfong]

149. When has it worked? How 'bout repubs and the christian coalition?

Reagan cozied up to the christian coalition big time, and it worked like a charm. Of course you have to tend to the middle, as well; no one is saying you don't. I disagree that doing what it takes to get the votes on the left will necessarily lose votes in the middle; i think the dems *can* craft a message which will appeal to both the left and the center. As howard dean said, we need to start actively courting poor conservatives, but of course on issues other than prejudice pandering. There is no reason why these people shouldn't be voting democrat, but our leaders have not made the case with enough clarity and consistency. And they never will, as long as they can keep skating by with their current principle-free strategy. And btw, i would hardly call myself an 'extremist.' I won't vote for someone who voted to get people killed because he didn't want to lose his next election, okay? It's funny that you think nader cost gore the election; why don't you balme gore for not getting them into the party? As far as this election goes, my prediction is that the green/3rd party vote will be greater than in 2000, and quite possibly it will cost kerry the election. After that, we'll see what happens. I'll tell you this, i am thinking a lot longer term than you are.

[library_max]

152. I think you missed my point.

Did the Christian Coalition get what it wanted (and it certainly did not get most of what it wanted, anyway, extremes never do) by refusing to vote Republican, or by putting itself at the disposal of the Republican Party? I think if you look at the record you'll see that they supported Republicans right along. So how is that an example of how a group can get a party to listen to them by not supporting that party?

Alas, no extremist thinks he is an extremist. Every extremist just thinks he's right and everyone else is wrong.

Thinking in the longer term? Well, maybe sometime after two plus two no longer equals four, and elections are no longer won by appealing to the majority, your logic will start to work. That's just too long term for me.

[BL_Zebub]

101. The party DID abandon that

The day they allowed the corporatist PNAC/PPI fascists to take over the party.

[Syrinx]

20. I'm not thrilled with Kerry, but...

Try and stop me from voting for him. Bush is too dangerous to let him continue on the current path. ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!

[Kanary]

22. I very much appreciate your honesty.

You are right... the posturing and selling out is why Dems have been losing.

It is all a *very* hard decision, and there are many of us who are heartsick. It saddens me further that so many are willing to judge rather than to hear the pain involved. We're losing our party... of *course* we're upset. There are no great answers. If Kerry is the nominee, whatever we do.... there is some loss involved. So, we're doing some of our grieving now.

In a sense, I have just about the most to lose..... another term of Bushwa, and the cuts he will make to the safety net will have me long gone. But, I also think Kerry will do exactly the same... the last three years have shown that he doesnt' stand up to pressures like that. So, I think I lose either way.

Given that, I understand completely your dilemma. I wish others would have a bit more compassion. It's not easy being green.... er, ah... Dem.

Kanary

[John_H]

23. I'm sure Chimp's nominees to replace rehnquist, O'Connor and Stevens

thank you deeply.

[tkmorris]

37. Bingo

That may be the one thing that ensures beyond any doubt whatsoever that Bush CANNOT be allowed to remain in the White House. No matter what anyone else has done if he is permitted to choose the Supreme Court nominees to replace at least 2 and possibly 3 justices currently serving we are doomed for a generation. Doomed I say! (Sorry, I was channeling those 2 guys on that FedEx commercial.)

I don't think people really grasp how important those 9 people are. A president can make an ass of himself but he will have to face the voters every 4 years and will never get more than 2 terms. Supreme Court justices serve for life, and that can be one hell of a long time. Furthermore their power in some ways dwarfs the president's. These people have the power to interpret the very foundation of our government, the Constitution itself.

I don't like Kerry much. He strikes me as an opportunist; an insincere man riding the waves of public opinion. I may well be wrong but I cannot think of one vote he ever cast in the Senate that went against the grain of opinion in his state, certainly not any that risked his seat. Even when he does take a stand for or against something his position seems to be almost an apologetic one, one which makes it as simple as possible to back out of should the need arise.

It doesn't matter. If he's the nominee this is one time when I will vote for whoever can beat Bush. Carrot-top, PeeWee Herman, Mickey Mouse, a half-eaten chocolate cake, whatever. Because Bush must go. He must. There is no sane alternative.

[regnaD kciN]

61. I'm not sure this argument works anymore...

This isn't 1976 or 1992 (when Carter and Clinton, respectively, were elected along with a Democratic Senate). Now, a President Kerry will be facing a hard-line Republican Senate with payback on its mind, viewing the 2004-2008 period as an unfortunate but temporary detour from God's Way Of Politics, and awaiting the Coming of Jebby to right all wrongs.

In this environment, do you seriously think a President Kerry will be able to fill Supreme Court vacancies with progressive, or even moderately liberal choices? Not a chance. I wouldn't even be sure of a pure moderate making it through the Senate -- I think the Republicans would have no compunctions about killing any Kerry nominees, even at the risk of leaving vacancies on the Court, until 2008, when the Divine Order would be restored.

In that environment, what would Kerry do? I fear that, if faced with gridlock over a nominee, the Republican Senate leadership would wind up secretly going to him with a list of "moderate conservatives" who they would be willing to confirm, and letting Kerry take his pick. And, knowing Kerry's record of knuckling under to Republican pressure, I would not be the least surprised to see him "compromise" yet again. I predict that you would soon see a photo-op of Kerry and the Republican Senate leadership grinning broadly as they introduce the next Supreme Court Justice: Joe Lieberman (with Zell Miller next in waiting).

:eyes:

[MessiahRp]

70. Something struck me with that comment

"I may well be wrong but I cannot think of one vote he ever cast in the Senate that went against the grain of opinion in his state, certainly not any that risked his seat."

Sometimes I think people forget that as Congressmen or Women these people are hired to represent the views of his constituents not just his own. If he was consistently voting against the wishes of his homebase he certainly would be doing all that voted for him a disservice by removing their voice from Congress in place of his own. And as President he should stand on his own principles more because a President's personal views are meant to guide a Nation where as lower ranking elected officials truly are there to represent the citizens in their voting districts.

As for the people that think not voting for Kerry is wise and feel they can't compromise their personal values to vote for JK... Let's just see how much your personal values mean come next year if Bush is re-elected, has four years with no electorate to face down in 2008, and has a decidedly Republican Congress to manipulate at his descretion. As bad as it is now, it will be worse then.

Kerry, for all of DU's blabbering to the contrary does happen to have a liberal voting record... he just manages to navigate the gray areas in complicated ways, which is understandable because not everything is black and white like Bush would want us to believe.

In the first IWR vote he voted with many in Congress that worried we were protecting Saudi oil interests and didn't give a fuck about the Kurds (check out how we did nothing for the Kurds after Desert Storm), the second IWR vote he knew Bush was going anyways but cast his vote to authorize in hopes that he would seek UN approval which was a substantial condition on his vote from his Senate floor speech, the Patriot Act was signed in haste after 9/11 and every senator other than Feingold signed it, but at least Kerry helped write in some of the sunset clauses... Now Bush has to worry about getting this thing passed again and it will never happen. No Child Left Behind, he voted for it hoping it would be fully funded and that Bush wouldn't purposely try to place the entire education system's problems on the teachers alone. Even Teddy Kennedy thought this would happen when he authored the original version of the bill.

For what it's worth Kerry navigated the close, tough issues in ways that reflected the sentiments of his constituents and that of his fellow Senators. Other than these four controversial pieces of Legislation that one Bush or another fucked up anyways, he has been a strong fighter in the Senate for liberal values and there's no reason to just up and think he's going to be GWB III out there.

That's mainly because of that stupid Bush-Lite label that Dean threw out there once again being taken way too seriously by the sometimes partially naive DUers that aren't seeing the overall picture.

Rp

[sleipnir]

25. I feel your pain...I really do

I've had a hard time these last few weeks trying to figure out whether or not I'd vote for Kerry. Sufficient to say, I agree with you on many levels. But, I've come to the conclusion, that I do want Bush out of office, I'm very passionate about it, almost as passionate as I am to see anyone OTHER than Kerry as the nominee.

Though, in the end I decided that I would vote for Kerry in November, as I couldn't bring myself not to at least give some effort to oust a greater evil to be replaced by what I feel is a lesser evil.

Perhaps you can join me by not actively supporting Kerry though the process. By that I mean, I will not give him a dime of my money, wear one of his campaign buttons, put of a bumper sticker, try to convince others to vote for him, etc. He will get a check mark from me on Nov. 2nd, but that's all.

I just can't bring myself to actively support a man whom I aggressively disagree with and who has disappointed me time after time over the last three years. I just can't do it, and I won't.

That's not to say that I'm leaving DU or the Party, no, I keep fighting for what I believe in, but I will abide by the rules and not post articles or comments critical of Kerry after August.

[Polemonium]

28. Same here

The question that remains when considering * and Kerry, is simply do you want to see most Americans take a speedboat over the waterfall or a rowboat? If we're not interested in going over the waterfall into the pool of a bolder aristocracy ruling the impoverished masses -- well too bad.

Can the aristocracy live with Kerry? - most definitely, well many of them miss *? - sure, but shrewd folks know when to cut and run.

Dean is willing to turn his back on control by special interests, and as a centrist he represents many in the party, but he keeps most of the left simply because his outspokeness and his lack of a corporate pupateer make him a huge step in the right direction. It would be tragic to turn our backs on someone who would bring so many of us together.

[OneBlueSky]

29. think Supreme Court . . .

put your personal preferences aside and do what's right . . . one of them is going to win, and there IS a difference . . . a pretty vast one at that . . .

[clarknyc]

31. I cannot stand the John Forbes Kerry of today.

However, if he's the nominee, I will not hesitate to vote for him. We must not allow a single more Bush judicial nomination. That is what compells me to vote ABB.

That said, I'll continue to support Dean throughout the primaries.

[Toby109]

32. I guess I just don't understand

I was under the impression that this website was created as a forum to help get Bush out of office. And now several posters feel the need to express their view that this is secondary. That this time we are living in, right fucking now, does not require a change in our stance toward the upcoming election. Bush and his mentors have to be casted out regardless of anyone's particular issues.

Sorry, but I'm with The Blue Knight on this one: If you cast your vote as some kind of protest, don't you dare come back to DU and whine about four more years of this cretin.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[RummyTheDummy]

36. Interesting to see these posts.

Many Dean supporters were very pro ABB this summer and fall when they thought he had it wrapped up. Only now when he will be completely shut out when it comes to the nomination do they take their ball and go home because they didn't get what they want. It was easy to be ABB then.

So take your ball. Take it and go home. Apparently the Dean Machine isn't capable of winning a single primary or caucus so it must not be what it's craked up to be anyway. Or should I say what it WAS cracked up to be.

No big loss.

(On edit: Im not a Kerry supporter and voted for Edwards in my state's primary)

[countmyvote4real]

43. I agree and respectfully disagree, too.

I agree with you about the whining that my candidate isn't winning, so I'm sitting this out. Hey, my choice (Clark) barely won one state and then pulled out (or cut his losses).

I'm already aware of the consequences, so I am now firmly ABB.

However, I disagree that we should dismiss the voices that have been sparked by Dean or any of the the original candidates.

We need turnout in the GE more than ever. Our lives and livelihood depend upon it.

And on further thought, if Kerry is as changeable as this opposition suggests, then why isn't this perceived as an opportunity for progressive change? I suppose the easy answer is sour grapes. I've been eating them since the SC selected * over the popular vote of the people.

In conclusion, we need these people and they need us whether or not they want to admit it.

[Vernunft II]

34. I´d hate having vote for Kerry BUT

I give him one thing. He wouldn´t have pushed for war mercilessly. He let it happen without speaking up which is why I really would prefer Dean or Kuchinich but if the last choice comes down to a democratic wimp with big business connections and a republican warmonger with big business connections I think I´ll go with the wimp.

Still, I haven´t given up hope there will be a better alternative.

[robsul82]

40. As I've said for a long while.

Kerry 2004 - It Better Not Rain.

Later.

RJS

[Gemini Cat]

41. I don't fancy voting for Kerry either.

However, I fancy a lot less another four years of the current miserable unelected son of a wanker in office!
I don't think neither I nor the rest of the world can survive another four more years of this regime.

:dem:

[JCMach1]

42. The big losers if you don't vote for Kerry will be the American

people...

Sometimes things are greater than just ourselves... our primal likes or dislikes.

I have never been a huge Kerry fan... but I would cheer a steaming pile of horse puck to victory if it was the nominee against Bush.

[Lexingtonian]

46. Oh, good one!

A posturer that has yet to find a special interest that he couldn't do business with.

First of all, you don't seem to have looked at Howard Dean's actual record in any detail.

Secondly, Northern-ish white middle class people who are economically moderate-to-Left and social moderate-to-conservatives and think themselves benign and righteous- the Dean demographic, led by a bunch of illiberal Left activists- are in fact a 'special interest group' on par with a good number of others that the Democratic Party endeavors to represent.

It's the fact of your 'special interest group' showing no spine and no willingness to act on interests other than selfinterest for so many years that are much of the reason that the Democratic leadership has not been able to be confident of substantial parts of its base support.

Of course, now that your group is in trouble there's no limit on how much the leadership is supposed to cater to you. Of course, after all the abuse at your group's hands, why should they?

Well, because much of the leadership is still liberal.

You don't see the irony here, do you?

[countmyvote4real]

47. That was a spanking, Lex. Ouch. n/t

[Lexingtonian]

51. Hey, some of us do keep score.

:-)

[zoeyfong]

54. Yeah, well, at least Dean didn't get anybody killed for nothing.

[Lexingtonian]

60. Remind me again-

What were opinion polls at the time?

How many lives would a symbolic vote the other way have spared?

The answer is: the American people- as masses/mob- wanted this one, and so the responsibility is collective. You are partly responsible too, as am I, for every death.

You're welcome.

[CTLawGuy]

84. public opinion polls eh?

so now we are supposed to govern by public opinion poll, rather than our convictions? A no vote would probably not have spared any lives, but it would have removed Kerry from complicity in this war. If more dems and some moderate Pugs had voted "no" then maybe it would have saved lives.

I forgot that Kerry has no convictions. sorry.

[lastliberalintexas]

102. God I hope you're joking

Kerry should base something as important as the IWR vote on public opinion polls? Interesting concept of leadership there.

Beyond that, the people of Massachusetts were overwhelmingly opposed to the invasion back in October of 2002. (I don't have the time to find a cite- you can use Google just as easily as I can). AND THOSE WERE THE PEOPLE KERRY REPRESENTED AT THE TIME. The fact that he was already looking at his presidential run and was more interested in how that vote would affect his run is what irritates me.

So, while I don't think that our elected leaders should blindly follow our wishes (hence the term *representative* democracy), the polls in his own state were the opposite of what he voted. So the defense will now be what?

[JVS]

125. It is a sad day

when a man who has 1/100th of the votes in the Senate can get a pass for voting for an unjust war, yet a person who has 1/100,000,000th of the vote in a national election bears heavy responsibility for the actions of the government.

[zoeyfong]

138. The buck stops here, buddy!

When it comes to matters of the magnitude of war and peace, by god, every person had better vote their own conscience. A member of congress is never called upon to cast a vote of greater consequence than that to send the country to war, and in the final analysis, judgement is on the head of every individual human being; the 'mob' will not be called to account. I stood unequivocally, publicly against the war from the very beginning. I did what i could to stop it. My conscience is clear. I share no blame with the mob that rushed to war. Can John Forbes Kerry say the same?

[idlisambar]

48. Don't make a decision now

I hear you completely. It is very frustrating that it looks like we are going to get yet another nominee from the corporate wing of the party.

We have a while to make our decision though, let's see how Kerry reacts once we get into the general election phase. Once we see Kerry head to head in a debate with Bush, I have a feeling the prospect of voting for Kerry will seem more attractive.

[Dookus]

49. *puts on Shirley Temple wig*

Oh no, Mr. Unfrigginreal! I'll be EVER so sad if you do that.

*takes off wig*

Vote your heart. These "please grovel for my vote" threads are annoying. When you find a politician who agrees with you 100% of the time, let us all know.

Until then, I'll be rational and vote for the one who can beat the travesty currently in the White House. If I want purity, I'll get a dog. In the meantime, I'll settle for a President.

[countmyvote4real]

52. Dammit, Dookus. You could have shortened this thread

if you'd only weighed in hours ago. Thanks ever so much for the much needed nail.

xoxox (I'm still a relative newbie here, is that acceptable?)

[Dookus]

56. I'll take all the hugs and kisses I can get

welcome to DU.

[Piperay]

59. Whatever...

:shrug: your mind is made up. I wouldn't waste my breath trying to change your non-vote anymore than I would on a chimp supporter whose vote is going to help put him in for another 4 years, it amounts to the same thing. :argh:

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[regnaD kciN]

63. Here's how I plan to stop worrying and learn to love John Kerry...

First of all, I have an advantage, in that I live in Washington State, meaning that we have one of the latest poll-closing times in the nation.

I intend to cast my general election vote ten minutes before the polls close, and be listening to news reports up until that very minute.

If the election is still up in the air at that point, and it looks like there's even a chance that Washington will decide the outcome, I'll hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

If it has already been "called" for either candidate, and the returns show no chance that this call may change, I'll vote my conscience...which will likely be a third-party candidate of some stripe or another (probably Green now that Ralphie has decided to abandon them to run as an independent).

In any event, if it seems even remotely likely that a "lesser of two evils" vote shall be required from me, I'll spend the month before the election faithfully visiting Free Republic, World Net Daily, NewsMax, and other such right-wing sites, reading as much of their rhetoric as it may take to convince me that Kerry really is an extreme, unbending hard-line liberal.

;-)

BUT...if Kerry is the nominee (as now seems almost certain), at some time this year, I will officially drop my Democratic Party affiliation in favor of a party that reflects my convictions, rather than one that takes a "you'll accept what we give you...after all, where are you gonna go?" attitude while throwing away everything I hold dear for expediency's sake. It may be the Green Party. It may be the Labor Party. It may be the Cascadian National Party. (It may be the Monster Raving Looney Party! ;-) ) Or, I may decide to simply register as an "independent," and forsake party politics whatsoever. I will continue to work for real progressive causes. But I will not give a bit of my time, energy, or money to a Party that has nothing to offer me or my values but a kick in the face while at the same time insisting that I pledge my devotion to them, or else.

[Guava Jelly]

64. And if bush wins because of 1 vote

and we loose the supreme court because bush gets to appoint the next 2 supreme court judges.
Is it worth it?
This is bigger then one candidat or the other.
Bush needs to go.
we have the best chance of negating him if we mass our votes and unite.
voting third party is a vote for bush since your vote dosent negate a bush vote.
Happy 1984 in 2004

[Braden]

66. Liberals for Bush

sounds like Jews for Buchanan.

Look you can do what you want. But you might as well vote for Bush if you aren't voting for the Democratic nominee.

[DianeK]

68. i hear you

i will not allow the media to tell me who is 'electable'...i will be supporting dean as long as dean is in this and if he decides to drop i will not be able to lend my support to kerry...kerry has not made one decision in the last 4 years that has not been dictated by politics...some leader! and now he is running around parroting all that dean has said as if they are original thoughts..the man is a coward and certainly no leader..he is no better than bush

[MessiahRp]

77. Apparently you need a definition of the word "Politics"

"kerry has not made one decision in the last 4 years that has not been dictated by politics"

LOL that's the name of the game. I dare you to find one elected official that doesn't play politics whenever they cast a vote.... Because that's what politics is!!! Voting and the act leading up to it are the very definition of politics!

Check out Dean's record in Vermont. Tell me he wasn't playing politics one some of those issues. You'll be lying if you say he wasn't. If you're in the game of politics, you are a politician. Kerry does stuff everyone else does because that's how the game is played.

And I wouldn't call a man who was shot three times in 'Nam a coward. The man has stared down death to save his crewmen's lives. Tell me when you did something remotely that brave where you can try to sit and judge.

Rp

[arwalden]

69. Hey Rocky?! Wanna See Me Pull A "I'm Not Voting Thread" Outta My Hat?

Again?!?

[NNN0LHI]

71. I would have thought Florida 2000 would have taught people something? n/t

[arwalden]

83. Yeah! One Would Think... Wouldn't One?

-- Allen

[mmonk]

72. It's a free country still

though your decision disappoints. I hope your anger doesn't hold. Don't let it cloud your judgement too much. But it's your decision.

[KittyWampus]

75. A Dean Supporter Citing Kerry's Special Interests... Now That's Irony

I suppose Dean's contributions from grassroots washes his entire record clean. NOT!

By the way, didn't AOL bundle a bunch of contributions for Dean?

[MessiahRp]

79. They sure did...

Yep...

Time Warner over the course of Kerry's entire career has given him approx. $140,000. That equals out to about $7,000/year for Mr. Kerry.

Howard Dean however got $65,225 from Time Warner in ten months last year....

Hmmm...

Rp

[KittyWampus]

82. The Point Is WHEN Kerry Got Money & WHEN He Voted

NOT the average amount Kerry got over the years.

Sorry, but just because I cited the irony doesn't mean there isn't hypocracy going on here.

Kerry is not "Mr. Clean" either.

I detest his sanctimonious pretense.

[NNN0LHI]

86. Hush yo mouth now. We ain't supposed to know about that stuff

You should know better than to bring up the truth around here. Rumor mongering is fine. But no truth please.

Don

[jansu]

80. Supreme Court Justices are the main reason to vote for ABB....

so hold your nose and vote for which ever nominee will get! Just look at who * has tried to fill the lower courts with!

[LynneSin]

81. And then you'll be a disappointment to Howard Dean

Since we know that he will be encouraging all of his supporters to get behind John Kerry.

It's odd that you proclaim to be such a Howard Dean fan and yet you'll be ignoring his one request which will be to support John Kerry in November.

Don't even THINK of using that total bullcrap of "Kerry Supported Bush" because that is the biggest copout and you know it!!

Will Kerry be appointing right-wing ideologues like William Pryor, Charles Pickering, Pricella Owens, Miguel Estrada to the federal and supreme Courts?

Will Kerry get in bed with the corporations and help weaking the laws against the environment just so those corporations can get a profit?

Will Kerry open up our national parks and allow Oil/Energy companies to bulldoze them over so we can save a few gallons of gas

Will Kerry continue to spend our money foolish and not give a rats ass that our national debt is growing rabidly and totally forget about trying to balance our budget and spend within our means?

Will Kerry cater to the anti-choice movement and restrict a woman's right to choose and take away valuable money needed for internation family planning (money that NEVER has and NEVER will pay for an overseas abortion)?

Will Kerry continue to solo in Iraq and Afghanistan and shut out the UN and many of our allies? Or will he turn these wars over to the UN to ensure a safe withdrawel and allow for fair elections that aren't favoring US Oil companies?

Will Kerry continue to piss off our allies like France, Germany and Russia?

Will Kerry allow Enron and other companies to get off scotfree of ruining the lives of their employees and investors?

Will Kerry accept money from companies like Diebold and then look the other way as they corrupt our voting systems?

All I know is this - take that Howard Dean sign out of your logo because obviously you aren't doing what Dean would do. I've been supporting Dean since April of 2003 and I've made some big donations to the guy. I've sacrificed hours and hours of my time to help get the Doctor elected. And those rumors about Dean supporting the nom will be reality if and when he drops out of the race. Dean wants to run again in a few years. You are an embarassment to what the Dean team is all about.

[AVID]

89. . . .now, back you your seat . . .

You rock lynnesyn . .spoken like a well tenured Kinder teacher to an immature brat spitting spitballs.

Behave ideologues!!!

[LynneSin]

95. I just hate these tunnel vision supporters

Folks who see one or two issues where the candidate supported Bush and thinks that these reasons are the only issues for 2004.

I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the fact that Kerry (along with with Delaware twin and my senator Joe Biden) supported that Iraq war with the flimsy excuses and the fact that they actually trusted Bush to work with the UN.

But if that is what I base my vote on in November, I hope a bunch of DUers take me to a dark alley somewhere and bitchslap some sense into me.

I care about our enviroment, I care about my right to choose, I care about having healthcare for everyone, I'm pissed corporations are out to screw over the working class and I can think of a dozen other issues that I care about that John Kerry and the other dem candidates care passionately about but I know Bush doesn't.

I will not sacrifice those above issues just because of the war vote. I have full trust in Kerry (should he get the nomination) that he will do the right thing and get the UN involved in Iraq and allow the UN to help get Iraq back on their feet again.

[AVID]

88. bush* Thanks You !!!

If you opt out and not vote on purely idealistic stubbornness, you will have to swallow the wink, nod, and thank yous of b* on Jan 20, 2005.

Kerry will not be the sledgehammer of change you idealistically dream Dean, Kucinich, or Edwards might be; however, even a hedge, straw, feather, nudge, anything that might slow the force b* has begun is better than sitting idly by.

A non Dem vote is a vote for asscroft and rummy (and b*)!!!

[revcarol]

90. It took a Guardian article today to wake me up.

The article was about BCCI but talked about how Kerry is so much in favor of budget cutting measures and would have a high "defence" budget!!

then I looked at his site and discovered platitudes about where he would get the money to run the government. Repeal the tax cut for the rich: Okey Dokey. Close loopholes: NOT okey dokey, which loopholes, how much addition revenue would they bring in, if any?

And not reduce the "defence" budget, much if any? So what's going to go under the knife? Education, naw he wants to fund NCLB even though its premise is disastrous.the military, veterans, unemployment extensions, housing for the poor, job training, highways, alternative fuel funding, Medicaid, what's going to be CUT?--because you CAN'T HAVE GUNS AND BUTTER!!And he wants guns.

And further expense to CONTINUE THE OCCUPATION of Iraq. But we're gonna get some allies in there, like those allies who already refused to be coerced or bribed to be part of the occupation? Sure, the;y're all going to rush in to help just because the President has a "D" in front of his name.

Guess I had never really come to the realization of how low we as a party have sunk, to put him in a position as leader.

My vote will probably go to him IF he is the nominee, but NOTHING ELSE. AS A PROGRESSIVE, I HAVE BEEN BETRAYED.

edit: HIS HEALTH CARE "PLAN" IS DISASTROUS. All that the insurance companies and pharma companies could ask for!!

[Kanary]

92. You're right... but, I'm considered a traitor

"So what's going to go under the knife? Education,
naw he wants to fund NCLB even though its premise is disastrous.the military, veterans, unemployment
extensions, housing for the poor, job training, highways, alternative fuel funding, Medicaid, what's going
to be CUT?--because you CAN'T HAVE GUNS AND BUTTER!!And he wants guns."

That means ME. Yet, there are so many people here mad at ME because I probably won't vote for him, either.

Imagine that. I'm not interested in voting for the person who will take me out. Amazing, eh?

I'm supposed to be a good lil' martyr, and vote for my demise.

Guess that means..... I just ain't worth much, eh? To either the Dems or the rightwing.

Kanary

[LynneSin]

124. Biggest problem with cutting defense cost: Jobs will be lost

And believe me, it won't be the CEO and boards of these defense companies but the average joes like you and me who are trying to make ends meet working for these defense companies.

Where should these folks get their jobs if we cut out too much defense spending?

Kerry needs to cut out the ridiculous spending like the Iraq War and Missile Defense system. But any nominee cuts too much into defense spending it's going to flood the market with too many unemployed folks.

[Kanary]

136. Biggest problem with cutting social programs: lives will be lost.

Did you forget that?

Or does it matter?

Kanary

[unfrigginreal]

96. Thanks for the responses

It's nice to see that all of the "I know what's best for you" folks still reign supreme on DU. All touting the same lame argument that the world will come to an end if a Democrat doesn't vote for Kerry. All using the brow beating lingo to get a vote for for an unelectable candidate. There's not a doubt in my mind that the exact same arguments would be presented even if the media had annointed Zell Miller as the Democratic candidate.

We Democrats must take a stand at some point to correct the path our Party has lurched too. We shouldn't have to get enthused about voting for a candidate that excels at posturing himself on both sides of every issue. People will eventually see through it.

Mr. Kerry's penchant for playing it both ways is not a new phenomena, take a look at his positions on the first Gulf War in this Globe article.

Still, Kerry's views could be fickle, even on foreign policy. After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Kerry suggested that the United States needed to give Saddam Hussein enough diplomatic "wiggle room" to leave Kuwait without losing face. He then voted against the congressional resolution authorizing military force, but became an enthusiastic supporter of the war as the allied coalition drove to victory in early 1991. His position was so nuanced that his office couldn't keep up with the changes, at one point mistakenly mailing out letters to his constituents that appeared to take both sides in the debate.

On Jan. 22, 1991, Kerry's office sent a letter to a constituent, thanking him for expressing opposition to the deployment of additional US troops in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. "I share your concerns," Kerry wrote, noting that on Jan. 11 he had voted in favor of a resolution opposing giving the president immediate authority to go to war and seeking to give economic sanctions more time to work.

On Jan. 31, the same constituent received a letter stating that, "From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."

Kerry blamed the mix-up on a computer error and subsequently wrote in defense of his position on the Gulf war: "The debate in the Senate was not about whether we should or should not have used force, but when force should be used."

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:PENpqwkeGfsJ:www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062103.shtml+%22john+kerry%22+gulf+war+weld&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

So, brow beat if you must but I'll be just as pissed off at your destruction of our Party as you will at mine.

[mmonk]

98. sorry you feel that way

More republican consolidation of power is still the greatest threat IMO.

[Ficus]

97. glad to see you don't care about roe v wade

since that'll be overturned when Bush packs the supreme court

[West Coast Democrat]

99. I think it's selfish to take one candidate's loss so poorly

And what makes Dean's supporters seem so much more sensitive?

[revcarol]

106. And I think it is selfish for the Democratic Party to ABANDON

almost all of our traditional Democratic principles: help for the less privileged, employment for Americans, a social safety net, diplomacy rather than PPI war and hegemony( a kindler gentler PNAC?), support for small business and family farms,,.,,for corporatism and feeding the HMO,insurance, pharma industries,for free trade which cannot be made fair under the present agreements, for repug-lite!!ETC. ETC.

The Democratic Party is demanding our ABB support and leaving us on the doorstep in the freezing cold.

[West Coast Democrat]

109. So Dean is for all of those things more than the other mainstream

Candidates? You'll have trouble convincing me of that.

[revcarol]

112. I am not a Dean supporter.

Kerry exemplifies the WORST side of the Democratic Party, which is still my party.

[West Coast Democrat]

113. The original poster IS a Dean supporter

And I'm getting a bit tired of all these posts from Dean-supporters declaring they will not vote for Kerry.

[NNN0LHI]

114. We are on an anonymous board. We don't know who supports who here

An avatar means nothing.

Don

[West Coast Democrat]

133. An Avatar that says Dean, means that person supports Dean

Or is there some new fad that people are using other candidate's avatars?

[unfrigginreal]

115. I'm a Democrat first and a Dean supporter 2nd

If going along with a crowd over a cliff is one of your requirements to be Democratic then count me out. I get the impression from many posts like this that folks believe that Dean supporters are not part of the party, that would be wrong. My feelings about Kerry have zilch, zero, nada to do with my support for Dean.

[littlejoe]

103. Please don't take your ball and go home. We need you.

[YNGW]

105. I'll probably join you.

We'll see if Nader throws his hat in the ring.

[Democat]

139. Do you care about the Supreme Court?

Maybe some women who want to have a choice of what they do with their own bodies do care, even if you don't.

[adamrsilva]

110. Will Kerry appoint anti-choice, anti-affirmative action

justices to the Supreme Court?

I was a Dean supporter, but c'mon...

[VOX]

111. Every year the * regime is enabled, the harder things will be to repair...

Judges are being appointed at a staggering clip by the right wing, and the laws of the land will be interpreted and upheld by them. These are *lifetime* appointments -- our children, and theirs after them, will inherit this legacy.

The Democratic nominee for president may be flawed, but he will get my vote regardless.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=7563
President Bush Re-Submits Controversial Judicial Nominees With Troubling Records on Civil Rights, Other Issues

President Bush today sent the Senate 30 nominations for lifetime positions on the federal district and circuit courts, including 14 candidates for crucial appeals court judgeships, as well as several other judicial nominations. Among the nominees are Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen – both rejected last year by the Senate Judiciary Committee – and a number of other judges with troubling records on civil rights and other issues, some of whom are opposed by local, state and national civil rights, women’s rights, and other organizations. Today’s district and circuit court nominees had all been nominated for judgeships in the last Congress; new nominees are expected in the near future.
<snip>

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[yo-yo-ma]

117. you're so enamored with the messenger that you missed the message

Although I too would like to see someone more progressive as the nominee (Kucinich -- Dean is, I'd say more center than Kerry . . . anyway . . . ) the point is that another 4 years of B*sh would be a disaster. There are huge differences between B*sh and anyone else. Dean has been stumping this over and over. Kerry, for example, probably won't be invading Syria or Iran. Won't be using mini-nukes. Won't be running up the deficit as high. Won't be destroying Medicare. etc.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

120. A dilemma, to be sure.

Whether to, once again, hold our noses, suppress the gag impulse and vote for the "not as bad" candidate that the DLC/DNC foists upon us, or, for once, stick to our principles and reject the pablum is not an easy choice.

So far, I've been gritting my teeth and vowing to not give in to the calls for "compromise" which the right wing of the party so dearly loves to extoll while offering nothing to the left.

Fortunately, I live in a "safe" state (WA) where my vote will be counted only in retrospect as an indication of the dissatisfaction of some of the party.

That being the case, I have little, if any, reason to vote for unflavored Jell-O offered up by the bosses.

At some point we will have to have an opposition party to moderate/conservative parties with their stranglehold on the nation..and the world.

[Carolina]

122. Do you live in a red state?

I feel as you do on one level because I now reside in a solidly red, frequently politically stupid state that will likely go to Bush regardless of my vote. I also feel as you do regarding Kerry, who I once, long ago it seems now, supported but who seems the most flawed, compromised and totally uninspiring candidate we could have possibly chosen.

In 2000, many friends of mine in NY flirted with Nader's campaign and indeed voted for him since they felt safe that their state would go blue (Gore) anyway. Though I chastised them, I realized they had that luxury of voting on principle because of geography.

2004 is quite different, the stakes are different and there is not only anger from Democrats but GOP angst and disgust as well. I have surely heard many repugs here say they would have voted for Clark or Dean in the GE but have yet to hear the same from them about Kerry. Course, those with whom I spoke could all have been pulling my chain to begin with, but who knows. The situation may so deteriorate that come Novemeber even they will choose the ABB candidate.

Anyway, unfriggrinreal, I know how you feel as I have become completely disgusted ever since Iowa and NH. The insurgent outsiders who caused Kerry to find his voice (or the right voice for this campaign) have been and are being eliminated before most people have a chance to vote. Democratic primary voters have fallen for alleged electability. Sadly, they did the same thing in 1988 ...

You vote your conscience and if it tells you not to vote, don't be ashamed of saying so. Sheesh, I thought a d/Democratic board was the one place, the last refuge where we could be ourselves and speak our minds. But are we becoming what we seek to end ... a group that brooks no dissent because people won't fall in line?

ABB (also interpreted as Against Bush's Butt) is fine but we need to be EFS (enthusiastically FOR someone/something).

[LWolf]

126. I'm ambivalent, myself.

If I have to, I will probably vote for Kerry. But it pisses me off.

It's not that I dislike Kerry; I don't. It's that I expect any candidate to earn my vote; and the "Everybody drop everything and support the front runner now, it's all over" crap pisses me off. It wouldn't matter who the front runner is; I expect the candidate to earn my vote with substance on the issues I care about. And the bottom line is that Kerry, or any other nominee, doesn't have to do that in the general election. The only thing the democratic nominee has to do to get votes in november is breathe. Because any of the choices is better than Bush.

So I want my vote in the primary to count for something. To count for the person I feel is the best person to represent me against bush. To count for the issues I care about.

It doesn't count for crap if a majority of american voters are disenfranchised before election day because a winner has already been decided on before the polls open.

[w4rma]

128. I think you are letting your emotions get the best of you (n/t)

[West Coast Democrat]

131. What do you think Dean would want you to do?....

vote for Nader? Do you think Dean would like you to help beat Bush in November, or not help beat Bush in November? Why don't you ask him?

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[DemBones DemBones]

135. unfrigginreal,

another one of these threads. . .

:shrug:

[Atlant]

140. You'll probably keep seeing them until we're purged...

...which will probably be soon.

Then everyone left behind can be happy again.

Atlant

[loudnclear]

141. I agree with you wholeheartedly. This is the case.

Nothing will change for those who are not wealthy.

[Ysabel]

144. Big Deal...???

Quote:

...Yeah, I know that if Kerry wins the nomination and I don't vote for him then I'll be passively supporting Bush, right? Well, big deal...

Unquote...

--------------------------

YES - this is a BIG DEAL...

-----------------------------------------------

LAST TIME - was different - nobody should have blamed anyone other than Bush, his nit-wit brother, what's-her-gag-face Harris, and the Supreme Court for what happened - nobody (before hand - when voting - could have known what was about to occur)...

THIS TIME - we all know we are up against a monster...

-------------------------------------------------------------

There are many ways we can continue to do to improve the Democratic party...

Carelessly tossing votes to a monster is not one of those things...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please note: I am not blaming (more specifically) Greens - for last time...

THIS TIME - is different...

THIS TIME - it really is a BIG DEAL...!!!

[Mari333]

150. Fine. Then vote for these kids to continue dying.

http://www.bringthemhomenow.com

[SW FL Dem]

151. As a parent, I have to be pragmatic

Any vote for a third party puts my son at greater risk. It's nice to be idealistic, but sometimes life gets in the way.

[Nicholas_J]

153. Odd that Kerry's primart support in the southern states

That he won came from blacks, poor, and lower middle class voters.

[TheDonkey]

154. You seem to be bitter soley against Kerry

your lost.