To every Green and Third Party Member....

[Khephra]

I'm sorry.

I've never been one to jump down your throats, I think my record here at DU over the last 3 years shows that.

But I finally understand where you are/were coming from.

This fall I'm going to have to vote for a man I hate vs another man I hate less. For my own reasons, I hate both Edwards and Kerry. But there's one thing that will keep me voting ABB and that's Supreme Court Judges. That's the major reason I want Bush out of the WH.

But fuck me if I could care about either of our candidates. I used to watch the Senate all day and neither of them were there. The only time they ever bothered to show up was on MAJOR votes, which, in both cases, were major disappointments and "I'm with Bush" speeches.

Fuck them both.

But I'd rather live the next 4 years under Edwards or Kerry than Bush. I just don't think we will get ANYTHING that we want except for a reversal of some of Bush's domestic policies. That's a lot, but we're going to fight war after war under E or K. Count on it. And I don't doubt either of them would do a draft. Kerry has shown he's lost touch with the anti-war crowd. I don't doubt he's push it through if he felt it was needed.

To the DNC and DLC, a big FUCK YOU. One day a history will be written about the downfall of America and you will be named as one of the primary reasons it wasn't stooped.

[ibegurpard]

1. I hear you

Two years ago I was right in there with the "you stupid greens cost us the election" crowd. Today I see where they were coming from.

[pezcore64]

2. yes

fuck them both up their stupid asses. i totally agree.

I believe people will vote Demo regardless to get Shrub out of the White House, but as soon as the election is over, you can count on the independent movement growing strong again. So the question remainds, what about 2008? 2012?
while a demos in office, independents feel free to vote that way, and as soon as their is one in office, they will. This election cycle has done nothing to get independents to permenately stay with the democratic party, and they will all abandon the demo party once this election is over and then we are just where we were just before the 2000 election.

[bearfartinthewoods]

24. and if santorum is the pubbie nominee in 2008?

you think that won't be even more do or die than this one?

[Walt Starr]

27. We;ve survived four years of the chimp

If we win this year, we could lose 2008 and survive again.

[mzmolly]

48. I dunno if you can say WE. There are 500 plus soldiers and countless

Iraqi civilians who didn't *survive*...

Though I'm not professing that anyone vote for Edwards or Kerry, but I don't like to say we've survived anything because we have not.

Sure perhaps we haven't lost jobs, been driven into poverty, lost homes, lost our lives...but that doesn't mean everyone is in the same boat as *us* I know several people who have not survived so to speak under this administration.

[knight_of_the_star]

57. You sum us up perfectly!

I was Green until Wes Clark threw his hat in the ring. After the California Primary I think I will change my party registration back, although I will still vote Dem to kick the chimpy out.

[littlejoe]

79. Right now I would give anything to be where we were

before 2000.

Although I give much credit to the repugs, the truth is, the democrats are their own worst enemy.

It seems that every four years half of the dems in congress feel that they can be president and they declare their intentions.

I think the last time I felt good about a candidate was before I was old enough to vote, and then of course Bobby Kennedy got assassinated.

Having been around for almost a half century, I just don't get enamored with leaders anymore.

I am certainly not enamored with Kerry, but he is who I feel is the best and most realistic choice of all other dem. candidates.

Bottom line is, I'm yellowdog through and through, and I am going to work as hard as time allows to insure a democrat is in office next January. For me, that person is Kerry.

And, all bickering aside, I agree that come November there will be really united support for Kerry, if he is the man.

[hippiechick]

3. Thank you, Bro

Succinctly stated, as usual.

:pals:


:hippie:

[Khephra]

6. Sooooooo

When is the next Green meeting

:evilgrin:

[hippiechick]

33. i dunno ....

but i do firmly believe its a coup waiting to happen should be decide to move in that direction ... :evilgrin:

:hippie:

[GreenInNC]

54. Green Party

www.gp.org

[littlejoe]

80. And if you don't mind my asking, are you going to vote dem in

november?

[GreenInNC]

85. my vote

I have not decided yet. It really dosn't matter in NC anyway.

[diamondsoul]

4. Keph, if that's how you feel-

then help push Kucinich over the top while there's still a chance.

[Khephra]

7. I'm Kucinich all the way now

I don't think he'll win, but we need people like him and Dean to change the status quo.

[littlejoe]

81. Kucinich yes. Dean I'm not so sure of.

[Walt Starr]

5. I'll still vote for the ham sandwich we are handed

but I'm getting out of the Democratic Party and will not guarantee that come 2008 I'll vote for the Democrat again.

[littlejoe]

82. Your wit will be missed walt.

That ham sandwich stuff is just too, too funny. Work up a comedy act around it walt. I'll come see you.

[arwalden]

8. You're Setting A Fine Example For Others

I know your words are heartfelt and sincere. I think I can understand how difficult it was for you to come to your decision, and I admire your willingness to make a strategic compromise for the greater good.

-- Allen

[Khephra]

14. There's one reason

Judges.

If nothing else, I'd vote for a handfull of rusty nails than have a RW fanatic naming SC Judges. The SC has become too important to let THEM name them.

[YNGW]

9. People should vote their conscience.

I always have and just let the chips fall where they may. I've never bought the "a vote for X is a vote for Y" or "you're throwing away your vote" junk. I vote for who I think is best. I'm not going to change. I respect those who choose to vote the way they do for whatever reason. I would like the same respect. But, if I don't receive it, at the end of the day we've all got to look at ourselves in the mirror and feel good about how we voted. I've always been able to do that.

[arwalden]

35. "A Vote For X Is A Vote For Y"... EXPLAINED

In our system, even though multiple candidate may appear on the ballot.. ONLY TWO candidates have any actual chance of winning.

What subtracts from the weight of votes behind one increases the weight of votes behind the other.

All political strategists understand this, and thus all campaigns involve two prongs, one aimed at raising turn-out among one's supporters, and one aimed at depressing turn-out among supporters of one's opponent. It does not matter which proves most effective: what is aimed at is the maximum favorable differential between the number of votes cast for one's candidate, and for the opposing candidate.

The course advocated here by some, to withhold their votes from the nominee of the Democratic Party, in our electoral system, WILL HAVE THE EFFECT of increasing the weight of votes behind the Republican candidate, and could lead to that candidate having more votes than the Democratic candidate. Some people have difficulty in understanding or accepting this simple fact, but that does not make it any less of a fact.

As the Republican Party today represents the worst elements in our government. For anyone to act in the manner suggested is to act in support of the worst elements of reaction in our government. It is, for all practical purposes, to sign on to the enemy's attempt to suppress turn-out favorable to the Democratic nominee.

Such effective co-operation with the worst elements in our government is a damned odd way to demonstrate the zeal of one's attachment to left and progressive principles.

[YNGW]

38. I never said I didn't understand it...

I said I didn't buy into it. I other words, I don't let it effect how I vote. I vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may. I'll do the same thing this year.

[arwalden]

39. So you do understand the net effect, yes?

As long as people understand exactly WHAT they are doing. Then that's THEIR mistake to make. As long as they realize that such tactics will not have the desired effect. Assuming of course that social and political improvement--even small improvement--is actually desired.

On the other hand... if providing assistance to Republicans and helping to keep the criminals of the 2000 coup in office is the desired effect, then that particular method is one option.

Idealogical purists will find themselves to be even more on the fringe and even more ostracized and isolated and impotent than before. I find this type of petty behavior from this group to be very odd.

-- Allen

[YNGW]

42. Yes

But I've got to look at myself and say "Did I vote for the best candidate, or did I vote for someone less than the best candidate."

Allen, I apprecite you efforts, but understand that you're a faceless poster on a political website, just as I am to you. I've got to live with me. In my everyday walk of life, no one is going to know how I voted. No one is going to come up to me and blame me for voting my conscience. I've got to do what I know to be the right thing to do as I see fit. I can live with doing the right thing for the right reason. It's part of me.

Thank You.

[Ardee]

52. A scholarly dissertation

..that unfortunately falls apart when one considers that a vote for a democrat in the coming presidential election is just too damn close to a vote for a republican anyway.

[Democat]

66. I can't believe people are still repeating this nonsense!

After three horrible years of Bush, we still have to hear that there is no differnce between Bush and Gore and Kerry?

Some people are truly blind.

[Ardee]

74. I hope you didnt strain your intellect

twisting and posting such a shallow and absurd response to my post. Did I mention Gore? Did you remember the numerous votes by Kerry supporting Bush agendas? Or did you just feel like posting a one line nonsensical response that does little to advance the debate and far too much in exposing your lack of political acumen?

For those who really can think here is Nader's request, which, by the by, sounds a whole lot more like a democratic platform than will the one coming out of the democratic party:

Nader is the antichrist, Nader eats little children, focus on Nader ignore the betrayals of the democrats....you will not think, you will not listen, you will do as you are told.

Refute this platform all you destroyers of a fine old political party:

http://www.naderexplore04.org/issues.html



Ralph wants to know:

In the 2004 election, should these issues be part of the debate?

Full public financing of public elections with the necessary, broad changes for a more fair and representative election process, replacing present charades;

A responsive political system to expand the civic energies of the American people by, among other ways, facilitating the banding together of workers, consumers, taxpayers, small investors, and communities.

A serious drive to abolish poverty using long-known policies;
Universal health insurance -- single payer embracing prevention, quality and cost controls;

A living wage for the tens of millions of workers making less than $10 an hour -- many full time workers at $5.15, $6, $7, $8, and long overdue labor rights reform;

An adequately funded crackdown on corporate crimes, fraud and abuse that have cheated trillions of dollars from taxpayers, investors, pension holders and consumers, plus specific corporate reforms;

A comprehensive and determined nurturing of the physical and educational needs of children;

Reform of the criminal injustice system and defense of the precious pillars of our democracy -- civil liberties, civil rights and civil remedies for wrongful injuries -- which are under relentless assault by corporate interests and the present government;

A multi-faceted foreign policy to wage multilateral peace and promote arms control, plus utilizing the many assets of our country's knowledge base to lift prospects for the impoverished people abroad;

A redirected federal budget for the crucial priorities of our country and away from the massive waste, fraud and redundancy of what President Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex," as well as the massive costs of corporate welfare;

The crisis of commercial food, water, and diet policies, in addition to agribusiness domination over dwindling, rural, small farm economies;

The need for renewable energy and energy efficiency, instead of costly oil, gas and nuclear boondoggles;

The housing problem for the millions of households who can't afford
the rents or can't escape gentrification and sprawl;

The relief of highway congestion and the promotion of modern public transit;

The pull-down effect of corporate globalization on labor, the environment, consumers and our democratic processes.

The consequences of media concentration over our public airwaves.

Let us know what you think!




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paid for by Nader 2004 Presidential Exploratory Committee, Inc.
PO Box 18002, Washington, DC 20036
[e-mail]

[kodi]

64. i don't vote for therapeutic satisfaction

Call me a dialectic materialistic Marxist if you like, but i do expect something tangible back from my engagement in the political process.

All politics is local, the more local the better.

I want my government to do certain things to help make my life better.

I will support & vote for those who have the best chance of enacting policies that can do this.

I will take a half a loaf instead of a quarter of one or none at all.

I will not use my vote on someone if he/she doesn't have a chance to win if there the remaining choice is between one who delivers nothing of what I want versus someone else who can deliver at least a part of what I want.

The words of Rabbi Hillel spoken 2 millennia ago still ring true, "When the choice is between two evils, tend toward the one that is closer to the good." otherwise, a greater evil triumphs.

Life doesn't afford us the opportunity to remain aloof from the basic moral questions which confront us.

It is the measure of a person to act as to ensure the most good knowing full well the consequences may result in some portion of evil.

To abandon the world in pursuit of ego satisfaction is a far worse evil than to engage in it. Even the Buddha abandoned ascetics for the middle way of participation.

[redqueen]

10. So many of us share these thoughts about our situation

I look forward to continually moving forward both during the primaries, by voting for Kucinich and holding their feet to the fire, and after the election, by either reforming or discarding as useless what currently passes for the opposition party.

[Mile Hi]

11. I will not vote Kerry

If Kerry gets into the WH nothing will change. We will still be heading in the same direction granted on a different path. But the same results. The DNC and GOP have way too much power.

We need an alternative that give the people the power. It's comming whether it's Bush or Kerry.

Deans movement will continue to grow and he will be back in 2008 to kick some butt.

The foundation has been layed and the DNC and GOP will supply the bricks with their constant battle to keep themselves in power.

[arwalden]

30. Senator Kerry Is A Far Better Man Than Bush* Could Ever Be

There are no good men, but some are more bad than others. The ones who are most bad should be opposed and removed from office. Unfortunately for some, the only available medium to do so is slightly-less-bad men.

Those persons who choose the course of the splinterist and spoiler---rather than choosing to join with the Party and fight the worst elements in our country---are those who will bear the blame and stigma for defeat (IF that happens as a result of their purism... ie: a very close election)

AND if that should be the result, those people will be even more marginalized, powerless, rejected and isolated from both the Party and the people of the country, than is the case even now.

[Mile Hi]

43. A vote for the lesser of two evils

is still a vote for evil. If one thinks that voting for Kerry will change things they are wrong. We will still be on our way to hell only at a slower pace.

Those who vote for Kerry will have to bear the blame and stigma for defeat.

[IconoclastIlene]

59. The lesser of two evils is still evil....

However, I'd like to pick my own poison. Right now it is the Republican machine. Business as usual..

[arwalden]

63. There Is No Such Thing As Perfection.

Anyone who believes such a thing will be setting themselves up for constant disappointment and failure.

I choose a more positive and realistic approach that will serve to remove the criminal Bush* from office. Action that produces any change and which brings us CLOSER to the perfection we seek is better than becoming one of those other folks are prefer to be impotent self-destructive martyrs... a "suicide-bomb-voter" if you will.

I'm sure you know the ones to which I refer. They are the ones who intentionally choose a self-destructive path with the misguided belief that "defeat equals moral victory." It is political suicide. It does enable Bush. It is the wrong thing to do.

-- Allen

P.S. I question the sincerity and motives of people who openly and defiantly choose the "Republican machine."

[Democat]

67. Dean was evil too, what is your point?

Every candidate, every human being, has some evil.

Dean was less evil that Kerry in your mind, so that's ok. But Kerry is less evil than Bush, and that's not good enough?

What a horrible thing you are doing to future generations of Americans just because you didn't get the exact candidate you wanted.

[IconoclastIlene]

71. Whoa!!!

The issue is picking one's own poison..., in a manner of speaking, I'd rather have Democratic flavored broth than the current crap de jour....Shrub Soup..those who choose to starve cause they cannot get what they want, using a soup analogy, are either very particular, and may never be pleased even if they got what they "3rd party voters" got what they thought would be pleasing.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it...depending on who is wishing for what..

I don't want to throw my vote down the toilet, and stand on ceremony over it but, hell, if you wanna do so, be my guest!!!

I am a "Anyone but Bush in 2004!!!!!"

Make no mistake about this!!!

Madame

[Ardee]

77. Speaking of future generations

what a sad legacy you leave them thinking that it is fine to vote for the godawful choices put forth by your party. You constantly lower the bar until all those with conscience and vision abandon your party. That is precisely why I have done so......

[Khephra]

12. I don't do predictions that much

And I've said it before...

the SNL cast can take a break this next election

it's going to be a replay....

Bush: I went into Iraq because of the threat.

Kerry: I voted for the IWR because of the threat.

etc, etc, etc,....

[Walt Starr]

13. I figure SNL is definitely going to take up that theme

They will probably run with the identical scripts and somebody different playing the candidates, then poke fun at it being the same script.

We could be in for some of the best SNL political skits in years.

[mgc1961]

15. I'm new here so...

...you certainly couldn't have jumped down my throat even if you wanted. Putting that aside, it's great to see acknowledgement of reason without predication of agreement. (I think. Wow, did I say that?) :-)

:toast:

[Khephra]

22. You may have 100 posts...

But I'll still welcome you to this land of the lost, called DU!

:hi:

[Desertrose]

16. I hear you Keph....but we are not yet to Nov 04

so I am not deciding what I'll do at this point. There is a whole lotta *shit* to play out between now & then.

I am real happy to hear you are going to support DK. (wahoo!!)

I do feel the same about the SCOTUS judges..we can't replace any of them with any who are less than liberal...

I really really don't want to *have* to vote for a candidate I feel will not change things...but I am, at the very core of my being, practical.....but until I have to make that *practical* decision...:shrug:

.....in the meantime I will continue to do everything I can for Kucinich

:hug: to ya Keph

Peace
DR

[Khephra]

18. More power than ever (and I'll be giving money)

To Kucinich. I'm sick and tired of the status quo. The RW is willing to go at our throats, but all the politicians on our side want to play it safe. That's not how to fight. That's how to lose.

[lovedems]

17. Sadly

I have had some bad days and have been one of the ones who have jumped down a person or two's throat. I have not made a habit of it but there are days this sense of desperation comes over me and I feel like we need all the votes we can get in order to get bu$h out of the WH and when I see people say they refuse to vote for X this sense of panic over takes me.

I feel your pain at the state of the democratic party but it has not been easy (for me, that's all I can speak for) to be a democrat for the last 3 years. The republicans have made it all but impossible to stand on principle because I feel like I have been on the defensive. I had to defend my self for being against the war, I had to defend myself for HATING what people told me was a popular pResident.

For those of you who have totally offended by my "jumping down your throat" you don't have to forgive me, I just ask that you understand that there are some days I felt totally desperate.

I will stick with the dems for awhile. I hope they can regain some control and go back to doing what's right. I can't jump ship just yet. But I appreciate your post for doing what's "best" rather doing what you think is "right". Maybe there will be some hope.

[Khephra]

20. I agree with much of what you say

I belive that the party has been co-opted by special interests (and not those that the RW refer to).

We need a party that represents that average middle class (and lower) people. And right now neither party is looking out for us.

We need a party who understands that religion is NOT a part of their job.

We need a party who looks to science for the answers, not a book that's 2k old.

[lovedems]

23. You described the current administration perfectly

regarding religion and science. I am not so sure I can say that is true for the democratic party. I am not going to pat the democrats on the back for the job they have done for the last 3 years. There have been times that we have desperately needed strong leadership and it just hasn't been found. However, that being said, I cannot entirely blame them. The republicans that are currently in office are crooks. I don't think there is anyone here on DU who would disagree with that scenario. The democrats have repeatedly been placed in the situation of either going up against a popular pResident or giving him what he wants. Either way that is a lose-lose situation for them. After 9-11 the idiot was enjoying 80's+ approval ratings. If the dems go against him, the majority screams while the base is happy. The republican mouthpieces start a smear campaign and get the word out X is a traitor for not supporting the pResident. If they support him, the base screams while the majority is happy and the base screams X is a sell-out. Either way they lose. The last 3 years have been unlike any political landscape we have ever seen and while I can't make excuses for some of the weak leadership, I cannot imagine what it would be like to be in a decision making role and be damned if I do or damned if I don't. What goes through their minds? If I support the war, I will piss people off and be called a sell out. If I don't support it and they actually find WMD's I will be called weak on defense and god knows what else.

I guess I just have a hard time hating the democrats and democratic leaders becasue the reality of the situation is, it hasn't been easy. The last 3 years have been seen situations that are highly unusaul. Stolen elections, traitor becoming a common word to describe "dissenters", an administration who is so secretive nobody really knows the truth behind any given policy (even those on Capital Hill, I would guess). Yes, there are those who will say the last 3 years have been when we needed strong leadership the most and I will agree to a point. But I think the democrats were purposefully placed in a no win situation and for that I blame the corrupt nature of the current republican party. We will not know the true nature of how our party has be "co-opted" until the day comes that they can actually make a fight on honest grounds with honest arguments, that is why I cannot give up hope yet.

I don't know how to answer the party has not been looking out for us. There is a part of me of that thinks yes, you are absolutely correct. There is another part of me that thinks the republicans have totally not been playing fair and have somehow convinced the American public through one shameful lie after another that it is their policies that will save us and a majority of heads just nod in agreement. Yes, bush is right. Everybody do what bush says. He has our best interest at heart. blah. blah. blah. And no matter how loud someone like Kennedy would scream, it would fall on deaf ears.

[Iverson]

19. Hey, khephra.

It's always nice to be understood.

The best possibilities for coalition will derive from an acknowledgement that ideas are more important than individual personalities or party affiliation.

Cheers.

[Khephra]

21. Thank you

I don't think I'm alone in my stance. I think a lot of Clark, Kucinich, and Dean supporters are looking at the party in a whole different light. It may take another 4 years of Bush, but I think overall, we're going to end up in a better place.

If the DNC/DLC can win this one, my hat is off to them. However, I'm not putting my money down on them. It's going to be too much of a repeat, and Edwards and Kerry always played it safe until others attacked Bush.

People here will be pulling out their hair this fall during the debates because Kerry or Edwards will be constantly agreeing with Bush in the debates. Count on it. They'll move to that mushy "center".

[Snivi Yllom]

25. when you kick a puppy so many times

Sooner or later the puppy won't come back to you.

Think about this:

February 2003 "NO WAR IN IRAQ"
February 2004 "It's ok Kerry/Edwards/Any pro-war Dem voted on IWR, WE SUPPORT YOU!"

Some of the blame is on us because we keep going back to our masters who keep kicking us.

[arwalden]

36. The IWR was a meaningless exercise.

The IWR was a meaningless exercise. No matter HOW the vote had turned out, the invasion of Iraq would have taken place, on the military and political schedule desired Bush* and his cabal.

The sole responsibility for the invasion of Iraq lies with the person who conceived, pressed, and executed the policy, and with no other person whatever.

The war-mongers are the CRIMINALS of the 2000 Coup, and nobody else.

The IWR had all the elements of a political trap. If enough Democrats had voted against it, then the ENTIRE PARTY would be slurred as being "soft" and seeking to tie the hands of Our Great Leader seeking to defend the country against Satan himself. The great majority of Americans would have rallied to that cry.

This line was launched anyway, but without the effect nationwide it would have had, had the vote been much closer.

The vote for the resolution preserved viability for campaign for higher office, and that is why Sen. Kerry, and Sen. Edwards, cast the votes they did. They preserved themselves from widespread harm, which is the chief object of political calculation. Persons incapable of political calculation would do well to avoid the profession, and will experience difficulty in commenting on persons who are professionals at it.

[Ardee]

53. No,no,no,no

Meaningless my aunt Tilly! Who is guilty of murder, the guy who pulled the trigger or the ones who urged him to do so? Why both of course. The democrats have displyed cowardice not political acumen with those votes. They have showed plainly that they care not a fig for the people of america only for their own asses and those damn campaign contributions.

[arwalden]

60. At That Particular Moment In Time Any Democrat Who Would Have Voted "NO"

Would have been tarred and feathered and would have become politically impotent, thereby giving the criminal Bush* and his cabal even more power.

You cling to the view that the invasion of Iraq could have been stopped by a vote in the Senate. It could not have been. Therefore the cry of "enabler" is hollow and false.

The fact is that the invasion of Iraq is the responsibility of the criminals of the 2000 Coup who conceived, pressed, and executed the act, and of no other. The only thing that "enabled" them is the structure and practice of governance. It has a nice sound, the line you press, but it is a false and misguided line, that will produce no good result.

I understand your sentiments and frustration, I really do. I urge you to act in a way that will remove the criminals from the White House, not in a way that empowers them.

-- Allen

[Ardee]

75. I do respect your opinion,Allen, and your nonconfrontational style

but hedgetrimmer skewers your point rather well......There is never a time to trample on your beliefs for the purpose of political expedience....NEVER! (Post referred to is gone..the gist of it was to note that Dennis Kucinich voted NO)...

"The only reason to be in politics is to be out there all alone and then be proven right." Edward Muskie

Those complicitious votes by your precious democrats, who were seeking only more corporate fundings and not the welfare of this nation, are heinous, have cost the lives of over 500 americans (and counting)and ten thousand or so Iraqis. Your stance as to the inevitability of that invasion is simply nonsense, Allen, sorry. How the hell can you foresee what a unified NO vote by democrats would have accomplished?

We see, all around us, the eroding of our civil rights, the increasing destabilisation of the peace of the world, the crumbling of a once powerful economy and you insist wthat we turn a blind eye to the complicitious nature of your party's actions? Sorry, my friend, not now, not ever again!

[littlejoe]

83. Allen's point is valid.

When the administration made clear its intention to invade Iraq with or without the approval of congress, then the vote became strictly political, and a moot excercise.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Guava Jelly]

26. You must really like George Bush

You must want conservative judges appointed to the scotus.
you must hate the environment and a womans right to choose.
you must really really love George Bush.
because by dividing the vote you are helping the republicans.
Go ahead help the republicans...oh nevermind...
Just wait until Bush gets another term then you can say i told you so.
But at least youll get to live in the same cess pool you enabled as i am.
Third partys are spoilers and not winners period!

[Tinoire]

29. How many flies do you think you caught with that pot of ABB honey?

You seem to have missed the ENTIRE point of the post but nothing new there. You're not the first one and you won't be the last one. Stick around for three years caring everyday and watching how things really are and really are done and in 3 years you'll be making a similar post.

[indigo32]

32. They don't get it Tinoire

I'm already on their side and I find it sickening. Bullying is not the way to go about this...besides, ain't it a little early?

[Tinoire]

41. In the haste....Nevermind the waste. We're rushing to the Wasteland

I think we are in rats' alley
Where the dead men lost their bones.


'What it that noise?'
The wind under the door.
'What is that noise now? What is the wind doing?'
Nothing again nothing.
'Do
'You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember
'Nothing?'


The Waste Land, 1922, T.S. Eliot

I have seen with my own eyes the Sibyl hanging in a jar, and when the boys asked her "What do you want?" She answered,
"I want to die."

[mzmolly]

49. That's right Indigo.

It's not the way to go about dialogue. Bullying in either direction has a counter productive effect. It turns more people off than anything.

[littlejoe]

84. Being hooked up to DU for three years may be more

of a hinderance to judgement than an aid.

Anyway, I would say that that is not a prerequisite for staying in tune with politics and issues.

[trogdor]

34. Hear hear!

We shouldn't be mentioning Ralph Nader's name around here, let alone posting stuff sympathetic to him and his "cause", which appears to be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory one more time. People who seriously believe Kerry = Bush because they don't agree with him 100% of the time are nuts, IMO. I hope they like the idea of a TERM-LIMITED four years of Bush, Ashcroft, and Co., because that's exactly what they're promoting.

[PVnRT]

68. Whatever you do

don't read his post, OK? You know, where he said, that he will vote for the Dem nominee?

Is it really that hard to actually read posts before posting knee-jerk horseshit like this?

[hedgetrimmer]

73. ABB is anti-Democrat.

If what it takes is to lean far-left in this centrist party to get it back where it belongs then that is what the peeps who profess they are Democrat would be advocating. They would not be running deeper into the sh*t, running deeper into the sh*t and advocating that action is anti-Democrat.

[Tinoire]

28. Hey Keph.

We always knew we were in the same boat. Like you, I didn't jump down the throats of Greens and Independents because I started understanding that their disgust was justifiable. I never expected it to be my own though and certainly not this quickly.

You spoke for me too Keph except that I vacillate everyday because the phrase "If not now, then when?" keeps echoing through my head.

Thanks Keph.

[Darranar]

87. There is an answer to Hillel's excellent question in this case...

and that is "after the election".

At this point, there is nothing more important then beating Bush. He stands as an obstacle to everything and anything that will bring change for the better in this country. Even if the Democratic Party becomes more progressive, unless we beat him in 2004 he will still stand as an obstacle to all that can be done to improve our country.

However fine the difference between the parties may be, it is still there.

Once Bush is defeated, other important things - such as shoving the DLC and the corporatists out of the Democratic Party - can be done. We can and should work for long-term change, but at the same time the imminent disaster of another four years of Bush should be prevented.

[G_j]

31. as an idealistic youth

I was thrilled to support Eugene McCarthy the only "peace candidate" in '68. I even got to shake his hand. Then came the Chicago Democratic convention. I've never felt quite the same since. Although skeptical, I learned to like Carter quite a bit, but then Raygun & poppy did him in. I've learned to be innately cynical and not to entertain illusions about politics. Yet, I have always voted for Dems, never missed a presidential election and voted in many primaries. As cynical and jaded as I have felt, I never dropped out. I have written hundreds of letters to our elected officials over the years, phoned, marched etc.

The last time around, I found a bit of that lost enthusiasm and a smidgen of hope when Nader ran. I felt strongly that a progressive third party was our ONLY hope. I wrote in Nader in NC (so sue me!)
I can't tell you how disheartening it was to then be attacked for trying to help make this country a better place. That was almost the last straw.

Now we have these two candidates that I also can't stand. Edwards is my Senator, and the way he treated anti-war activists was absoluely shameful. Kerry has supported many policies that I find completely unacceptable. Yet, as you, I will be voting it appears for one of these guys. And hopefully we can help the Dems regain the house. After that...

If anything, this experience has renewed my passion for a viable progressive third party. Lets seriously consider growing the Green party into a formidable force.

the words to CSN's "Wooden Ships" come to mind. "we are leaving, you don't need us"

[CivilRightsNow]

44. Thank you...

This idealistic --semi youthful (26 in a week)-- lady is looking for a way to not let the nature of this system beat the desire to change it out of me.

Im glad to know that somehow you retained the spark. That it doesnt have to die..

I feel like this world is trying to make me something that Im not... but that assimilation is somehow a rite of passage..

Confusing stuff. But your post gave me some hope.

[G_j]

47. don't worry,

it's not really the Borg, though it feels like it.

What really kept me going was frequent surges of activism. Politics won't do it. I was involved for years in Native American rights and environmental issues, the anti-apartheid movement and of course the peace movement never ends. More recently the Global Justice movement. There is always some grass roots cause that one can help with.

**One important thing about activism is the community of excellent passionate people you share time with. These are some of the finest people I have ever known. It's hard to lose hope when you are in contact with caring motivated people.

thanks for your post, it was encouraging to me also. :-)

[bowens43]

37. The problem is

that there will NEVER be a GOOD time to vote third party. There will always be the chance of dire consequences like supreme court appointments. If a third party is ever to be viable people have to be willing to say , the hell with the consequences, I'm not taking it anymore. It won't happen overnight. The question is , how much crap do we swallow before we have had enough? The two parties are in some ways indistinguishable and becoming more so every day.

[Walt Starr]

56. I was almost in that place in 2000

I was VERY CLOSE to going third party in 2000. The SCOTUS thing is what changed my mind.

If the average age of a SCOTUS justice was 15 years younger than it currently is, I'd guarangoddammedteed be voting third party.

[Rich Hunt]

40. this is a good post

While many, many Dems capitulate to the Republicans, remember that the Rethugs drag along with them a boatload of theofascists.

Help spare all of us from these people.

[joyautumn]

45. Breyer is the Supreme Court Danger

In 2000 Nader said the most dangerous Supreme Court justice is Stephen Breyer, Clinton's 1994 appointee. Breyer is the Corporate appointment that Clinton "had to make" (Clinton wasn't really unhappy about it, I'm sure) to keep the paymasters happy after Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Breyer believes that it is inefficient for legislatures to write detailed laws, and prefers general directives from Congress which are then implemented in detail by federal agencies. His main obstacle in this effort is Scalia, who rails vehemently against any attempt to sanction Congress abdicating its lawmaking role to the Executive or Judicial branches.

Breyer tried to ram his agenda through a few years ago in a case where the FDA suddenly did a health review of tobacco products and decided to list it as a controlled substance, effectively making it a crime to make, buy, sell, use or possess cigarettes. The Supreme Court ruled that the FDA could not suddenly criminalize tobacco when obviously Congress had meant for tobacco to be legal when it wrote the laws twenty years earlier that the FDA regulations were implementing. Basically, under a Breyer-led majority, the Supreme Court would start ruling that federal agencies could interpret laws any way they see fit, including election laws under the FEC and environmental laws. This would save corporate interests the bother of having to lobby Congress and have ugly hearings and stuff. They just have to have private meetings like Cheney's Energy cabal and hash out the exact implementation of all regulatory laws.

As for Roe v. Wade, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has long been a critic of it because it puts women's reproductive rights on a very shaky foundation -- the privacy aspect of the sanctity of marriage in the Griswold decision was used to protect married couples from anti-contraception laws, then a decision extended the same privacy/sanctity right via equal protection to single mothers, then came Roe v. Wade. When Powell wrote Roe v Wade he was on notice from Justice Stewart and Justice Berger that a straight equality argument would not fly, so to get a majority he crafted a fragile privacy argument that, ultimately, led to the defeat of ERA.

For forty years, Eleanor Roosevelt and big labor had blocked ERA for strategic reasons I won't get into here, but they finally changed their strategy in Nixon's second term so ERA finally passed after nearly fifty years stagnation in committee.

So what has Ginsburg done to put reproductive rights on a stronger footing? Exactly what she said she would in her confirmation hearing -- by completing her life's work of putting sex equality on an equal footing to racial equality in Supreme Court doctrine and case law. She succeeded, with O'Connor's support, in the unanimous VMI decision forcing that all-male military academy to admit women or forego federal funding. This was the end of a two-tiered test of equality -- one for race and a lower one for sex.

So Roe v. Wade is not needed anymore. A direct weighing of women's rights against the rights of a fetus, even if recognized as a full human being, would only result in the same "viability" ruling given in Roe v. Wade.

Corporate interests are also very afraid that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, because while doing so would have no net effect on women's right to choose, it would strike a blow to the privacy rights of corporate "persons".

So yes, there is great danger in the next few Supreme Court appointments, but the danger is not from the Republican Party, whose appointments have included most of the architects of civil rights -- Berger, Brennan, Powell, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter. They come from more Breyer-like appointees who have no respect for the balance of powers, and want to make the President into a king or dictator.

[MadHound]

46. Thanks for the kind words Khep

And it is nice to see your eye back too:)

I hear what your saying about the judges, but working towards making a third party viable is my major priority right now. The Greens didn't achieve the magic five percent number in'00. It is a goal to shoot for in '04.

I'm thinking long term, and the more we reward the corporate whores in both parties, the worse off we're going to be, no matter who is in office. And while I share your concerns about the Supremes, I have a sinking feeling that neither Kerry nor Edwards would do much better. Though the people they would appoint would be better on social issues, I have a feeling that they would be just as bad as Bushco appointees on other matters, if not worse.

So what I guess what I'm trying to say is that on the balance I think it is better for me to work for the long term goal of a viable, responsive third party than propping up the Dems any more.

Now if Kucinich gets the nod, I'll be back. But with the corporate coranation all but a fait accompli, I think I'll go Green.

[ulysses]

50. hey, kef.

I never really put you, mentally, among those who wouldn't/couldn't understand anyway. You absolutely hit the nail on the head about the battles we'll get to keep fighting whether a Dem wins in November or not - the question is how many of us understand that, and how many will go, complacently, to sleep if Kerry or Edwards wins?

Welcome to the Underground's underground. :D

[Red_Storm]

51. So,

"I'm going to have to vote for a man I hate vs another man I hate less"

"I hate both Kerry and Edwards"

"Fuck them both"


"I'd rather live the next 4 years under Kerry than Bush"




American democracy in a nutshell......btw, I agree with everything you said..........another election and still the same 2 choices......Worst or Least Worst..........when will it ever change?

[IconoclastIlene]

55. Get together, one more time....

Get together one more time, get together one more time;

none of us may get out alive!!!

Don't miss the forrest for the trees!!

Puhleeze!!!

[revcarol]

58. After 42 years of betrayal of progressives, (as long as I have been a Dem,

I'm looking at the trees more closely.

We were always promised a forest by Democrats and always got a desert.
Keph, see my post in your #2 thread.

[quaker bill]

61. Hey Kephra

The constitution requires the 'advice and consent' of the Senate to appoint Supreme Court Justices. All we need is 40 principled democrats in the Senate to stand up to Bush*.....

Oh, I guess now I see why you are worried. Never mind.

[Kenneth ken]

62. DENNIS KUCINCIH!

more of this wah wah fucking wah.

Why don't you wait until AFTER THE CONVENTION to see who the Dems will nominate?

At least PRETEND you believe in deomcracy! Just because the corporate-owned media doesn't mention Mr Kucinich doesn't mean he isn't still campaigning, and doesn't still have supporters.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were a troll.

[LWolf]

65. We're on the same page.

Regardless of the particular candidate this time around, it's the chasm between people who work for the party, and people who work for ideas; for issues.

I want to work on the issues. I want the person who will do the job.

The other side wants the person who will work for the party.


How do we bridge that chasm?

[Turkw]

69. One word where Dems ARE better than Repubs, no matter what you think

otherwise, JUDGES. Especially Supreme Court Justices. The Damage that will be done by allowing Bush to put in a Conservative majority will FAR out weigh any thing else he does. It will be generations to repair the damage a conservative, agenda driven supreme court will do.

[Mairead]

70. No worries, Keph. You're halfway home.

And miles better than those whose response to the looming iceberg is to frantically demand everyone neaten up the deckchairs.

[buddhamama]

76. You, of all people kef, have nothing to be sorry for.

You've never given the big "fuck you" to Nader voters. as a matter of fact, you are one the most level headed, respectful members of DU.

I understand and agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying.

Three cheers for you

:toast: :toast: :toast:

[Forkboy]

78. My sentiments exactly

well said :thumbsup:

[Darranar]

86. Excellent post...

At this point, the Democratic Party is simply a defender of the status quo.

However, I prefer a defender of the status quo to one who will change it for the worse.

The difference may be fine, but it is there.

[wellstone dem]

88. I will never vote Green

The Green Party fielded a candidate against Paul Wellstone. They lost all integrity and, for what it is worth, they lost my respect.