Are some Democrats more similar to Bush than they realize?

[Meldread]

Bush Quote:
"You're either with us or with the terrorists."

Democratic Quote:
"You're either with the Democratic Nominee or with Bush."

I really hate that type of logic -- it sounds too much like Bush. Seeing as how I hate Bush, I resent that type of logic coming from Democrats.

Two sides of the same coin? Discuss. :shrug:

[GainesT1958]

1. Well, when it comes to actually VOTING in November...

For all practical intents and purposes, if you don't vote for the Dem. nominee, then you ARE supporting Dub, even if you wouldn't even THINK of actually voting for him.

Normally, I would disagree strongly with using such all-or-nothing rhetoric, but...THIS year, it's just the TRUTH!

An ANYBODY who votes for Ralhpie Boy this year IS, in fact, voting for Dub...no two ways about that one! :mad:

B-)

[Meldread]

6. How does that logic work?

What if for example, a voter votes for Nader, however if Nader hadn't been running he would have just sat home. How is that a vote for Bush? Unless, of course, you are saying everyone who is going to sit home on Election Day is also voting for Bush. Then by that logic Bush won in a landslide in 2000 because about 50% of all registered voters didn't go out and vote.

[meegbear]

2. Would this double standard apply

if Dean was the nominee?

[Meldread]

4. Yes.

I support letting people vote for who they want to vote for. That's why I am Democratic -- I support choice, I support democracy. I don't try and black mail people into voting for my candidate. I lay out the facts and let people decide, I don't say things like "If you don't vote for X, then you are voting for Bush."

[meegbear]

5. And the people who were earlier saying so and so

should drop out because they'll lose to Dean in the primaries?

[Meldread]

8. Huh?

I can't speak for anybody but myself, but I can say that I support people running for President. That would include Dennis and Al.

By a lot of people's logic (people who say Nader shouldn't run because he can't win) DK and AS should drop out of the race because they don't have a very good chance of winning.

This is why I am against this type of thinking. It creates a slippery slope that is anti-democratic.

[JVS]

7. "Would this double standard apply"

That's a loaded question. You've already assumed that it's a double standard. It isn't. It's a universal standard. The double standard is saying that Democrats get to demand unquestioning obedience, but that when Republicans do it, it is wrong.

[meegbear]

10. It's not a loaded question ...

Since Dean has dropped out, there have been a lot of posts criticizing the other candidates, the primary process, the DNC, DLC, etc. and asking questions like this.

Since the person appears to be a Dean supporter by their avatar, it's valid. If they had a DK or LIE-berman avatar, I would have asked it about that person.

[JVS]

14. Then why did you call it a double standard?

The question implies that the answer would be no, hence a double standard.

[JVS]

3. It would be funny if it were not so sad.

[Snivi Yllom]

9. how's this for similar?

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2004/02/20/news/local/news05.prt

Daschle satisfied with war progress

By Denise Ross, Journal Staff Writer

PIERRE - Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., on Thursday praised the Bush administration's war and nation-building work in Iraq and said he has no serious concerns about the lack of weapons of mass destruction.

Daschle told state chamber of commerce representatives meeting in the South Dakota capital that he is satisfied with the way things are going in Iraq.

"I give the effort overall real credit," Daschle said. "It is a good thing Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. It is a good thing we are democratizing the country."

[Meldread]

12. Ugh.

I don't know what else to say to that other than "Ugh".

[redqueen]

18. Is he deliberately trying to chase democrats toward the greens?

Honestly!

:grr:

[rucky]

11. Authoritarians are everywhere

creepy

[Deaner1971]

13. Here are my thoughts

I appreciate that everyone must cast a vote as his or her conscience dictates. I also believe that you can win battles and still lose wars.

If you accept that there are approximately equal numbers of Dems and Repubs (as seen in 2000) and we (the Dems) are spread across three candidates and the Repubs are unified behind one, how can we win?

I am sorry but, when I joined the Democratic Party, I supported the party. I didn't join the Kerry or Clark or Dean Party, I joined the Democratic Party. I will support my party to ensure that our leaders are in place. I cannot hope to get Bush to change to fit by hopes but, I can expect Kerry or Edwards or Dk to do so. Therefore, I will vote for my party's candidate to ensure that I neutralize one Repub vote for Bush.

I know that I will never agree with every candidate that we propose. However, I know that through that candidate, my party speaks and there is always hope for change.

My party stands above any one candidate. It is what unifies me with others like me. I am a Democrat and some wars must be won. The war to take back the White House and prevent other wars, is one that we must win.

[Meldread]

15. See that is wonderfuly said.

It sounds much better, rational and logical than the "You're with us or with Bush!"

Very nicely said. I'll more than likely vote for the nominee, but I also tend to believe that the majority of people who vote for a candidate such as Nader would have stayed home if he wasn't running. (Thus still not casting a vote for the Democrat.) We have to keep in mind that a HUGE group of people didn't even bother to vote in the 2000 election, and it makes perfect sense that Nader could have tapped into some of that.

Hell I knew Republicans who voted for Nader as well. They were mostly older folks and they liked the thought of Universal Healthcare.

I just don't see Nader as some huge threat as some people do. I see him as a positive influence in most cases. I also feel that to attack him for running is to attack the very democratic principles we claim to hold.

[Deaner1971]

16. I would agree

Except that the people who are threatening to go third party are on this website. I have to believe that people on this website: 1) vote and 2) are Dems. Therefore, I see people who want to go 3rd Party as defecting from the ranks of Dems. I don't mean that in a derogatory way but, I know that the NeoCons in my office are practically dancing with the Nader news.

Nader attacked Gore early and often last time and I am afraid he will attack the Dem again. He has to know that nobody is debating Bush versus Nader. It is much more likely for someone to debate Nader versus "Dem Candidate TBD". Therefore, I see him as more of a drain on us than them.

Also, I question Ralph's motives. Is he running for ego? Does he enjoy playing the "king-maker" and knowing that his voters could have swung the election last time, had they all gone Dem? I honestly don't know.

Thank-you for your kind words and I sincerely hope that by November, we can all find the common ground that will give us the unity and motivation to see Bush 2 "one and done".

[Meldread]

20. Well that is true.

However, you also have to remember that not everyone here is a Democrat some *ARE* Green Party Members and some *ARE* Independents. However, we all have a single thing in common: We are all progressives.

With that said the majority of people who are talking about voting for a third party candidate are Dean Supporters. I understand their frustrations. They mainly are speaking about this in relationship to Kerry winning the Nomination, and some toward Edwards -- even some Kerry supporters toward Edwards -- because of his continued support of the Iraq War. The majority of people who are against Kerry winning the nomination have valid complaints. They complain about his participation in the Osama TV ad. They complain about his push polling. They complain about his underhanded tactics against Dean, and that is perfectly understandable.

Many also are against both Kerry and Edwards for their support of the Iraq War, Patriot Act, and No Child Left Behind. These complaints are valid, and this is why they are threatening to go third party.

The Democratic Nominee can counter this by addressing those issues. Consoling their concerns and making apologies where needed. In most cases they created their own beds and they will be forced to lay in it if someone from these boards votes for Nader.

I look at it differently than most people. I see votes like this: If you didn't win them you lost them. You should re-think your strategy and look for what you did wrong, and learn from that. The Democratic Nominee can look at what went wrong with Al Gore's Campaign and do their best to not repeat those same mistakes. That is how the Democratic Nominee will win votes, and that is how the Democratic Nominee will minimize the Nader threat. Hitting people over the head with the "If you don't vote for me you are voting for Bush!" stick only encourages people to vote against you -- people don't like it when you try and control them.

If you come off as welcoming Naders run, as I have, saying that giving the people a choice is a good thing -- it is what Democracy is all about it -- it tends to inspire people and get people who would think about voting for Nader listening to you. Especially after the 2000 election where a lot of people are waiting to be hit over the head with a big "Bush Lover" stick. I suppose it goes back to the old saying, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

[denverbill]

17. Sounds like the choice of the Iranians in this election.

The Mullahs banned the liberal candidates, so the people who would have voted for the liberals have a choice of voting for someone who is conservative or someone who is less conservative. Is that a real choice?

[Deaner1971]

19. Nice comparison

So, Democrats are like the Iranian conservatives?

Nice comparison. Why would you want to be associated with the party if you really believed that?