3rd Party threats - How much leverage do they have on the Democratic Party

[MurikanDemocrat]

The far left, or left fringe, are only as relevant as the other competing minorities; Women, Blacks, Hispanics, GLBTs, labor, Native Americans, moderates, environmentalists, southerner's, northeastern liberals, and other minorities.

The rest of us must compromise, we never get everything we want, but we persevere and we stay together for the common good. We don't threaten to splinter off into other Parties.

But the left fringe, nooooo, they must have their way, they must have their candidate, they must have their agenda; it supersedes the rights and the values of all others and the common good of all. If they don't get their way, they will not tolerate small steps, but advocate for complete destruction of the entire system so that ALL Democrats suffer, particularly the neediest among us, so that their vengeance can be sated.

And from the destruction they will build a new Party, so the martyrs say. But even this new Party will not resemble utopia of their idealistic and altruistic dreams, for they are not grounded in realities, or the pragmatisms required to juggle the competing interests of many competing minorities.

It is not that the Democratic Party rejects them. It is that they cannot be pleased. Their demands are unrealistic, rooted in idealism and purity, and would cost far more than could ever possibly be gained by their votes. Purists and idealists cannot, (or will not) tolerate the compromises inherent in the practical realities of the common good and serving the needs of several competing minorities. In other words, they cannot tolerate pragmatism.

They bring no real proposals to the table. They demand particular candidates, however the majority of the rank and file of the Democratic Party have rejected theses candidates. They demand actions and positions from candidates tantamount to political suicide. They demand elimination of centrists from the Party in far, far greater numbers than they can replace with their votes. They demand to dictate terms to the center and left-center elements of the Democratic Party – at least 10 times greater in numbers. These demands are far beyond what they can realistically hope to command, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the practicalities of political organization and effectiveness.

The plain and simply reality is that there are more votes to be gained in the center than there are on the left fringe. The nader/3rd Party vote will be lucky to get 1% this time. This election will be fought over the 10%+ of the swing votes in the center. Do the math. The majority of the rank and file of the Democratic voters are simply not going to accept a far left agenda.

I'm not even saying I don't agree with parts of it, I'm simply saying that the majority will never accept a radical shift to the left, and such an agenda will lose more votes than it will gain. The shift to the right took place over a generation, and any shift back to the left has to take place in small steps. Just STOPPING the shift to the right and the Bush neocon agenda is a major step in the right direction. Deliberately trying to sabotage that with 3rd Party dilution is mutiny in my estimation.

Just look at what the Bush hard tack to the extreme right has done to his popularity among rank and file Republicans. There’s much dissention among Republican ranks, they are furious with him. He’s gone too far right too quickly. His popularity has plummeted and he has lost Independents and Republicans who plan to vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

How can you possibly reason with someone who insists that someone who voted to impose a process with a series of several steps to be followed in order to prevent war, with war as the last resort, is as bad or worse than one who planned, promoted, and executed the war by way of bypassing the entire process, run roughshod over every institution, ally, and nation that stood in his way, manufactured evidence, and lied to the entire world in order rush to war? How can you possibly reason with someone who thinks their purism and altruism supercede the simple fact that one USSC appointment and the numerous other judge appointments if made by the Bush will alter the political structure of the country and numerous civil rights issues for the next few generations?

It isn’t that they don’t understand these consequences; they do. There is no sense trying to reason with them. DUers cannot heal this divide with the left fringe. DUers cannot meet impossible demands or satiate those who refuse to be pleased. There is no pleasing martyrs or those addicted to losing. Stop allowing them to push your buttons.

It’s their vote, they have a right to register that vote as they see fit. By the same token, that does NOT give them the right to come back on us by way of tantrums, emotional extortion and blackmail head games and demand we answer impossible questions and demands or grovel for their acceptance or their votes. Advise them instead to push away from this message board and get to work for Nader or their 3rd Party of choice instead of hounding us with tantrums and threats about it.

The majority of the rank and file of the Democratic Party has never been MORE united. People have been going to the polls in record numbers. Most Nader voters from election 2000 will vote Dem in this election. This is a poor time for the far left to choose this battle.

I'm not worried about Nader. I actually think we might pull this off this time. I actually hope Nader does run so we can win in spite of him, and we can finally put to rest this notion in the minds of left fringe that they have extortion and blackmail leverage over the Democratic Party. I'd really like to see that.

[Walt Starr]

1. It all depends on how "electable" te Democrat really is

If he's indeed, "electable", then third parties don't mean shit.

If third parties stop him from being elected, then he wasn't "electable", was he?

[Madison Grad]

7. I haven't voted since 1984

But I plan to vote for Edwards this year in my (FL) primary.

As far as the general election goes, if the Democrats put a bonesman at the head of the ticket I'll go back to sitting on my hands or look elsewhere.

[newyawker99]

65. Hi Madison Grad!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[arwalden]

21. That Is An Idiotic Statement. Empty. Hollow. Totally Without Merit.

When a candidate is deemed to be "electable", it means the following: out of ALL the candidates vying for the nomination of the Democratic party, candidate X is the most likely to get the most amount of votes from the middle and from moderate-Republicans.

Being considered electable means that the candidate is the most COMPETITIVE of the available candidates and has the broadest appeal. It does NOT guarantee that close elections will be any less close... NOR does it guarantee a win.

The assertion that "third parties don't mean shit" if a candidate has been characterized as being "electable" is sheer lunacy. I have seen many provocateurs dangle statements like this as some sort of justification for 3rd party voting.

However... what the lunatic fringe cannot understand (or perhaps they understand it, yet choose to ignore) is the fact that this election will be a close one. The country is split. Every vote will count.

We have realistic need to maximize the number of votes the Democratic nominee gets... and our concern about actions that will ultimately benefit the criminal Bush* have noting to do with how "electable" the Democratic nominee is deemed to be.

Our concerns about ALL factors and elements contributing to the ultimate outcome of this election do not invalidate the "electable" laurel that any candidate has received.

The people who throw out idiotic and uninformed statements such as the ones we've seen over the past couple of days are engaging in this type of juvenile "neener-neener" nonsense for the sheer joy of taunting and provoking.

These wild-eyed accusations from the lunatic fringe that question our wisdom or resolve HAVE NO BASIS IN FACT. None of them are based on reality.

Ultimately, we CAN SEE quite clearly who the most electable candidate is... the votes tell the story. Unfortunately, there is little to nothing that I or anyone can do for these disgruntled people. The misery they create is their own.

-- Allen

[Brian_Expat]

22. The most "electable" position is anti-gay.

Thus, the Democratic candidate should be overtly anti-gay, and the Democrats should compromise and stand behind him.

Right?

[arwalden]

26. I Am Not A One-Issue Voter

I choose to vote in the way that best beneifts the country.

-- Allen

[arwalden]

31. The LGBT Organization, Human Rights Campaign, Gives Kerry 100% For 4 Years

base on his voting record and how it compares with the positions taken by the HRC on those issues.

Blanket statements about Kerry being "anti-gay" and other such tripe served up by many here on DU are HOLLOW, EMPTY, and TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT.

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Campaigns_and_Elections/Presidential_Candidates/2004_Candidates.htm

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Presidential_Candidates&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=50&ContentID=12738

John Kerry
Three-Term Senator Has Stellar Record
on Gay Civil Rights
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Presidential_Candidates&CONTENTID=12883&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

Workplace Discrimination
Co-sponsor of the Employ-ment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Hate Crimes
Co-sponsor of a strong hate
crimes prevention measure, the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act.

HIV/AIDS
Co-sponsor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which would expand Medicaid to people living with HIV, and supports science-based prevention programs.

Gay Civil Rights Bill
Authored the Senate version of the Civil Rights Amendments Act of 1985, a comprehensive gay civil rights bill that would have covered discrimination in employment, housing and credit.

U.S. Congress and Scorecards
The 2004 elections are approaching. And lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, allies, friends, families and co-workers have the power to decide whether to move forward or lose ground. HRC wants to provide you with the information you need to be an informed voter. Use these scorecards to evaluate your members of Congress. Most importantly, get involved to elect a fair-minded Congress.

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Congress_and_Scorecard/Index.htm

[sangh0]

54. In addition, we speak of electable *candidates*, not

electable positions. Positions never get elected. Candidates often do.

[JVS]

23. No, that's relative electability. Otherwise Nader would be electable...

since he was the most likely to be elected among party for which he ran in 2000.

It is quite possible to have an entirely unelectable crop. Imagine if we had nine Sharptons.

Electable means that a candidate can be elected. Not necessarily will be elected, but that it is not unreasonable to expect that this person will win an election. By this definition 3rd party candidates are not electable, which seems to correspond with reality.
Of course there are others who maintain that electability is not real. I wouldn't agree with that, but I would say that what is considered electability frequently turns out to be hype.

[Snivi Yllom]

44. and if the third party has more to offer

say a delicious gourmet panini with foccacia bread, brie, smoked salmon......


instead of a ham sandwich.

[liberalnurse]

2. Enough to make Terry McAuliffe

look in his night stand for the sublingual nitroglycerine tablets.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. The Democratic Party has three choices

They can continue to offer a more metrosexual spokesman for the status quo than the Republicans

They can run a candidate that supports a change from the status quo and let the Republicans take the voters that like bush's policies but don't like bush

They can go ahead and take the next step and merge with the Republican party.

Those are all things they CAN do.

They cannot stop people from disagreeing with the status quo, no matter how it is worded, no matter how clever the cosmetic changes, and they cannot stop people who want a political solution to the crisis from latching onto anybody of any party who tells them choice is possible, change is possible.

[MurikanDemocrat]

4. I think you missed my point.

I am in agreement that those who feel the Democratic Party is intolerable have every right to seek alternative Parties.

The gist of my topic is that this small minority on the left fringe does not have the right to resort to resort to emotional extortion and blackmail tactics and expect the majority to appease their agenda, and thereby lose far more votes from the center than what would be gained by their votes. They don't possess the leverage to command control over the agenda of the majority who do not agree with them.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. Oh I agree that in the fight for the same top 25 income crowd you're right

The vast majority don't really have a problem with the current regime's policies, but quite a few of them dislike bush intensely.

A more telegenic candidate who can be trusted to maintain the status quo is just what the doctor ordered, and the Democrats do not need the small but quite vocal minority who are not appeased by even the most attractive and visible cosmetic changes.

However, as the numbers of "new poor" increase, the mechanisms that have been more than effective in minimizing their participation in the political process may need to be revisited, for this is a group with the potential not only to believe that a political solution is a realisitc possibility, but the skills to incite that kind of sentiment in the traditional non-voting classes, and many have assets that may take more than four years to liquidate, thus keeping them from being filtered out through the above-mentioned traditional mechanisms.

[MurikanDemocrat]

6. In your second paragraph, did you mean to say

Democrats do not need the small but quite vocal majority or minority?

I think we are in agreement, however. :hi:

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. minority. fixed. (nt)

[MurikanDemocrat]

9. kickety

[LWolf]

10. LOL

How DU has changed in the last year.

This used to be a haven for progressives. And what you consider the "left fringe" used to be the center of the democratic party.

What is now the "center" used to be the right wing.

If the "majority" of democrats like the right better than the left, and wish to keep the party moving in that direction, majority rules. The party is free to do so.

I would like to see the hypocrisy of branding those who don't choose to march in lock-step to the right with them as traitors, bush enablers, fringe, etc. come to an end.

I expect 3rd parties will continue to grow and attract members as the democratic "movement" continues.

[Kahuna]

29. When was the "left fringe" the center of the democratic party?

Oh yeah. That was when we nominated candidates who had no chance of winning in the general election. Then the moderates decided to stop sitting on their hands during primaries and gave us a winning candidate. His name is William Jefferson Clinton. :eyes:

[formernaderite]

11. third parties can also help shape the debate...

...the democrats can make Nader irrelevant by adopting some of his views. Dean created the momentum for this, now Kucinich is the only candidate left who represents these ideals. Perhaps Kerry will rethink his position that we should 'move on' from the IWR vote.

[MurikanDemocrat]

12. Kerry was right about that. People do need to move on about the

IWR vote. The majority of the rank and file of the Democratic voters agree.

[ldoolin]

14. You're wrong

The gist of my topic is that this small minority on the left fringe does not have the right to resort to resort to emotional extortion and blackmail tactics and expect the majority to appease their agenda

It's called democracy. The threat of third party spoilers is one of the checks and balances built into democracy to prevent the majority from running roughshod over the rights of minorities. They most certainly do have that right, by the fact that Nader has a right to run and people have the right to vote for him. I'm not going to vote for Nader, but others have the right to make that choice.

In other words, WAAAAAAHHHH!

[MurikanDemocrat]

17. I think you'd better start over with the original post.

I said people had the right to take their support to a 3rd Party. Do it. I gave arguments why they cannot be pleased and why it's not even worth trying to please them.

No, a small minority on the left fringe does not have the right to dictate terms of the Democratic Party agenda for the majority.

In short: Vote as you please. I truly don't care. Spare us the bullshit and go work for Nader or the Green Party.

[ldoolin]

52. Fascinating

In the above post I said I won't be voting for Nader.

In response, I get this invitation from a Kerry supporter:

Spare us the bullshit and go work for Nader or the Green Party.

Way to promote party unity there. If enough of you keep it up, there will be plenty of us who take you up on your offer. Don't push it.

[kiahzero]

27. Um... no. You're wrong.

The threat of third party spoilers is one of the checks and balances built into democracy to prevent the majority from running roughshod over the rights of minorities.

Afraid not, my friend. Third party "spoilers" are the artifact of the woefully inadequate voting system our country currently uses. Should it be replaced with any one of the vastly superior systems (Condorcet and Acceptance being the two best), the issue of "spoilers" would disappear overnight.

[PVnRT]

32. "Emotional extortion and blackmail tactics"

You mean, the very same tactics being used right now on anyone on DU who isn't zealous about the Democratic candidate?

[MurikanDemocrat]

13. run this by the night crowd

[RichM]

15. Be afraid! Be VERY afraid!! We fringe leftists are coming to git yo'mama!

BWAHA-HAhahaha!!

We're coming with our unreasonable demands and our lack of proposals!! We're coming to hide under your beds and jump out right when you're in the middle of compromising with us yet again -- and we'll demand more, more, always more!! Nothing you give us will ever be enough!

We will divide you! We will confuse you & sabotage your best efforts! Grovel before us now or face defeat!! WE are your worst nightmare! :evilgrin:

[Eloriel]

16. BOO!

LOL. Well done, RichM.

[MurikanDemocrat]

18. But we're not afraid. And that's what pisses you off.

You assign yourself greater relevance and leverage than you have.

And besides, we can whup you fringe folk anyway. We have Skull and Bones. :evilgrin:

[arwalden]

25. They Clearly Mistake Being 'FED UP WITH THE BULLSHIT' As Being "Afraid".

Some flatter themselves by characterizing our reactions as "fear". It makes the uninformed believe that they have more power and more importance or relevance that REALITY bears out.

It's kind of sad really to see how deluded some of the folks in the lunatic fringe are. It's very cult-like and suicide-bomber-like thinking. When they feel that all hope is lost, they resort to desperation tactics.

In the warped minds of the fanatical fringe freaks, they choose to cause as much suffering as possible. In the absence of their utopia, they choose to be destructive so that others will "feel their pain". There actions have nothing to do with what's best for the country, it's all about revenge and making others suffer in the wake of their defeat.

This type of behavior from these folks is psychotic. They are paranoid and have become totally detached from reality.

-- Allen

[Iverson]

30. oh, I wouldn't say that

For two solid days now these boards have been the site of total hysteria because of Nader. The irrationality is not coming from what some term the "fringe left."

Concurrently, the left gets smeared quite a bit lately by cliched straw man definitions. There is no effort at genuine dialogue, just denunciation. You, sir, yourself have participated in that. Yet last time I checked with my department Chair, I was quite rational and capable of exchange.

Defining others as "irrational," "lunatic," "unclean sinners" or what-have-you is a way of shutting off dialogue and expression self-satisfaction. However, if the hysterical centrists really were secure in their moral certitude, there would be no need for the hysteria.

Sorry if this is too "psychotic" for you. I guess we determine mental health based upon political preferences, oui? Let's hope that cancer research doesn't start getting conducted that way, lest we all die.

[PVnRT]

33. Don't confuse people with facts

Let them wallow in their hatred of progressives who have been fighting for their rights for the past 150 years. Let them bring out the same old bullshit about what the "majority" wants.

[arwalden]

35. I Wouldn't Expect That You Would Agree With Me. No Surprises There.

But for all their whining and victim-playing... I still refuse to "negotiate" with political blackmailers who demand that I coddle and coo and acquiesce for their vote. Bullshit! The validation they seek will not come from me.

In their eyes, the online debate (?) they choose to engage in is merely a series of contradictions and insults. No kind word or sympathetic understanding message from me will change their mind. Their minds were made up long ago.

My sympathy and kindness will not change their irrational dissatisfaction with the Great Satan of the Democratic party. Their hatred is as firmly seated as mine is. Minds and hearts will not be changed.

I choose to vote in a way that benefits the country. They choose the self-righteous and destructive way. (I can only imagine them muttering to themselves in the voting booth "As I have suffered, so shall ye suffer.")

I enjoyed reading the "unclean sinners" reference. Not one of my own... but funny nonetheless.

-- Allen

[Iverson]

36. half a loaf

Do you think that your response includes some justification for defining everyone who disagrees with you as irrational?

That's a simple, rational question, hm?

[arwalden]

37. This Is Not About ME, Or Who Disagrees With ME.

What an absurd suggestion! I do not believe that someone is irrational simply because the disagree with me. I believe that they are wrong because they disagree with me. There's a difference.

I do, however, believe that the lunatic fringe IS irrational.

Electioneering for Nader intends to harm the prospects of the Democratic Party candidate, and brings direct benefit to the criminals of the '00 Coup, making persons who carry it out interchangeable, as a matter of practical fact, with persons who are electioneering for Republicans.

Liberty is one thing, Sir, but turn-coating and false-flagging is quite another. Naderites are nothing but the left-wing auxiliary of the Republican Party, and need to be treated as such.

Nader is a damnable and pernicious pig, who deserves nothing but the contempt of any who sincerely desire the defeat of the worst elements of reaction in our government.

It is unfortunate, but it is so.

The arguments I continue to hear from that side are not grounded in reason, but in deliberate discard of reason. I hear positions not grounded on fact, but on deliberate dis-regard of fact. Ultimately what we have from them is a position taken not with an eye to finding common ground in compromise, but with an emotional rejection of the very concept of compromise at its core.

That is a damned odd way to display attachment to left principles, by rendering assistance to the worst elements in our government.

[Iverson]

38. begging the question

At first I thought that your response was just a circular argument: they're lunatic because they're irrational.

However, it begs the question: what is it that makes the targets of your ire lunatic?
From what I can tell in your response, it is wanting progress by some other means than you do.

There are perfectly rational bases for non-identical thought there. Some might argue, for example, that the very thing you decry is accomplished by the strategy that you prefer, since it has been demonstrated that unceasing triangulation does not bring progress.

As for arguments not grounded in reason, I think that programmatic denunciation falls well within that category. Ask yourself whether you've gone there or no.

edited typo

[arwalden]

39. Because The Utopia They Desire Cannot Be Obtained Overnight

in a single election. The seek idealogical purity in vain rather than accepting the reality of an imperfect situation.

We do not have the perfect candidate who is all things to all people. 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.

Only ONE of two men will win... Bush or the Dem nominee. This is a fact. In their pursuit of perfection, they have lost touch with the reality of the situation that by failing to support the better of the two candidates for president, they will be giving material support to the criminal Bush*.

They smugly pat themselves on the back at "sticking to their principles"... yet they find themselves further from their goals than ever before.

THAT IS LUNACY. IDIOCY. IRRATIONAL. --- The fact they they see it as some sort of "moral victory" is PSYCHOTIC.

I stand by my words. One unmovable force has met another. We are at a stalemate.

-- Allen

[Iverson]

41. You stand by a misimpression.

It is you, not the lefties, who assert that they want everything overnight. A few minutes of actually listening will confirm this, so you don't need to take my clearly irrational word for it.

Likewise with ideological purity and perfection.

Now let us suppose (just humor me here) that there is an issue that is more important than other issues. In fact, let's say that that issue is so important that it literally is life-or-death and therefore carries a disproportionate weight in constituting some political decisions. Oooooh, I'll pick one out of a hat here ... um, preventive invasions.

Now let's suppose that we have two candidates. Candidate A just loves preventive invasion because he didn't give a damn about basic civilization anyway. Candidate B loves it less, although he doesn't oppose it in principle, and he has technical disagreements with candidate A's policies.

You would argue, if I understand you correctly, that the single permissible rational reaction is to support candidate B. If someone so deeply disagrees with preventive invasion, then you define them as irrational and call them all sorts of names and generally carry on about how irrational they are. The underlying warrant that justifies your denunciation is that disagreement must be irrational.

That is my impression.

I hope that it was not expressed in too irrational or lunatic a fashion. Obviously, being one of "those," I must not be in a position to self-evaluate. But you, with your denuciation keen and sharp, are the guardian of the reasonable.

edited spelling errors

[arwalden]

43. Yes... that is correct.

I know I keep repeating myself.

We do not have the perfect candidate. There are no good men, but some are more bad than others. These latter are to be opposed, and often the only available medium to do so is slightly less bad men.

Sen. Kerry, Is nowhere near so bad as the jackanapes ensconced today in the Oval Office.

Only two men actually stand a chance at being elected. Those who will not vote for the better of the two men will be giving material assistance to the criminals of the 2000-Coup.

That is a damned odd way to display attachment to left principles, by rendering assistance to the worst elements of reaction in our polity.

-- Allen

P.S. A small but meaningful clarification is in order here. I do not find fault in someone's desire for perfection. I do not find fault in someone's high standards. Is this what you think?

What I do find to be idiotic is the misguided and fanciful belief that their votes for non-viable candidates will help achieve their goals.

They appear to have this belief that 3% vote will make 3% improvement in the situation. It will not. Instead it only empowers the absolute antithesis of everything they hold dear. It sets them back even further. This is madness. (And self indulgent vanity.)

Then we have to provocateur suicide-bomber mentality of some folks who appear to take orgasmic GLEE that their vote has contributed to the downfall of the best man. They delight in knowing that others will now suffer as they have. (Or some other maniacal nonsense.) They are the children of Satan.

P.P.S. I take issue with your assertion that I've personally accused you (or anyone for that matter) of being "one of those" (to use your words.) I have used great care to avoid accusing anyone of being anything. I speak only in general terms about the worst elements who choose to benefit Bush*.

[Iverson]

45. summary

Perfection is not the issue, and never was.

Tolerability, for some, may be the issue, and may be so on a rational basis.

There is nothing especially rational about factoring out all of the left voices and expecting a progressive result. This is the long-term consequence of triangulation without end, and that is the ascendant, centrist strategy in the Democratic Party. It assumes that things will get worse, and only permits discussion of the rate of worsening.

And no, you did not accuse me personally of anything. You made sweeping (and glaringly false) generalizations about those who disagree with you, and I self-identified in such a way as to show my irritation with that. I recommend abandoning the tactic of declaring as irrational those who frame the important questions in ways not identical to yours.

[arwalden]

46. Iverson, That's Bullshit!

Perfection IS their issue. "Oh dear me, I cannot vote for Kerry because he voted for IWR". That's selfish, sanctimonious, reckless BULLSHIT.

The criminal Bush* must be removed from the White House.

In your heart you know what I say true and you know that their actions are unwise and will only cause more harm than good. This cannot be denied by any rational person.

-- Allen

[Iverson]

48. There goes that highbrow discourse.

Swearing at people does not improve one's argument.

Repetition does not improve one's argument.

Insisting that subjective preference is objective fact is, well, irrational.

[arwalden]

49. Insistence That A Third Party Candidate Can Win... Is Well...

you know the drill. Insert the adjective of your choice.

Did you change my mind on any of your pet issues? No.
Did I change your mind? -- I think the safe answer is also "no".

-- Allen

P.S. I swear. No apologies. Deal with it. (Although you appear to be suggesting indirectly that I swear "at you"--or "at" any one for that matter--no such thing has happened. I simply use foul language. People do that.)

[Iverson]

50. missed the point

I harbor no illusions about changing your mind and, unlike the orthodox centrists around here, I don't actually demand that you think exactly as I do.

My central point of contention - and this should have been clear long, long ago to those who read with comprehension - is that you are wrong to assert that anyone who disagrees with you or your construction is irrational.

Not only have you not backed up your assertion very well; you have gone a long way toward helping me with my rebuttal.

See also: argument from inconceivability.

[arwalden]

51. Oh Sweet Jesus On A Stick

>> is that you are wrong to assert that anyone who disagrees with you or your construction is irrational <<

BULLSHIT! That is wrong. I have not made that assertion... that is a mistake... an error... a misconception.

Many people disagree with me whom I do NOT consider to be irrational. It is NOT the simple act of disagreeing with me that makes them irrational. Please let me know if this doesn't make sense and I'll try to find a dozen other ways to repeat the same message.

Those who believe that their vote for any third-party candidate will result in anything OTHER than helping to keep the criminal Bush* in office are FRINGE LUNATICS. Irrational morons with a suicide-bomber, Koolaid-drinking, Heaven's-Gate, mentality. They are delusional and psychotic and destructive. (Either that or Republicans... in which case they could just skip the middle man and vote directly for Bush.)

-- Allen

P.S. I have made no demands on you... yes I caught that. I'll let it slide.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

70. Iverson

I think I am in love with you! lol

[Eloriel]

53. You're right, arewalden

No kind word or sympathetic understanding message from me will change their mind.

But the absence of it will certainly harden their attitudes.

[arwalden]

55. They Are Responsible For Their Own Attitudes, Not I.

My lack of sympathy is a response to their pre-existing attitudes... not the cause of them.

Just like the hardening of arteries, their hardening of attitudes happened over time... this was not a direct result of my reaction to their positions and their proclamations of their voting intentions.

It was, instead, a result of their dissatisfaction with the party and with the likely candidate who will receive the nomination. I can do nothing about this.

At this late hour, with the the general election looming, it's the wrong time to cast protest-votes to 'change the party' and to 'send a message' to the party. The time for party improvement is over. Any efforts to do that now is a tactical error. It will only benefit the criminal Bush*.

NOW IS THE TIME to come to the aid of the country (not the party) and focus attention on removing the criminal Bush* from power. Either they get it or they don't. And if they get it... they either care or they don't. And if they care, they either vote to benefit the country or vote to punish their party.

This may not be how they would describe it (I keep hearing things like "voting my conscience" and "no enablers" and "no lesser of two weevils") but regardless of their own personal labels and spin, the outcome and the long term effect are the same.

You'll have to forgive me if I find it difficult to express sympathy, coddle, coo, validate, beg, cajole, or to offer my hankie to folks who are more concerned with themselves than what the net effect will be to the vote count and what the REAL effect will be on the country if the criminal Bush* remains in office.

--Allen

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

47. It's Too Bad You Feel That Way, MadHound.

You've made your opinions abundantly clear. We have nothing to discuss.

-- Allen

e: clarity

[JVS]

40. Sweet!

[Gore1FL]

19. A lot or none -- depending on how you look at it

It drive the dems to the center and marginalizes the left.

At least htat has been the result I've seen in my life.

[OhioStateProgressive]

20. I agree with your assertion

The only problem is, I think it is fine what the far left (me) is doing...Democrats will either give in and pursue purity and truth, or will cease to exist as a party. It is now the time to fully pursue the Socialist dream, and we will arrive at it one way or the other...either we convince Democrats to vote for the Candidates we want, or we run our own outside of the party...eventually we will win

[MurikanDemocrat]

57. That is delusional, purity and "the Socialist dream" will never win.

A few percent on the left simply does not have the leverage to dictate terms to the vast majority, particularly when it will cost more votes on the other end than they can make up.

[OhioStateProgressive]

69. I guess 2000 wasn't enough(nt)

[HFishbine]

24. So many words

to express such a simple ignorance.

[Kahuna]

28. This is a great post. I have said all of the same things..

over time. I hope you save this and repeat it as often as is necessary.

[RichM]

59. YOU have said all the same things over time, yet it's a "great post?"

How can that be? Isn't there an inner contradiction here?

[PVnRT]

34. You know, you might have a decent argument

If not for the "left fringe" bullshit. You know, the same term used by all those commentators for the right. Glad to see their language has invaded DU.

[MurikanDemocrat]

56. I'll call it far left then if that is more palatable

[RichM]

61. If you use the same language as rightwingers, what does that imply?

Might it not imply that your thinking has been influenced by them, in ways you're not even really aware of, yourself? Here, you've gone & written a long paranoiac screed that calls to mind Ann Coulter in her formative years. How could someone like you - a budding witchhunter - possibly make references to the "far left," when you have not the foggiest notion of what left thought is really about?

You and Ann have more in common than you may realize. She is also given to calling for anti-left purges (except that in her case, "the far left" includes not only you and the entire Democratic Party, but moderate Republicans as well).

[MurikanDemocrat]

62. You actually do more to make a case in support of the term

fringe left than against it from your reliance on hyperbole in this post and all the others you respond to mine with. The language you choose borders on hysteria.

[Iverson]

63. BAM! Way to slap down a lefty!

Of course, there's all that hyperbole in your original post, but LIVE FOR THE MOMENT!WOWZA!!! :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

[GreenPartyVoter]

58. Democracy is about compromise

There is nothing in the constitution forbidding the running of multiple candidates. There is nothing in the constitution supporting a two-party only system.

The sooner you and other big party fans recognize that the system we have now no longer accomodates who we are as a nation, the sooner we can work to amend the system so that it works better.

Growing pains are uncomfortable, yes, but nowhere did the Founding Fathers ever draw us a picture of what this nation would look like, be like, when it was "finished" The great experiment has grown stagnant. Let's get it growing again, and the election reform ideas on my website are a surefire way to do that.

[corporatewhore]

60. just throw us a few bones that the old school cons agree upon too

like having a spine
not being wishy washy
not being beholden to corporate interests
dont be for bill of rights shredding acts like the patriot act
get outta nafta/gatt/wto cause we dont like our jobs going to india and we dont like slaves

[mouse7]

64. Depends on who is threatening.

If, for example, Bill and Hillary Clinton threatened to form a 3rd party, it would be a big problem.

Nader? *giggle* not much.

[BruinAlum]

67. Bill and Hillary Clinton have devoted too much to the Democratic Party

and liberal causes to consider such an act of mutiny

[Scottie72]

66. Kerry needs to be careful

He supports the amendment he'll lose a majority of the gay vote and that my friends can turn into a couple million.. is that big enough?

[MurikanDemocrat]

68. He doesn't support a Federal Constitutional Amendment

so there's no problem.

edit:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0224b.html

“I believe President Bush is wrong. All Americans should be concerned when a President who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his reelection campaign.

“This President can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care. He can’t talk about a foreign policy, which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people.

“While I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for 200 years, this has been a state issue. I oppose this election year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor.

“I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions. I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states, and that the President of the United States should be addressing the central challenges where he has failed – jobs, health care, and our leadership in the world rather than once again seeking to drive a wedge by toying with the United States Constitution for political purposes.”

[XanaDUer]

71. Don't confuse 'em with facts...

:eyes:

[MurikanDemocrat]

72. I'm sorry. I don't know what came over me. I lost my head.

;-)