being Better Than Bush is not enough.

[ulysses]

"ABB". It's the first true debate-killing acronym in DU history.

The unspoken, perhaps unconsious, but certainly unexamined message behind "ABB" is that the Democratic nominee can be even the slightest shade to the left of GWB and still be good enough. We hear about ham sandwiches on a regular basis, and it's true - a ham sandwich would, indeed, be at least a mild improvement over Bush.

But not enough, and neither will a Democratic candidate and party that plays tiddlywinks (yet again) with conservative policy for the middle vote.

Even if we win two or three or four consecutive terms in the presidency, it's pretty much a given that, eventually, the wingnuts will ascend to the throne once more. If we've spent the intervening years of Democratic power nibbling at the edges of change and regaining no lost political ground (much less capturing anything new), they'll get to pick up more or less where they left off and make our current situation seem like the good old days. Again.

(mods: I put this here because it's not about a particular candidate but about the party at large.)

[K-W]

1. Wrong

Ours is a system of middle ground, it is designed so that radical swins wont happen. What we are seeing right now is the result of a massive well funded campaign of misinformation just to get the radical right in power. Unless youve got some magic money stockpiled dont expect to be able to ram a radical leftist government in. The right thing to do is to take a step in the right(left) direction. Then we can take another step, then another. If we only settle for a giant leap, we will forever lose elections to moderate republicans and republicans posing as moderates.

[ulysses]

3. "radical leftist" - where've I heard that before?

You really would have a good point if I were talking about a radical leftist party or candidate. Pity for you I'm not.

[K-W]

6. Actually you are.

You are talking about someone who is moderate being not good enough. meaning you want someone who isnt moderate and isnt republican, that kinda narrows it down, doesnt it?

[ulysses]

9. no.

You are talking about someone who is moderate being not good enough.

Not at all. I'm talking about someone who calls themselves a moderate but campaigns, and governs, as a right-flirting centrist.

A moderate is fine, at least for the nonce. Not my idea of "perfect" or "pure" perhaps, but it's never been about that, contrary to popular belief.

[tkmorris]

2. I do not agree

People who say "ABB" are not saying that the candidate in question is "good enough". What they are saying is that in this particular election we will have 2 and only 2 candidates that have any chance of winning. One of those candidates is so bad that our main goal has to be ensuring that he does not win. It doesn't mean the candidate is good enough; he is almost certain not to be. But we simply cannot afford to lose. Not this time.

If it was Dole we were talking about here losing wouldn't be so potentially disastrous. Then I could see voting your conscience. McCain may not have been so compelling either, hard to say. Bush though, no. This guy has got to go. ABB.

[ulysses]

5. did you read the post?

One can be better than Bush by being only a little less regressive. Hell, Bob fucking Barr is better than Bush by many measures.

The point stands. If we win by running someone who accedes, but less so, to conservative goals, we lose more surely in the long term.

[K-W]

8. So your point is that we shouldnt run a republican?

Agreed, but I dont think there is much risk of that.

[ulysses]

11. no, my point is

that if being better than Bush is the only goal, we might as well run a Republican in a lot of cases.

[K-W]

12. You need to clarify, who are you talking about?

Running a conservative against Bush would be stupid, but no one is planning or proposing that. Someone who accedes but less so to conservative goals is a more moderate republican. No one is proposing running a republican, so what on earth are you talking about?

[ulysses]

16. heh.

Someone who accedes but less so to conservative goals is a more moderate republican.

Or a DLC Democrat.

[tkmorris]

17. Yes I read the post

Keep your insults to yourself.

The point is that people who say "ABB" are NOT, repeat NOT saying that we should run just anyone. They are saying that regardless of their chosen dem candidate, in the GE they will vote for the nominee. As will I and my candidate is Dennis Kucinich. I will strive to get my candidate nominated but in the end I can and will vote for whoever gets the nod. That is what ABB means.

[ulysses]

19. I realize that.

The point is that people who say "ABB" are NOT, repeat NOT saying that we should run just anyone.

What I'm saying is that the necessity to remove Bush from power is very often used as a(nother) stick with which to beat the left into submission, and the result is that many people *would* end up voting for damn near anyone. Zell Miller could run, and you can bet your ass that the ABB flags would fly.

The point remains unaddressed. If we respond with ideological peashooters to the GOP's cannon, we lose.

[Dr Fate]

4. I would rather debate you after we are in power...

...we should debate the "spoils" from the comfort of power.

Right now we need to stop this runaway train.

We can decide just how Liberal or moderate we are going to be when we can actually control the situation...

I dont want to kill debate- I do want unity now, so that the debate can continue. If these neocons do much more damage, there aint gonna be no debating anything...

[ulysses]

7. Fate, the comforts of power will end the debate just as surely.

Bet me. They did in 1993.

[Dr Fate]

10. The debate ended in 2000, not 1993...

We were on the right track on many issues in the 90's and we need to get back on it...

[ulysses]

13. that's debatable at best.

[Dr Fate]

38. No, we were on the right track on many issues...

...that statement is not debatable from a Liberal stance...Yes- degrees of just how progressive Clinton was is debatable- but it was the right direction...

We need only look at Clinton's approach & results for economic & social issues...We were on the right track- and it was derailed in 2000...

But enough about Clinton & the past-what can we do NOW???...

[buddhamama]

14. i posted on another thread

my frustration with the eventual "collective sigh"
that will over take the Nation when Bush is out.
is a slight increase in forward motion, going to cause
the amnesia so often quoted.

or worse still *static*-- what is it good for?

[anti-NAFTA]

15. I agree. eom

[proud patriot]

18. Me too

The struggle to reclaim "We The People"

must continue , it must .

Our research , our hard work must continue .

Even if I'm the only one talking the Debate will always
be alive and well in me .

and I'm not ever going to Shut Up . :hi:

[KG]

20. boy, we gettin' tired of your attitude.

you just pull that lever what gotta (D) next to it and evarthang gonna be a-ok, got it?

[buddhamama]

21. everything is going to be ok

is has to be cause you see they made a mantra just for us
Unity Unity Unity.

with a snappy little thing like that, how could we go wrong?

[ulysses]

23. but is there an accompanying dance?

I want a dance. ;-)

[buddhamama]

24. if you'll get

naked i'll see what i can come up with :-)

oh wait, that would too obvious. they'd know you weren't really one of them but, a leftist freak who doesn't wash.

[ulysses]

25. *spits coffee on monitor*

Buddhamama! Asking for the Full Uly! And as smelly as I am! :D

[buddhamama]

29. careful with that coffee, dear

injuries could occur,
and my inspiration will gone. :D

[ulysses]

32. there's a song there somewhere

:silly:

[ulysses]

22. busting taillights for the DLC these days, KG?

:D

[KG]

27. heh.

been unemployed for awhile now, needed the money.... :(

[ulysses]

30. don't complain about your job, now...

;-)

Sorry to hear you're still there. There's a private religious school in the north Atlanta suburbs that may well be needing a new math teacher soon, if you're willing. :)

[KG]

31. actually, i got an interveiw in the morning.

might be a shrubco success story by tomorrow! :crazy:

[ulysses]

33. good luck!

You must have changed your paradigm, per Boortz's instructions. :D

[Eric J in MN]

26. Bush is a crook. John Kerry and John Edwards are both more honest.

Bush is a crook. John Kerry and John Edwards are both more honest.

Let's win one Pres. term in 2004, then talk about 3 or 4.

Right now, we need to get a crook out of office.

[ulysses]

28. I can agree with that.

I should probably clarify (again). By "not enough", I don't necessarily mean not enough to get me to vote Dem, but rather not enough to save the damned country.

Bush needs to go, yes, but it matters who takes his place and with what agenda.

[osaMABUSh]

34. BS - this IS the worst president ever - ABB is true

If ABB means Kerry or Edwards I think we are in fine shape.

It's not like ABB really means ANYBODY but Bush - there's only two left standing and they both are way better than *

[ulysses]

35. you just made my point, though.

The fact that Bush is so bad makes it that much easier for the Dem to be, simply, less bad, should he so choose. And less bad (although it is, by definition, less bad) isn't good enough. Unless the party and the candidate together offer an active vision that goes beyond simply not being Republicans, we do ourselves no favors in the long term.

Will the nominee choose to simply be less bad? One likes to hope not, but there's a whole race still to be run.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

36. In THEORY I agree but THAT is contingent upon US not POTUS

POTUS may be only as good as their coattails for congress and senate but it is UP TO US to fashion the converations that elect the better candidates at the state and LOCAL level. Gerrymandering has led to some incredibly safe seats but there is NO guarantee that public sentiments won't shift especially in middle to lower socio-economic strata.

ABB is good enough for me this year because there is NO GOING back if the group in charge is able to actually alter our very from of government.

We are BEYOND dangerously close to single party government, but to SOLELY blame Dems and even center to center right for these policies is a bit hasty as there has NOT BEEN ONE FEDERALIST SOCIETY judge (aka American Enterprise Institute seal of approval) vetted by a Dem president OR governor that I am aware of ( at least in my state and on the national level...none by Clinton were FS adherents)

ABB means the COURTS which are our LAST line of defense since we don't have the house and senate and odds are we may not.

(If this point has already been raised..apologies..I didn't read the entire thread before posting)

[sangha]

37. not enough for what?

And who said ABB was enough for *that*?