I CALL ON KUCINICH, SHARPTON, BRAUN & GRAHAM TO DROP OUT NOW!

[THUNDER HANDS]

Now is the time for these going-nowhere candidates to bid their fond farewells and exit, stage left, from the 2004 election. Now that the 10th candidate, General Wesley Clark, has entered the race I am calling on the rest of them to resign from the campaign trail for the following reasons:

1. None of them are going to win.

2. They all take valuable time away from the other, more viable candidates.

3. The sqeezing in of these four candidates limits prepared statements to 90, 60, sometimes even 30-second replies. These "sound bite debates" are not good for democracy or the Democratic Party.

4. They will take votes away from candidates who could have had a better shot at winning had they not been in the race.

5. They are all, respectively, (with the possible exception of Graham) not qualified to be president.

Of course, all of those candidates have a RIGHT to be in the debates. But then again, where is Lyndon Larouche if we're going to open the door to Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich?

These campaigns have never gotten off the ground, they've never sprouted life. It is time to abort them, NOW.

Imagine how much simplier and livlier the debates would be if it was just Kerry, Dean, Clark, Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards on stage.

Six men, who would probably have at least two minutes for a reply (imagine that, TWO WHOLE MINUTES) and can flush out the issues to a public that is desperately craving substance and not just style.

It makes sense to me. But then again, I doubt it'll make much sense to everyone else here (my stuff rarely ever does). :evilgrin:

[Terwilliger]

1. I CALL ON THE DEM PARTY TO CHASE AWAY ALL LEFTISTS

What am I saying?! You'll do that anyway! :nuke:

[joeybee12]

3. NO WAY!

I don't support any of these candidates, however, I think the Dems need to have as many voices as possible right now, especially since Kerry is down, but not out. Kerry and other DLC-appointed successors will be the death of this party--the only reason why Kerry is being more vocal in his opposition to the Spawn of Satan is because of Dean and the others who have realized just how bad things are.

Stay in guys! Kerry, drop out!

[THUNDER HANDS]

4. how would it scare them away?

Kucinich supporters are totally capable of voting for someone else...you know, someone who might actually WIN the primary.

Same way with Sharpton, Braun and Graham folks. If they cared about beating Bush and made that their No. 1 priority, they'd be urging their campaigns to pull the plug immediately.

[Terwilliger]

19. IF THEY WANTED TO BEAT BUSH, KERRY SHOULD DROP OUT

that's just as reasonable

[liberalhistorian]

7. LOL!

Great comeback to this stupid post!

[ShimokitaJer]

Sure. Fewer choices makes for a better democracy!

For those who weren't quite sure, kindly read the subject line as *dripping* with sarcasm

[THUNDER HANDS]

13. yes, fewer choices does make for a better democracy

That way you have someone winning the primary with 40% of the vote instead of 33% or 30%.

What happens if Dean and Kerry are both polling neck and neck come January.

Kucinich supporters are going to take votes away from Dean and Clark supporters are going to take votes away from Kerry. Not to mention the number of Sharpton or Braun votes that would have gone to Edwards.

Who's left?

Either Lieberman or Gephardt.

And do you really want one of those guys as the nominee?

[charlie]

27. Ah, the diluting the vote argument

Here we are getting the same warmed-over A Vote for Kucinich (Nader) is a Vote for Lieberman (Bush) codswallop... in the fucking primaries.

[ShimokitaJer]

43. Whether I want them in or not is of no importance

Some people have thrown their support behind Gephardt and (god help us) Lieberman. And even if those people are fewer in number than those who back Kerry, each of them has the same right to support their candidate that you do.

We more choices we have, the more issues get raised. That's why the choices in the 2000 election was so unsatisfying: Dems and Repubs were saying the same things and alternative voices were shouted down.

I doubt any of them will become the Dem candidate, but I hope they stay in the race long enough to make sure whoever the Dem candidate is actually talks about race, health care, and education when we face off against Bush.

[blindpig]

66. yes. of course.

and look where this wretched 2 party system has gotten us. by the way, what do you think we have primaries for?

[FauxNewsBlues]

25. What is the threshold though?

I think Al Sharpton should get out, and he entertains me. However, he has lost I believe every single local race he has attempted. He has tried to be Mayor of NY, Governor of NY, and Senator from NY and has failed each time.

I actually would be more in favor of him if he actually never ran and lost. But a democrat who can not find votes in NY is not going to find votes nationwide.

The other candidates, fine. Every one either has won an actual election, or hasn't lost any (Clark). Sharpton, though right on many issues, is the only candidate who has proven that he can't win an office. Kucinich wins a moderate district, he stays. Mosley-Braun won 1 term in Illinois, she stays, Sharpton though needs to go. Run for Mayor of NY, or Governor. Win that election, and then come back in 2008.

[chadm]

2. I agree, Kucinich out = Nader in.

the sooner the better.

[liberalnurse]

15. Nader has only one purpose and he knows it.....

intentional or not, the result will only benefit the repugs. Kucinich makes a positive difference by being in the race, he has attacked the abuses of this administration.

[Terwilliger]

21. Kucinich has as much chance as Nader did

and you wonder why we seem a little discontented

[diamondsoul]

40. Terwilliger, if you really believe that,

I'm sad and disappointed, both with you and for you. Are you giving up? You didn't strike me as the sort to do that.

[Terwilliger]

52. I'm realistic

I can hope hope hope for whatever, but at the end of the day, I know what DK is up against.

Besides, Dennis is the best choice...not who I'd pick.

[IranianDemocrat]

73. Green campaign slogan "Vote for Nader, 4 more years of Bush is nothing!"!

eom

[chaumont58]

5. One thing about the ole DU

Someone will posit some lunatic proposal every day.

[G_j]

6. best comic thread of the day?

because you can't be serious....can you? :scared:

[molly]

8. Did you think you would get support here?

things are going to get hot and heavy with everyone announcing. I will suspect those that know they don't have a chance will drop out.

[Cheswick2.0]

I call on Dean, Kerry, and beg Clark not to get in

cause it makes about as much sense.

Not a single primary has taken place, why would anyone drop out?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. As long as they take Dean and Kerry with them!

Now that we have Clark and Edwards running, Dean and Kerry are just more conservative versions of Kucinich and Sharpton :)

[buddhamama]

10. it is time for all good people to

(oopps) fruedian slip wrote god instead of good)

get a grip.

we are still upset over the 2000 election, why?
Because it was an attack on DEMOCRACY, on the Will of The People.
yet now i look around the boards and see my fellow DUers helping to destroy it further.

WHY?

[Forkboy]

11. Another D.A.D. post

Democrats Against Democracy.

[THUNDER HANDS]

22. I'm not against democracy

I'm for a winning, progressive, strategy.

Maybe I'm not as idealistic as everyone else here is, but I do think these primaries have a point, and the point is to pick the most viable candidate who most closely fits your views.

And that excludes those four candidates I mentioned because none are viable.

I just have a sinking feeling that with Kucinich & Co. in the race until the end (which I have no doubt he will be) he's going to lead us down a path where we end up with someone NOBODY at DU wants for a nominee.

And we all know who that is.

[buddhamama]

28. they have supporters who deserve to be represented

jeez. everyday we inch closer to living in a fuckin' dictatorship!

[Forkboy]

29. Not buying what you're selling

[Skip Intro]

12. It wouldn't bother me at all if Lieberman dropped out today n/t

[liberalnurse]

24. I agree, but it is so much fun

shaming and ridiculing him.....He is such a DINO.....

[el_gato]

14. But Sharpton is the most entertaining of the bunch

[blkgrl]

72. I'm glad you find him entertaining, but some actually take his candidacy

seriously. Like me.

[Doctor Pedantic]

16. Democracy Good. Coronation Bad.

I like having everyone in the debates. I think everyone has acquitted himself or herself admirably, and everyone has something to say. If people can avoid beating up on each other, I think they add a lot to the public discourse. I think the time to drop out is once we have a clearly established front-runner heading into primary season (i.e., sometime in January). I would like that to be my boy Howard, but if it's Clark or Kerry or Edwards or whoever, I'd like to see some party unity down the road to avoid a bloodbath.

For now, though, I say the more the merrier!

[dwckabal]

38. Here's a thought

If there are more people in the race, will that dilute the negative attacks that Karl Rove is certain to throw out against the early front-runners? Or will he waste time and money trying to discredit all of them?

And if he does end up attacking one apparent front-runner, and a different one ends up winning the primary, he'll have to come up with a whole new set of criticisims for someone new.

In the long run, I think a large pool is good. But one someone wins the nomination, everyone is going to have to rally behind them, and avoid a party split.

[liberalhistorian]

17. All of the candidates

that you insist should drop out because they have no chance have the right to remain in the race. As another reply stated, the more Dem voices, the better. And, if ANY candidate should drop out now, it should be Holy Joe Lieberman, who is really just a repuke in disguise, and I wish he would GO THE HELL AWAY!

[indigo32]

18. Yikes

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

I agree it gets unwieldy..but choices are good.
Plus Bob Graham is argueably the MOST qualified in the race, and seems to be getting a bit more serious about it at this point.

They all deserve to run and be heard... let the voters decide.

[Cocoa]

20. why the CAPS?

why put such a stupid idea in ALL CAPS?

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. because

Flashing neon lights were unavailable.

:evilgrin:

[blm]

23. Geez....Let it play out.

Enjoy the flux - let it hurt Bush.

[Andy_Stephenson]

30. OK I'll support that as long as Edwards, Kerry, and Graham

bug out as well.

[salin]

49. exactly - not the candidates specifically but the deciding

(upon viewpoint) who should "get out". Let's just declare a single winner and forget the primaries altogether :eyes:

[Neecy]

31. it's early

And I personally love having so many articulate candidates in the race. Right now is table setting time, and the very candidates you want to see drop out are doing two things: challenging the Bush administration, and reminding the public of Democratic values and priorities (well, with perhaps the exception of Holy Joe, who is obviously trying to stake out the conservative Dem spot - but who the hell cares).

I love Sharpton's fire, I think Braun is doing an excellent job staying positive and focusing on core issues, Graham has certainly not humiliated himself and Kucinich is a voice of conscience, although I don't agree with all of his positions. Let's air this sucker out until after NH and Iowa, let everyone have his or her say, and then - throw the Bush criminals out!

[lcordero]

32. If they drop out, then I will change my party affiliation...PERMANENTLY

[lcordero]

39. I will not vote for "Bushler* enablers'r us"

[G_j]

33. ...I call on * to resign, that will will help democracy

[gottaB]

67. lol

:toast:

[JI7]

34. that's very arrogant and WRONG

i didn't like the posts telling kerry to drop out and i don't like this one. it's a primary and they will stay in the race as long as they want.

[w13rd0]

35. Just reading the title made me angry...

...you think voices should be shut out just so your candidate can have two minutes to reply (when said candidate usually runs a minute over his allotted minute reply anyway), and why do you single out those you do? Why include Kerry, Dean, Clark, Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards? There are reasons why I'm sure there are those in the DNC would like each of them to drop out as well. Pfffttt...

[scarletwoman]

36. I see. So YOU should be the one to decide, and not the primary voters.

Do you often have these delusions of grandeur?

sw

[THUNDER HANDS]

37. only on my birthday

It's my special day today.

:)

[scarletwoman]

44. Well, uh, happy b'day then...

Now how about you go beat on a pinata, instead of our good and true Democrats? :eyes:

sw

[diamondsoul]

41. Opinion, opinion, and more opinion stated as if it were fact.

Give it a rest. You are not the arbiter of what consititutes valuable contribution or lively debate.

Lively debate would be encouraged if the press did its job and presented an uncut live debate that took as much time as needed to conduct. Unfortunately the ignorance in this country has bred a shortened attention span and people won't devote the time needed to really KNOW their choices. What you propose lends some ridiculous air of legitimacy to a lazy approach to choosing political leaders, and NO, neither I nor my candidate will assist you in it.

[LeahMira]

42. No, NO! A thousand times NO!

First of all, I'd cut out Lieberman and Gephardt, so different strokes, eh?

Secondly, I think you are letting the tail wag the dog. If you object to "sound bytes"... and I do also... then demand that each of the Democratic candidates be given an appropriate amount of time to speak to the issues, even if that means that some of your favorite TV shows are pre-empted by two or three evenings of debates rather than only one evening. Hey! Let's find out who is sponsoring these debates and tell them what WE want. Let's write to the makers of our favorite brands of soap powder or whatever and ask them to sponsor part of an extra evening. For heaven's sake... if you want two or three minutes for each candidate to respond, DEMAND IT!

Finally, I WANT to hear what each of the candidates has to say. The more ideas we have out there, the more possible solutions we get to hear. Brainstorming is good! Actually, a nice roundtable discussion would be better than the formal debate structure, IMO. But whatever happens, don't eliminate any of the possibilities. This is serious business, this voting thing that we in the U.S. do every four years. In spite of the hype, it's not a circus and it's about time we the people participated fully in the process. We have far too much to lose if we settle for less.

[BigMcLargehuge]

45. they all bring ideas to the table...

asking them to leave now is essentially asking the Democratic party to abandon all but the narrowest take on America's problems. The whole point of the primary season is to get as many ideas out there so that the candidate that DOES take the nomination will benefit from every idea put forth by all the candidates.

Asking them to drop now is idiocy.

[Upfront]

46. I Agree

I like these guys and gal, they have added much, but it is now time to face reality. Getting rid of Bush* is the goal, they have little support, it is time to drop out.

[salin]

47. Announcement: I don't believe in the democratic process

and believe that I should disempower supporters of these candidates because I declare them as not worthy.

:eyes:

[CMT]

48. all I can say is i'm glad it isn't a Dean supporter who began this thread

but I don't think they should drop out. We have several months before the first votes are cast and the voters will decide the issue.

[roughsatori]

50. I don't think Kerry, or Clark can win but I wouldn't suggest they drop out

You can shout all you want that candidates are "electable" but don't come crying here when they lose because you closed your mind too soon and lost the core Democratic voters.

Oh that's right, the core Democratic voters are supposed to be like African-Americans and just vote for the Democratic candidate even if the party as a whole has stopped meeting their needs because it was too busy courting corporate interests. (If all else fails, you can always blame Nader).

[uptohere]

51. its a dis-service to their contributors

and an affront to the open political process we profess.

They do serve a purpose even if they never approach success. It forced their issues to be considered at platform time and those issue are important to some portion of the party.

Its disenfranchisement at the party level.

Nope, they stay as long as they want.

[LynneSin]

53. Boy I'm glad you didn't suggest this back in 1991!!

Since Clinton wasn't really much of a frontrunner when people started announcing their intent to run around this time in 1991.

I have my announcement to make:

ANY CANDIDATE THAT CAN'T HANDLE THE COMPETITION WITH 9 OTHER CANDIDATES RUNNING SHOULD DROP OUT OF THE RACE RIGHT NOW SINCE OBVIOUSLY HE OR SHE CAN'T HANDLE THE HEAT WITH THE PRIMARIES I SURE AS HELL DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HANDLE IT WHEN THEY HAVE TO GO UP AGAINST BUSH.

I have a feeling we will have no takers on that issue.

I believe in the democratic processes.

[sasquatch]

54. All of those listed should stay in. LIEberman should drop out

Lieberman is a digusting Repug that will be the demise of the party because people will no longer be able to see the difference between the two parties. Chill out it's only primary elections and the DINO's like LIEberman don't have a chance in hell.

[THUNDER HANDS]

57. I'd love to see Lieberman go

Gephardt too...but whether I like it or not, both of them have a shot.

The others don't. They're running for themselves, not the party or the people, IMO.

[mdmc]

55. I call for

Dean, Kerry, Leiberman, Gephardt, Edwards, and Graham to step down and let the progressive Democrats go at it.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

56. can you say "PRIMARIES"???...premature aren't you? Lieberman SHOULD!!!!

[RobertFrancisK]

58. Keep Kucinich and Sharpton

They add to the discussion and raise the level of debate, even though they stand no chance whatsoever of winning. Braun and Graham are just taking up space.

[Evil_Dewers]

59. I call on Kerry, Edwards, LIEberman and Gephardt to drop out now

for supporting Chimpy's dirty little war for oil.

[RetroLounge]

60. I CALL ON KUCINICH, SHARPTON, BRAUN & GRAHAM

to continue to be the strong Democrats they are, and to keep representing those voters who don't feel they can be represented by the others, and to continue to make me proud to be a member of their party.

My suggestion: Go find a dictionary, look up the word PRIMARY.

Then come back later and we'll discuss...

[CWebster]

61. Nah, they should stay

they are essential to the debate to formulate the future direction of the party.

Now Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards...What good are they? ;-)

[Q]

62. No offense instended...but this is hardly an appeal for Democracy..

...and sounds more like something a Neocon would say for the 'greater good'.

- I'm ashamed at what the once-proud Democratic party has become: a mirror reflection of the Neocons.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

63. I call on them to ratchet up negotiations with the DEM PLATFORM

LONG before they drop out and the base gets forgotten again.. I am GLAD they are there to force a few issues.

BTW...in my estimation MORE candidates equals MORE airtime.

[Old and In the Way]

64. Well, I hope you've learned something in this thread, MR

Never, ever call on multiple candidates to leave the race :-) What are you, a masochist or something?

[Catherine Vincent]

65. In all honesty, the one who should drop out is

George W. Bush!

He's a miserable failure!

[robbedvoter]

68. I call on all senators to drop out and hold on to their seats

Not really, but at least my absurd proposition make more sense than yours.
Funny, I remember Barney Frank hollering that Gore should move out of the way to make room for Kerry.
Well, he's out and I am not a Kerry fan. Watch out for these demands - you are not helping your candidate.

[IndianaGreen]

69. And you support that loser, Kerry?

Bawahahahahahaha.

Kerry might as well pack his bags now. Kerry's war record is more than overshadowed by Wesley Clark's, and Clark did not vote for the war in Iraq.

Who needs Kerry anymore?

[Gman]

70. Half of those are African-American

do you have a problem with African-American presidential candidates?

[elcondor]

74. I don't agree with Magic Rat's proclaimation,

but I don't think he's a racist. I think his choosing who should stay and who should go has everything to do with what the polls say now, not with race.

[blkgrl]

71. If they're forced out , you can count me out as a Democratic voter

As much as I can't stand Lieberman and am bored by Kerry, Graham, and Clark- I think everyone should be allowed to get their message out their to the voters. If this party is all about silencing certain people (I notice you said the two black candidates are among those who should leave) then I'll start voting green or something.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. Remember after the 2000 election, when

angry Dems were saying that if Ralph Nader wanted to influence the agenda, he should have run as a Democrat and participated in the debates?

Well, that's what these candidates are doing, at the very least. If they weren't in the race, the "mainstream" candidates would be falling over one another trying to see who could differ from the Republicans the least so as not to scare the holy, sacred, must-be-kowtowed-to-and-not-made-to-bother-their-little-heads-about-substantive-issues swing voters. That was Gore's mistake, in my opinion. He should have won big running against an obvious incompetent, but the precious swing voters, who barely wake up once every four years, literally couldn't tell the difference between him and Bushboy.

Sharpton, Braun, Kucinich, and maybe even Graham keep the debates interesting, and that's what we need now, months before anyone casts a vote in any primary or caucus.