I simply cannot fathom the number of "....or Green!" posts

[vi5]

Honestly, about 9 months ago I made a post about that regarding a particular candidate and was flamed to a charred crisp for even suggesting it.

And I'm not saying that the ones today represent the bulk of supporters of any candidate. But it's also more than just a small fraction. And maybe it's just idle threats and anger talking with wounds so fresh. And that's fine. But I have to admit I've been kind of taken aback by what I'm reading on here today.

If Leiberman had won I could see that since he clearly represents the starkest contrast of a "new" versus "old" liberal. But the two guys who did well last night are liberal and have liberal records and have done a lot of good for their liberal constituencies. They may have made what we regard as mistakes, but to claim that those mistakes make them anywhere even in the same universe as the one who currently presides over our country is just absurd to me.

Dismiss me as whatever you like. But I've been a proud voting liberal democrat since 1986 and have supported liberal causes straight down the line my entire life, from choice to the environment, to civil rights, to being anti-war. And based on those positions I'm an undecided precisely because I am proud of each and every candidate running in this race and can't decide between them.

But what I'm reading today dissapoints me on so many levels, particularly the ones who insult the intelligence of other liberal dems like myself by saying we've been duped or hoodwinked or are part of the establishment or fooled by Karl Rove simply because we see things in a different way than a particular person might.

Maybe this will get me flamed or the post will be banned. I don't know. But I had to get this off my chest.

[Iverson]

1. a thought

Most of those posts seem to be more a way to express frustration than a serious decision to vote for the as-yet-undetermined Green candidate.

"Honestly, about 9 months ago I made a post about that regarding a particular candidate and was flamed to a charred crisp for even suggesting it."

Don't let the zeitgeist bring you weltschmirtz.

[vi5]

2. "Don't let the zeitgeist bring you weltschmirtz"

Thank you for that. I don't know what it means but it made me chuckle nonetheless.

[imhotep]

3. Lieberman is no different than the other DLCers

why do you have a double standard?

[Democrats unite]

13. DLCers, is whats going to win this election

with or with out the help of some other people in the party.

[bowens43]

21. It's this kind of elitism that drives people away from our party.

The DLC is not the party and it doesn't represent the base. The more I hear remarks like your's the more attractive I find the Greens.

[Democrats unite]

23. You are correct they are not the party...

But being a member & supporter of the DLC, they take a bucnh of crap here that they shouldn't. There message is plain & simple ABB. People that find the green party attractive should go to where they fell comfortable. I happen to like it right where I am.

[bowens43]

26. Good for you.

Birds of a feather and all that.

The DLC doesn't get nearly the amount of crap they deserve.

[MadHound]

28. You've got that wrong bucko. The DLC message is very simple

And it is not ABB. The DLC message quite frankly is "Follow the Money". The DLC has become so wrapped up in the pursuit of money that they are willing to whore out not only themselves, but the rest of the Democratic Party. They have systematically put as many candidates as possible, local, state and federal, into the pockets of corporations. They have ignored not only the base of the party, but also the core believes of the party in order to drage the Democratic Party rightward, thus making it more palatible to the corporate interests. They have savaged, ignored and insulted anybody who disagrees with them, but are willing to work with any corporate syncophant just so long as said person has money to give, even though the policies might be quite conservative. It doesn't matter, for it is all about the money.

Quite frankly the DLC is ethically compromised and morally bankrupt. They are well on their way to destroying the Democratic Party, and if the party wants to have any hope of being powerful or even relevant again, they need to give the boot to the DLC. The DLC is all for the two party system in this country, just so long as it exists under one corporate master.

[Democrats unite]

29. Everybody has an opinion

Thanks for yours.

[MadHound]

35. Ahh, but does everybody have facts to back up their opinions?

Like the fact in the '00 election cycle well over forty corporations donated $100,000 to both the Dems and 'Pugs? Phillip Morris topped the list with $2,000,000+ to each party. Like the fact that Clinton's corporate handlers wished for NAFTA to come about, and voila! it was signed and passed by Democrats(even though it is a big business piece of legislation, something that was regulated to the 'Pug side of the aisle in years past, and immensely harmed unions, a diehard Dem constituent to boot). And speaking of Clinton, wasn't it the DLC and the corporations who control it the ones who put the brakes on Clinton's universal health care legislation? Watered it down to the point of virtual non-existence and it still didn't pass(with hard med corp. lobbying). And wasn't it DLC handlers like Daley who advised Gore NOT to make an issue out of the disenfranchisement of voters in FL? Voters who were the base of the party weren't allowed to vote, the VP was constitutionally obligated to uphold their right to vote, and yet the DLC didn't wish to cause a stir. Why was that? Could it be M-O-N-E-Y?

Face it, the DLC is a corporate whore, they will jump in bed with any cororation willing to pay them. This has been shown to be the fact time and again ad nauseum. It is time for either the Democratic Party to dump the DLC, or for the people to dump the Democratic Party. Which do you wish to see?

[Democrats unite]

43. People who do not like the DNC are free to leave...

May you be happy wherever you end up.

[MadHound]

64. Now that's an inspiring arguement

No debate, no contesting my conclusions, no answer to my questions, just that I'm free to leave. Leave what? The DLC, the DNC, or the Dem party? I'm not a member of the DLC or the DNC, and if that is the attitude that you, a member of the LEADERSHIP Council, are taking, then I'm afraid the party is going to go down quicker than even I thought, with nary a whimper.

Once again the DLC/Dem "spine" is showing, or rather not.

[redqueen]

66. Reminds me of that 60's taunt

"America - love it or leave it!"

:shrug:

[Clark Can WIN]

46. Great, so do you want to reform it from the inside out?

Or just take a dump on it? One is generally more constructive than the other.

[Walt Starr]

50. Sometimes the only way to reform a party

is to remove oneself from that party and let the chips fall where they may.

If the Democratic Party loses again in 2004 as badly as it did in 2002, it is not long for this world. If that's what it takes to stop the business as usual corporatist politics masquerading as a two party system, so be it.

[MadHound]

69. Reform it from the inside? Hah! That's a laugher!

I've been working for the Democratic Party since I was a child, and every single year since I've been working to reform it. Myself and thousands more like me have been doing that very thing for thirty plus years. And guess what my hard work, loyalty and reform work have gotten me? A goddamn President and Party that are now looking out more for big business than for the little guy, a party that doesn't care one rat's ass about whoring itself out to the highest bidder, a party that has moved so far to the right that even Barry Goldwater would be proud to call himself a Dem now, a party that has taken a dump on me. I have gone the work from the inside route, and it didn't work. Got anymore bright ideas?!

Sorry, but I'm tired of beating my head against the wall. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting the different results every time. That reminds me a lot of what is going on with the Dems these days. They want people to vote for them, with the atttend promises that they will reform, that once again they will be the party of the people. And every single damn time, they fail. Sorry, but I'm not going to go back to that insanity trap. I'm out to make a real change.

So what are you going to do? That same ol same ol Dem dance(better defined as insanity), or are you going to wake up and work for real change. The choice is yours.

[Gman]

59. Unfortunately, by your words, you define "the base" as people that

think like you. There are millions more with their own views that may or may not parallel with yours. In fact, if you lean Green, you are actually out of step with "the base" of the Democratic Party.

If you find the Greens attractive, that's unfortunate but you have to do what you have to do. I would only suggest you look at what happened in 2000 and where we're at now in this country because of the Green vote.

[AntiCoup2K4]

68. Yeah, the DLC is gonna win this election....

Just like the stellar job they did in 2002, right?

The DLC is a cancer and it is killing this party. What do you do with cancer?

CUT IT OUT.

But aside from the DLC problem, there is a certain candidate who is associated with two of the very same criminal groups that George Bush Jr is, Skull & Bones, and PNAC. Under no circumstances will I ever vote for anyone who willingly associates with these criminals.

[liberalmuse]

4. I won't vote Green...

but I don't think many of us who support the anti-war candidates feel all that good about going from Prime Rib to dog food. Bush is horse shit, but dog food isn't that much of a step up.

I was as frustrated as you a couple months ago about 'I won't vote for anyone but such and such', but right now at this moment, I understand why people feel that way.

[formernaderite]

24. Having done it myself....

...you won't wake up with a bad taste in your mouth wondering what you were doing the night before. In 2000, Nader managed to attract people to the voting process who had simply resigned themselves to blandness. There were an awful lot of new voters who hooked up with the greens, and would never have made any attempt at all to register and vote democratic. This is a country where free will still counts, and no one is obligated to vote for anything.
Now I hear democrats extolling the virtues of a "safe" candidate, while berating anyone who would dare vote third party.
Sorry but safe will push away those who want change.

[Snivi Yllom]

45. what if...just what if

Dean goes independent....

[formernaderite]

51. He would receive....

He would receive a ground swell of support from all those who feel disenfranchised within the scope of the democratic party. 2000 should have been a wake up call to the status quo...but as we saw in the mid-term elections they all ran as Bush-lite.
Personally I like Kerry, but don't see him as a tour de force. Someone on another thread captured it succinctly...Kerry is the democratic Dole. He doesn't take chances and votes to not cast waves.

[KoKo]

5. Don't worry about it. It's just people repositioning themselves. As you

know people here take politics seriously. We ARE Democratic Underground. Thinking....Thinking...Thinkink.

[liberalmuse]

6. You're right.

Some of us Deanies have been knocked off of cloud nine and are doing a lot of frantic thinking. Give us time. We hate Bush as much, if not more than others here at DU.

[bhunt70]

7. good post, I agree.

While I can see some people voting green (Kucinich supporters being the closest) others I cant understand (Dean who I find to be very far from the Green point of view).

[Walt Starr]

8. and then there are those of us who simply may not vote.

:shrug:

[tinanator]

18. now THAT is a vote for Bush.

As if voters expressing their preference, when actually given a choice, is a bad thing.

[Walt Starr]

22. WRONG!

There is only ONE way to vote for Bush.

You MUST actually CAST A BALLOT for Bush in order to vote for him.

Nothing else is voting for Bush.

[tinanator]

41. Oh, a Green symp, eh?

<insert Three Stooges riff here>

[The Magistrate]

49. Not So, Mr. Starr

To detract from the force arrayed against him is to strengthen the enemy, and materially improve his chances of success....

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs from Waterloo."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Walt Starr]

53. I must disagree

Again I say, there is only ONE way to vote for Bush. You must actually cast a ballot where you check the box next to Bush's name. Nothing else is voting for Bush.

I must also once again say, I am through voting AGAINST people. I will only vote FOR a candidate. If I cannot vote FOR the Democrat I will vote FOR somebody else.

That's how things work.

[The Magistrate]

54. It Is How Things Work, My Friend

Only if you have no concern for the harm wreaked on the people of our country by the misrule of the virulently reactionary clique currently in power. There is nothing whatever wrong or distressing about voting against people; it is generally necessary, and can prevent great harm. The course you propose, Sir, is a mere self-indulgence, when stripped of its pretensions, and self-indulgence is always a trifling thing, never a serious matter; therefore, it is unwise to take it for a guide in serious matters. There is nothing more serious than the rule of the country, Sir, nothing at all.

[Walt Starr]

57. Ahhhh, see, there's your mistake

You actually think I fear Bush being in office another four years.

After three years of living under a Bush regime I can honestly state, I fear allowing the Democratic Party to continue on the path it took in 2002 more than I fear another four years of George W. Bush.

[The Magistrate]

65. Well Then, My Friend

Permit to advise you to reconsider your conclusion as time passes, and the real decision nears. Your view of the balance of the dangers facing the people and our country is grievously in error, and you are an intelligent enough fellow to see that. It is not reasonable to blame the party with a minority of seats for the actions of that with the majority, nor is there anything the Democratic Party did in '02 that ought to cause any great distaste of fear on your part, viewed calmly. They lost, narrowly, and that is all.

[Walt Starr]

67. They lost because they have become corporatists

If that is the road they take this year, I shall take a higher road.

[AntiCoup2K4]

70. And how do you fight the virulently reactionary clique currently in power

With the virulently spineless DLC clique currently in charge of the Democratic Party? :shrug:

[Terwilliger]

44. hmmm...John Kerry or George Bush

which one will assure me that the military-industrial complex will be clamped-down on and reigned-in, and that all future foreign policy efforts rise to the standard of American values projected abroad?

Neither?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Walt Starr]

48. Bingo

If we do not fundamentally alter the course of the Democratic Party in 2004, we may as well lose again.

[Colin Ex]

63. What the hell?!

Maybe (God, I HOPE) I'm reading this wrong, but the implication there is that you're considering not voting if your man loses the primary.

Are you frickin' nuts? The "my ball and go home" approach to politics is both immature and ineffective as hell.

Not voting is the stupidest and most damaging thing you could possibly do in 2004. Cast your ballot for Nader or Brown or ANYONE ELSE and you'll be helping.

But not voting solves nothing. It doesn't put you in positive light, either.

-C

[mdmc]

9. Green voter here

That would love to support an anti drug war, anti death penalty, progressive dem.
DK!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. I wil be voting Green if a pro-war Dem wins the nomination.

I'll be voting against the war and regressive "politics as usual" that sacrifices lives for votes.

[FreeperSlayer]

11. What in the hell happened to ABB?

Jebus, thanks for your help in defeating BushCo.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Voting Green is ABB.

Voting for the IWR is pro bush.

[poskonig]

19. I recognize that you're frustrated with the occupation.

None of the Democrats voted for a war last October. Your help is valued.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards aren't Democrats?

They voted for the war and have (D) after their names. Unlike the senators and reps who voted against the IWR, who also had (D) or (I) after their names.

Their miserable votes for the war aren't going to be forgotten..or forgiven.

[corporatewhore]

40. some reps had r after there name because they knew it was bs

[lcordero]

12. I live in a safe state

Gore won NY be 2.5 million votes, which is 60% to Bush's 35%.
If the Dem has a comfortable lead in the polls then I'm going to vote Green.
This Green vote is in exchange for a Dem vote from a friend in Arizona.

[NNN0LHI]

14. I have heard that safe state stuff before n/t

[mdmc]

17. I offered my NY green vote to my Florida friends

they said no back in 2000. I told them it was about keeping Bush out of office. They said it was about changing America. They all voted for Nader. They had voted for Perot in the past.

The Dem party needs to change. Green voters are not stupid, although the results of their voting (especially in 2000) seems to prove otherwise.

[bowens43]

15. Every one has to draw the line somewhere.

Of the remaining candidates I draw the line at Clark. I won't vote for Clark. I will vote Green or Socialist if Clark gets the nomination. This position is a LONG way from 'my candidate or third party'. I am willing to support MOST of the candidates but I will not abandon my principles just because someone has a (D) next to his name on the ballot. I won't buy in to , what I see as, the 'we had to burn the village to save it ' mentality.

BTW I have voted a straight Democratic ticket in every election since 1976.

[NNN0LHI]

20. Its an illusion

The Greens seem to be in great numbers because they post a lot (and with the most locked caps I might add) . Their true numbers are small and will be insignificant in November. Who the fuck is going to pull the lever for Jello? Come on. Who is kidding who here?

Don

[The Magistrate]

52. Indeed, My Friend

The numbers are trifling; the volume, in confined space, deafening.

The most ludicrous comment emanating from that direction is the assertion that votes thrown to such splinter factions are votes to change politics and the country. Since such votes can have no other immediate practical effect but to decrease the effort concentrated against the most reactionary elements of our polity, they are in fact material assistance to the reactionaries, and thus are actually votes for strengthening the most virulent strain of what these people claim to oppose. If they propose to act in a way that will work to strengthen the reactionary right, the sincerity of their opposition to it is certainly open to question. It seems to me that what such people value most is not political action for the benefit of left and progressive views, but mere self-gratification; the burnishing of their view of themselves of grand exemplars of moral superiority and left purity, of a degree only a very few can achieve. To improve the view in their morning mirrors, such people are more than willing to see the people of the country wracked and afflicted by reactionary misrule.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[ldoolin]

27. I can understand it

Kerry, Lieberman, and Edwards can easily ensure my active support in November should one of them win the nomination by issuing a statement like this one:

"I apologize for No Child Left Behind. I was wrong to have voted for it. I apologize for the Patriot Act. I was wrong to have voted for it. I apologize for the Homeland Security Act. I was wrong to have voted for it. If elected, I will do everything in my power to repeal those laws. I apologize for my vote in favor of the Iraq War. I was wrong and I come to you now, the voters, asking for your forgiveness."

Is it that hard for them to do?

[Walt Starr]

31. Now that would change my NBD stance

Only problem is, ain't never gonna happen.

[ldoolin]

33. You are right about that Walt

Never gonna happen.

On the off chance that it does, I'll gladly eat crow, swear off any thought of voting Green, Socialist, or NLP in 04, and put the same effort and energy into another Dem nominee as I am putting right now into the Dean campaign.

How about it, Senators Edwards, Kerry, and Lieberman? You reading this? Anyone at your campaign HQ reading this? It wouldn't be that hard to say: "I apologize for No Child Left Behind. I was wrong to have voted for it. I apologize for the Patriot Act. I was wrong to have voted for it. I apologize for the Homeland Security Act. I was wrong to have voted for it. If elected, I will do everything in my power to repeal those laws. I apologize for my vote in favor of the Iraq War. I was wrong and I come to you now, the voters, asking for your forgiveness."

[san antonio]

34. The problem is...

If they said that, they would give up a larger portion of the vote than they would gain. Like it or not, DU is the fringe (and quite proud of it), that's just the way it is.

You can't alienate a large group of centrist Dems to pick up a smaller group of far-left Dems and expect to beat Bush. He'll take those centrists and laugh all the way to the bank. There's a bigger picture here than just us.

[MadHound]

30. Gee, what is so hard to understand?

Once again our choice is going to be limited to two candidates who both are comprimised, who are both seriously flawed, and who both are under the thumb of big business. Same cororate masters, different corporate whores. Some of us have woke up and realized that the same ol' same ol' choosing of the lesser of two evils isn't going to make any progress. At best we will be treading water with any candidate we elect, though it is much more likely that we will get swept downstream, again, it matters not which candidate is elected.

Folks, we are living in the Second Gilded Age, when having a D or R after your name doesn't matter. Virtually all of the mainstream politicians are beholden to corporate interests, and put those interests first and foremost before all others, including their constituents. Sure, the game is stilled played, there is still the election dance to perform, but no matter who loses, rest assured, big business wins.

Some of us have come to that realization and are acting on it. I am voting primarily on two questions. The first is whether or not the candidate is or will take corporate money. The second is how liberal is the candidate's politics. There is only one Dem candidate who is good on both points, and that is Dennis Kucinich. He hasn't taken, nor will he take corporate lucre, and his politics are slightly to the right of FDR. However due to corporate pressure he is getting pushed aside by the more corporate worthy candidates. Therefore I will be voting Green most likely. We have got to make a change in this country, and it is long past time to think that a party as riddled with corporate infestation as the Dems are will actually make a difference. No, I'm not going to be voting for Bush(contrary to the accepted, yet twisted logic around here), nor will I be throwing my vote away. What I will be doing is twofold: Building up a party that is probably the last great hope for pulling this country out of the death spiral that we are in, and secondly sending a message to the powers that be(not that it will be heeded).

You say you are a proud voting liberal. With the corporate corruption rampant in the Democratic Party these days, you might find your actions and vote are more effective in the Green Party. And you ccould help turn this country around, for believe me, the corporate parties have no interest in doing so. All they wish is to keep bringing in the money, no matter what.

[Iverson]

32. sorry, that's impermissible

The boundaries of acceptable liberalism end with the pro-choice corporate war candidates.

[redqueen]

39. Wow MadHound

You just made a very good case for voting Green. Is it arguable that the only way to get change from the Democratic party leadership is to show them how real the threat of becoming irrelevant / obsolete really is? Very interesting indeed.

[ikojo]

60. One of the reasons the Republicans are so far to the

right is due to pressure brought upon them by the extreme right and the Libertarians (having well funded ideologically committed thing tanks is of tremendous help). They have had candidates from the extreme right (Buchanan) siphon votes from the pug candidate. Also, the pugs do not ignore their base of right-wing Christians and economic elitists. Ideas that seemed extreme in the 1970s are accepted as part of the party platform now (and this is in both parties). The fundies may not get everything they want but at least they have a REAL place at Bush's table as opposed to what was offered liberals during Clinton's two terms (a lot of platitudes but no real changes).

[redqueen]

62. They give the people what they want

Slowly, maybe, but they give the far right what they want, and as a result they don't vote for Buchanan in huge numbers. At least since Reagan that's been the case. The shrub is doing things differently, so they may vote outside the party this year.

Democrats, however, keep giving us next to NOTHING.

Maybe both parties will learn a lesson.

[dsc]

36. I have stated my position over and over and over again

and after months of vile treatment here culminated in being called a Stormtrooper and then having that conduct defended, I am fed up with this loyatly oath crap. To be blunt if supporters of that candidate think I am a MAZI then why in God's name do they want my support?

[Walt Starr]

37. BRAVO!!!

No loyalty oaths.

To the candidates other than Dean, earn my vote because you DO NOT have it right now.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

56. I would hope you could look past the more pustulent posts

to those of us who have met you on mid ground in most instances.

[dsc]

61. I didn't say my opinion had changed

I said I wouldn't answer the question anymore. But I will say that that one campaign will be getting DU proflie printouts when it asks for cash and instructions to ask them for money as mine is evidently tainted.

[corporatewhore]

38. I cant believe the number of i love imperalist, corporate,&war rsupporting

cannidate posts

[Clark Can WIN]

42. Thanks for posting that

I will vote for the Democratic nominee!

Say it LOUD! Say it PROUD!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. I'm with you, vi5

and my candidate (Kucinich) is actually ideologically close to the Greens, unlike some candidates I could mention.

I would prefer to have a candidate who would reverse the Reagan revolution, but above all, I do not want to see Bush back in office, because then we can just kiss our civil liberties and our economic well-being goodbye. At this point, even holding the status quo is preferable to another four years of proto-fascism.

I will work like crazy for Kucinich as long as he's in the race, but I will be voting for the Dem in the General Election. Anything else is a temper tantrum, not a mature political decision.

If the Dem candidate and/or winner is too conservative for my tastes, then I may consider going Green, but not till after November of this year.

[John_H]

55. There will always be one-percenters.

And one-percenters are all they will ever be, politically. Don't sweat it.

[Walt Starr]

58. What percentage was 537 votes

of the total electorate of Florida in 2000?