Mandatory ABB

[dreissig]

Contrary to common belief, the antiwar Left is not locked in. In 1968, Democrats foolishly thought leftists had no choice but to vote for Humphrey. Late in the campaign and facing defeat, Humphrey re-discovered the anti-war Left, but it was too late.

ABB is an illusion. Some constituencies refuse to be locked in, and taking them for granted merely alienates them.

[Walt Starr]

1. To keep ABB running, people must fear

When we let go of the fear of Bush, ABB has no hold over us any longer.

For those of us who have overcome the fear of Bush, Party direction is far more important.

[TakebackAmerica]

5. Walt,

Thanks for four more years of W.:puke: And GOP domination of American Politics for a generation. Thanks.





I'm proud to be ABB, even Lieberman

[bowens43]

10. If the Dems lose

it won't be because of the voters, it will be because of the candidates message (or lack there of). The Democratic Party at the urging of the DLC has spent the last several years alienating their base and driving our party unceasingly to the right.

As Reagan once said :

"I didn't leave the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party left me."

[AntiCoup2K4]

86. And the irony of that quote is...

Reagan would probably LOVE what the DLC has turned the party into now :puke:

[Guaranteed]

71. No, Thank YOU. nt

[Monte Carlo]

20. Bush and what he represents is to be feared.

It's the unified push of corporatism. We must stand together as brothers, or we will perish alone as fools.

[lastliberalintexas]

32. I would like to agree

But how has my party stood up to Corporate America? By supporting and enacting NAFTA? By supporting and entering the WTO? By continuing most favored nation status for China? By supporting the pharma companies over people in their attempts to obtain cheaper prescriptions from Canada? By refusing to empower the SEC while Clinton was in office?

I could go on, but I hope you get the point. If that's how my party plans on standing against this latest round of corporatism, then we're already doomed.

The fact that someone has a D beside their name doesn't mean they actually are one.

[Monte Carlo]

67. You can either worry about the past or about the future.

'cause the potential to change all of those things that you mentioned sure doesn't lie with the Republicans, or a 3rd party, either. It lies within the Democratic Party. It is not morally pure, it never has been, but that is not a necessity. We must take the good in it now and seperate it from the bad.

[lancdem]

2. Dumb move by the left

because we ended up with Nixon. Thanks a lot.

[The Magistrate]

14. Well Said, Ma'am

It was a damned foolish thing to then, and will be a damned foolish thing to do now.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[He loved Big Brother]

3. I am not ABB

PATRIOT ACT, IWR, tax cuts...it's all still fresh in my mind.

[IndianaGreen]

4. I am against the war and the PATRIOT Act

We cannot even begin discuss any other issue while our civil liberties are in peril at home and people are dying abroad on our account.

[TakebackAmerica]

8. IG,

Clark is with you on this.



http://clark04.com/issues/patriotact/
On the Issues-
Civil Liberties and the USA PATRIOT Act

Using appropriate tools responsibly, for effective law enforcement

I believe that law enforcement should have access to all necessary tools to deal with the problems of terrorism, which is why I'm calling for an immediate $40 billion investment in homeland security. But I don't believe that we can win a war on terror if we give up the essence of who we are as Americans. That's why I think that Congress should fully review the so-called USA PATRIOT Act - and repeal the provisions that go too far.

The USA PATRIOT Act was jammed through Congress in a matter of weeks, when the country was still in shock from the horrific attacks of September 11th. It wasn't carefully drafted and it wasn't fully debated. More troubling is that, in just two years, the Act has grown the tentacles that many feared. Last month, a Justice Department report admitted that the John Ashcroft has actually expanded the substantial reach of the Act, using it to snoop in secrecy for evidence of crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism.

Now Ashcroft is proposing the PROTECT Act. Among other curtailments, the proposed bill all but forbids prosecutors from agreeing to downward departures from the rigid federal sentencing guidelines, increasing the chance that individual punishments won't actually fit individual crimes. It also instructs prosecutors to report judges that order departures from sentencing guidelines - creating the very real possibility that judges will be put on a DOJ blacklist.

I am concerned that the USA PATRIOT Act goes too far in expanding the authority of government investigators, and that it does so without sufficient oversight. We need to make sure that we are taking responsible measures to meet the needs of the time. That's why I'll call on Congress to fully review each provision of the Act, study the ways in which each has been used in practice, and eliminate those provisions that unduly threaten our civil liberties.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Should we mention that Congress voted without reading it first?

Some great leadership on the part of those candidates that voted to dismantle the Bill of Rights!

[redqueen]

6. I thought they got a refresher course in '02. n/t

[FrankBooth]

7. Wrong

I just cannot understand this. Non-transferable means 4 more years of Bush.

[TakebackAmerica]

9. agreed!

Go ABB!

[FrankBooth]

11. I respect everyone's opinion

And ABB is not "mandatory." That's not what the Democratic party is about. If someone is so adamantly ideological that they won't vote for the dem nominee, so be it. I am positive that come November, these ideologues will not be even a slight factor. There will be no Nader-like siphoning of the vote because for the first time in years, sensible liberals of all stripes can plainly see the evil that we are facing, AND IT IS NOT OURSELVES.

I am an idealist by nature, but I will vote ABB, and there is not a damn thing anyone can say to change my mind. The environmental, economic and diplomatic damage that Bush and his cronies will do to America if given another term cannot be underestimated - philosophical conjecture about the direction of the party is meaningless in the face of their potential atrocities.

[He loved Big Brother]

12. Exactly

And I will not vote for a Dem who stood by and permitted these atrocities to happen.

[FrankBooth]

13. Good for you

Thankfully, you will be in the smallest minority of the liberal spectrum come Nov. 2004, but you have every right to vote (or not vote) whichever way you please.

Edit: wrong word

[He loved Big Brother]

16. You presume only a Bush-backing Dem will be the nominee

[FrankBooth]

39. I assume that

Dean, Kerry, Clark or Edwards will be the nominee. And I will vote for any of them.

[The Magistrate]

15. Indeed, Mr. Dreissig

Mandatory....

Things have reached the pitch of Harlan County in the old song: there are no neutrals here. You are either on the one side or the other. If you do not mean to effectively strike against the criminals of the '00 Coup, you are assisting them to maintain their ill-gotten grip on office. It is a damned odd way to vindicate anti-war principles, Sir, to act in effective support of the authors of the war you claim to oppose. You might as well drop the tortured self-justification, and openly out with your support for continued war in Iraq and the rest of the Near East, because that will be the result of the action you say you intend..

[Walt Starr]

17. There were many authors of the war

One is about to drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination.

One won the Iowa Caucuses last night.

Another came in second place in the Iowa Caucuses last night.

A fourth will be on the abllot in New Hampshire.

Yes, there are many authors of the war.

[The Magistrate]

25. There Was One Author, Sir, And One Only

The wretched reptile ensconced in the Oval Office today: he, and no other, did this thing. Concentrate your mind, Sir; it is a good one. All fire must be directd on a single target if the people are to be moved to the right direction.

[Walt Starr]

30. Your are completely wrong

Bush was enabled, sir. Enabled by the very people who did best in Iowa last niught.

The blood on their hands will never be forgotten by me.

[The Magistrate]

40. Enabled, Sir?

A humorous conceit from the "Twelve-Steppers", and no more.

He had the power to do as he pleased, because his Party controlled a majority of votes in both houses of Congress.

Stop making excuses for the wretch. It is not my habit much to quote Scripture, but an admonition from Ezekiel is often apt: "I say unto you, each man shall die of his own sin, and no other's."

[Walt Starr]

45. #1, Scripture is meaningless to me

It is mythology and has absolutely no bearing on my life.

#2, Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman gave Bush Carte Blanche to do whatever he chose in Iraq. They handed over the authority to declare war and abdicated thier own responsibility. They could have voted against it and kept the blood off their hands.

#3 A minority of the Senate could have stopped the Iraq War Resolution with a filibuster.

They have blood on their hands and are very bit as guilty as Mr. Bush, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept that fact.

[The Magistrate]

84. It Is Unlikely, Mr. Starr

That your disregard of the bloody book as a guide to moral life exceeds mine: nonetheless, its pages do contain some apt expressions, of which that is one. People are properly to be held responsible for the wrong they do, not for the wrong another does: wherever that proposition is found, it does not strike me as likely you would disagree with it, and you are too intelligent and fair-minded to disagree with a truth expressed through a quarrel with the matrix in which it is found embedded.

Parlimentary procedure does not bring the fillibuster to bear against resolutions, but against bills. There was no mechanism available to require a super-majority for this vote. The vote of the minority was therefore meaningless, without some dissension in the majority. There was none, and therefore the thing was certain to carry. To have, at that time, cast a meaningless and forlorn vote against that resolution would have served as the text for the upcoming Congressional campaign, and brought unmitigated disaster in it. Those figures who voted for it who were based in Republican states gained nothing by it, of course; they were defeated, as the enemy is ruthless in its practice of politics, and concentrates in regard to the Congress on the votes for Majority Leader and Speaker, as these define the sessions of each body. But a much greater number of Democrats would have gone down to defeat in that election without that vote being made as it was, and no serious student of politics would quarrel with that proposition, though romantics and nihilists might, or might even urge that would have been a desireable result.

Again, the responsibility for the policy lays exclusively with the reptile who conceived it, and exercised his control of the majority party to put it into action, and then executed it as he desired. Any other proposition is mere apologism in the interests of this criminal wretch, and cannot be viewed as any other thing. Attempting to spread the blame to persons who were powerless to halt it is to be the man who is railed at by his boss at work and goes home to find some cause to smack the wife: it is to displace rage onto something powerless, because you feel powerless against the real object of your rage. But you are not powerless in this instance, Sir. It is more than possible to strike this vicious fool directly and sorely, by evicting him from the office he usurped: all that is necessary is to join in a Popular Front with all who are enraged at him, and devote your political efforts, and cast your ballot, against whoever takes the field to oppose him in the fall.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[FrankBooth]

19. ABB is here to stay

It will be the defining factor of the election whether the rigid ideologues like it or not. End of story. The left will vote against Bush in record numbers, and there will be no Nader-like anti-democratic (party) groundswell of any significance come November. So these folks can talk all they want here on DU, but their viewpoint will have zero effect on the election.

[redqueen]

21. Not taking sides, just asking:

Couldn't people be reasonable in holding those Democrats responsible as 'facilitators' or 'enablers' if they did not fight back against the coup? Couldn't that possibly validate their refusal to back such candidates?

I mean seriously... if they can't be bothered to resist a coup, or read a bill in its entirety before signing it... what's the reason to give them a promotion?!

[The Magistrate]

22. It Makes No Difference, Ma'am

The policy was that of the Majority, and they had the votes to enact it whatever degree of opposition might have been offered. To blame anyone but the Republicans for the policy is but to make excuses for them, and to divide fire that had better be concentrated on the enemy if there is to be any hope for success in the fall. This is a serious business, and it must succeed....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[redqueen]

26. I see your logic... understood

But I keep thinking of the populist party of ... when was that? The 1800's? And how they didn't have to form their own party, because eventually the Democrats started adopting their policies into their platform.

If the Democrats are serious about winning again, maybe they should look into that era. I know that you'll be hard pressed to scare people into voting for Dems they don't support if they've already taken the first step, and recognized that there is a lot to be desired in our party.

[The Magistrate]

34. Thank You, Ma'am

When the Democrats did incorporate the Populists, late in the 19th century, they lost resoundingly to McKinnley. Mr. Bryant's speechifying notwithstanding. There was no Democratic victory until the Republican Party underwent a split between the Regulars of Taft and Mr. Roosevelt's Bull Moose proggressives, which allowed Wilson to sweep the table.

There is certainly a good deal to be improved in the Dem,ocratic Party, but it offers today the only vehicle to any effective opposition to the worst elements of reaction, and until these are out of office, there is no other progress that can be made.

[redqueen]

43. No, thanks to you, for reasonable discourse

:)

Your second comment is exactly why I would vote ABB. Because unlike then, we now face fascism in its purist form. I don't wish this to be my last chance to vote, so... I won't be cutting off my nose to spite my own face!

I can see the situation from both sides, but I keep coming down firmly in the "ABB" camp. The stakes are just too high.

[The Magistrate]

90. A Pleasure To Make Your Acquaintance, Ma'am!

[He loved Big Brother]

29. I agree redqueen

People who voted for PATRIOT ACT should be hanging their heads in shame, not misguidedly believing they deserve to hold an even higher office! It isn't idealogy or even too much to ask that the POTUS be someone who did not vote to nullify our country's Bill of Rights.

[FrankBooth]

33. A reasonable question

The actions of many democrats after 9/11 has been awful. I don't think there are many on DU that would argue with that. It really comes down to how you think you can affect meaningful change within the party - and I fail to see how allowing George Bush another term will in any way benefit the Democratic party (or America or the world.) If we win, and our dem president turns out to be Bush lite, then we will have to deal with them at that point in time. Dealing with them now, on a point of ideology and within our very limited options, seems incredibly foolish, selfish and short-sighted to me.

I was not happy with Democrats rolling over on war resolution and Patriot Act. I called both my senators to bitch. And even though I support another candidate, I thank the Cosmos for Howard Dean and what he has done for the Democratic party in terms of making the rest of the candidates face their own fears and actions. He forced them to start acting like an opposition party. The worm has turned in the party, thanks to Dean and Kucinich, and to places like DU. There is a politcal vibrancy to the Democratic party that wasn't there a year ago, and that vibrancy has in some part been fueled by ABB.

In my opinion, ABB really comes down to a choice - do I stand rigidly behind ideology or do I sacrifice some of my own personal ideology for the greater good. That is how I see it. Obviously, there are many good liberals and intelligent people on DU who see the situation differently than I. That is fine, but in my mind the evils of another Bush term outweigh any theoretical advantage that a Democratic loss "might" provide. And I am struggling to figure out how a Democratic loss might help anybody.

Most democrats will vote ABB. And I am thankful for that.

[The Magistrate]

35. Hear Hear, Sir!

Well said indeed!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[redqueen]

46. In response to Frank and HLBB,

I waver when I'm feeling punchy, but always have kept my eye on the prize (ousting the squatter).

I just think we should make those centrist bastards who voted for bills they didn't read and insulted us over a coup they should have fought really SQUIRM.

[5thGenDemocrat]

64. Most Democrats will vote ABB

Not to mention, I believe, most independants and not a few moderate Republicans. I don't agree with those who think sitting this election out is going to change anything and I also believe their moral purity will be irrelevant when the votes are counted in November.
The two or three percent purist vote that the Dem candidate could possibly lose in the general election will be overwhelmed by the independant and moderate Republican vote the Dems stand to gain.
John
I'm supporting Clark. But I'm also firmly ABB.

[dreissig]

23. Lessons of History

Your focus is too short-sighted. This struggle is about American values, not about one candidate winning one election. My regrets from 1968 are not that Nixon won, but that the Democrats had made Nixon's victory inevitable.

Yes, we could have voted for Humphrey anyhow, but what would have been gained? No other issue was as important as the war, and Humphrey supported it. After 36 years, I can't even remember what the other issues were.

I didn't do the right thing in 1968 because I didn't vote at all. This time I'm definitely voting, even if I have to write my own name in.

[The Magistrate]

27. Do Not Lecture Me On History, Sir

Your view in this matter is not long-sighted; it is solopsistic. It takes no account whatever of the political trends and consequences on a national scale of the fit of pique you attempt to elevate to the status of policy. The victory of Nixon that year elevated the right to a place of ascendancy in our nation's politics it retains to this day; the conduct of the anti-war left in that election divorced the left from the working people of our country with consequences that continue today in disasterous proportion. It is one thing, Sir, to make a mistake in youth nigh on four decades ago; it is something else not to have learned a damned thing in the ensuing decades, and propose to repeat the same foolishness in mature age and cold blood.

[dreissig]

41. 1968 Again

America's decision to run one warmonger against another in 1968 made it certain that the war would continue, as indeed it did. We paid a terrible price in terms of American lives - almost as many died after the election as had died before it.

Instead of ending the war as he'd hinted with his "secret plan", Nixon dragged it out by experimenting with different strategies. Nothing worked! Ultimately, even Nixon recognized that 19th Century colonialism just doesn't work anymore.

It's likely that Humphrey would have done what Nixon did, i.e., gone to the generals for advice on what to do next. The generals who assured Nixon that victory was right around the corner would have given similar advice to Humphrey. It wouldn't have mattered that a Democrat was in the White House.

Edwards and Kerry both voted for a war which was not shown to have been unavoidable. Perhaps the Bush administration duped both of them! However, dupes are nearly as unacceptable as warmongers.

Let's have a Democratic candidate who won't drag us through 1968 again.

[redqueen]

48. I would agree with you, if the occupation were the only issue

However I keep thinking about our civil liberties, women's right to choice, impending theocracy, the very right to vote (BBV!), and other things like that... and it puts me right back in the ABB camp.

Please reconsider, the war and occupation are very important, but, to me, if we wish to have a voice in future elections, we absolutely must oust these treasonous bastards.

[dreissig]

65. Party Discipline

Party discipline requires that Democrats who betray core values have to be brought back into line. In 1968, Humphrey's support of the war cost him the votes he needed to win the election. Instead of blaming the antiwar Democrats who sat out the race, we should blame the party members who foolishly believed the party could afford such a big risk.

I've always been a Democrat, but I won't support candidates who offend my sense of what being a Democrat means. The Vietnam war was not as Humphrey described it, "glorious". It was horrible. I look back on that 1968 election with some satisfaction. Humphrey ignored us, and we punished him.

[redqueen]

77. But

These candidates did not call the Iraq invasion 'glorious' (well, except maybe Clark... I don't exactly remember).

These guys made some king-sized mistakes, but I don't intend to punish the whole country (nay the world) for those mistakes.

[dreissig]

82. A Petty Distinction

Kerry and Edwards had the opportunity to show solidarity with war protesters across the entire planet. In voting for the IWR, they showed solidarity with Bush!

Please show these gentlemen to the door . . .

[The Magistrate]

89. Where You Get The Idea, Mr. Dreissig

That "anti-war" is a core Democratic value is beyond me. Wilson entered the Great War, President Roosevelt fought World War Two, President Truman opposed the Soviets in the Cold War, President Johnson was most certainly a Democrat, President Carter innaugurated the supply of weaponry to Afghans to oppose the Soviet occupation, and President Clinton sent U.S. forces to war, under the command of Gen. Clark, in Kossovo.

To be "anti-war" is not even, Sir, a core value of leftism. The core value of leftism is that workers should get the full extent of the value their labor produces. In the pursuit of this, the left has always been willing to pick up the stick and the gun and the bomb, and to decry the preacher's advice to turn the other cheek. Pacifism has no purpose on the left save the tactical: Lenin called for peace as a means to secure revolution; Mao called for national resistance to Imperial Japan as a means to secure revolution. The circumstances were different, hence so was the slogan cried.

It may be among your personal core values, Sir, to oppose war, but that is a different question. It is among my personal core values to oppose organized religion, but you will not find me denouncing a candidate who does not do the same in loud tones, and may even see me support one who makes great play of piety, if that seems best in the overall circumstance of an election. The fact is that opposition to war is not very widely shared among the people: most people see it as a thing that is at times necessary, and regard as hopelessly naive anyone who habitually denounces it. After all, the most important sigil of a sovereign government is a monoploly on the legitimate use of violence, and so long as this remains true, the people will never entrust state power to any whom they feel incompetent at violence, or unwilling to use it at need.

[Guaranteed]

72. "If you do not mean to effectively strike against the criminals of the...

"...'00 Coup, you are assisting them to maintain their ill-gotten grip on office." So you ARE a non-transferable Dean-supporter! GOOD FOR YOU!!! :)

[The Magistrate]

87. Hello, Mr. Loony

We have not crossed words in a while. The purpose of this little exercise of yours is unclear to me: Gov. Dean is clearly unable even to carry the Democratic Party primary electorate, let alone the general electorate. Therefore no vote for him is or can be an effective blow against the current administration of usurpers. You are doubtless aware of that, as you are not a foolish fellow, though you shrink from ruthless analysis of the situation we face today, if recollection serves....

[TreasonousBastard]

24. In a perfect world...

I would vote my conscience every time for the one person I thought best.

In this imperfect world, this time is not a Stevenson-Eisenhower or Goldwater-Johnson race where two equals challenge us with their competing visions. This is not a parliamentary system where small parties can have a voice.

In the most dire view, this is a battle for the very future of the country, perhaps the world. As revolting as it sounds, and is, this is the time when we can't afford to vote for someone we like, but must vote against someone who is a clear and present proven danger.

The candidate is likely Kerry, Clark, Edwards, or Dean. I don't like them all equally, but I will trust the future of the nation with any one of them over what we have now.

This is not a loyalty oath-- this is simply common sense.

[dreissig]

28. Loyalty Oath

You've missed the whole point about locked-in constituencies. The moral argument for voting for the Democrat went out the window when the Democrat voted for the war. In 1968, Humphrey called the Vietnam War "glorious" which was more than an inept description of it, it was a statement of Humphrey's values. How does a man like that get to be the nominee of the Democratic Party? Go figure.

I'm proud of myself for denying Humphrey my vote, and I would do it again. Given similar circumstances, I will vote my conscience rather than my party. Warmongers do not get any respect from me, and certainly not my vote.

[The Magistrate]

37. Mere Melodrama, Sir

Mr. Humphrey was a leading political light of Civil Rights and Labor Rights, as you would certainly know if you had been politically aware in any degree at the time.

The course you suggest does nothing but empower the real "war-mongers", and enable them to continue their depredations against the working people under the false flag of patriotism.

[markus]

31. So, we should allow slavery in the territories to keep the union together?

There are times in history where we have to draw a line in the sand. I believe we are approaching one of those moments.

Right now that line has two components for me: work like hell for Democrats who opposed or now oppose the war.

Come the Fall, if we end up with say Edwards (who only really quibbles with Bush on the war's conduct) and who's message for the poor is more tax cuts for corporations to toss a few jobs in the inner city, I'm going to have a might struggle to work for such a candidate.

If Kerry wishes to fully embrace the anti-war left, he needs to step up and slap the L world on Bush. He didn't mislead, obfuscate or miscommunicate. Bush Lied. People Died. Gephardt, I think, was going in that direction stedaily but cautiously. But now he's out.

Tonight would be a good place to start, if Kerry's hoping to peal me away from Dean, where I remain for now.

Edwards is another of the empty suits I gave a nice chunk of my life to out a sense of praticality. I'm done with them.

[Monte Carlo]

36. That's a tad melodramatic, don't you think?

Electing Kerry or Edwards or even Lieberman parallels slavery?

Real change in this country is going to happen gradually in steps, not all at once. You will never be satisfied if you place unrealistic expectations upon your candidates.

[The Magistrate]

38. Melodrama, Sir

Is the stock in trade of the splinter factionalist. They have no hope of carrying an argument by fact and logic, and so resort to mere hyperbole and hyperventilation....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[markus]

81. I am not a splinter factionlist, I am a factual 'splainer

If we do not pressure all of the Democratic candidates to challenge Bush directly on the war as the cost of our votes, it is likely on to Syria unless we get very lucky. Bush unchallenged is the Command-In-Chief in time of War.

I am not laboring to build his triumphal arch. I am laboring to deny him his triumph.

I believe based on a long-time in mainstream politics (after getting my youthful ultra-leftist jollies out in the Seventies) that a candidate who agrees with Bush on the fundamental issue of going to war is not going to unseat him on the basis of its conduct.

[The Magistrate]

88. Unfortunately, Sir

If you insist on the course you have proposed, intending to with-hold your vote from the struggle against the usurper, you will in fact be contributing to his victory, and so will bring about the result you claim to deplore, and desire to prevent. You will be in fact laboring on his triumphal arch, and securing him in the capability to expand war further in the Near East.

There will be considerable criticism of the war in Iraq by any Democratic Party candidate, but it will probably not be to your liking. It will be couched as criticism of the incompetence with which it was carried out, and be denounced as a mere distraction from the effort against Al Queda. Even criticism of the lies told to move the people to initial support for this course will have the latter as the subtext; even criticism of the profiteering by administration cronies will be given its edge by that line. That is a view that is popular with the people of our county, who are in no doubt that they were attacked by Islamic radicals, and consider it an important part of the nation's business today to liquidate those jihadists.

A candidate who took the stump to denounce war, to decry criminal behavior by U.S. forces, would be jeered down in moments, and provide the enemy with a landslide victory that would make Vice-President Mondale's defeat look like a damned close contest by compare.

[markus]

80. No, nominating them is to appease what is worst in our Republic

I am arguing against appeasement, which has only given strength to the right for the last decade and more. Come the fall, I will have to decide which way to go.

However, I am not about to compromise this far out with people who are enabling the slow corruption of the Republic.

Melodrama has its uses in political discourse, for which I used to be paid by the word. For empty suits like Sen. Edwards.

[CWebster]

42. Why the hell should I reward those

who I oppose precisely because they rewarded Bush?


Supporting someone who supported Bush isn't ABB--it is supporting Bush. Democrats lose because they don't stand up and would rather destroy those among them who do.

Sooner or later we have to withold from them the power over us and lack of power over the Republicans.

And it is the end of the road for me. Lie in your own bed.

[FrankBooth]

44. What is your solution?

I'm curious? How are we going to stop Bush, change the Democratic party? I'm not talking about converting a few ABBers on this board, but meaningful social and political change in the United States in time for Nov 2004? Or even 2008?

[dreissig]

47. A Suggestion?

How about a suggestion? Instead of running a warmonger as our nominee, how about running a candidate who's not a warmonger? It makes sense to me!

I lived through 1968, a very unpleasant year. Democrats thought they could get away with marginalizing the antiwar Left, and ended up realizing what a huge mistake that was. Nominating McGovern in 1972 did not make up for it.

Let's not have 1968 all over again. The mandatory loyalty that Democrats are imposing on other Democrats wasn't there back then, and isn't here now. ABB is an illusion.

[FrankBooth]

50. Nope

ABB is not an illusion. ABB is not going anywhere, that is reality. As I've stated before, you have every right to your ideological decision not to support ABB. But, fortunately, you will be in the very, very tiny minority come election day.


So, if you want to get, using your phrase, a non-warmonger nominated, then go for it. Make it happen. I will vote for them too if they become the Democratic nominee.

[CWebster]

54. so then

"...you will be in the very, very tiny minority come election day."

Don't blame us when you lose. If the Left has no seat at the table, why should they vote?


I am 49 years old. Most of my adult life I have voted against the other guy without ever having voted for something more than that. It ends here. My vote can no longer be taken for granted.

[FrankBooth]

55. Why would I blame you?

Non-ABB votes will not have any significant effect on the election, in my opinion. If the dems lose, it won't be because of you, so I personally won't blame you (although others probably will.)

[Walt Starr]

58. Yeah, it's not like 537 votes can change anything

you don't need us.

[FrankBooth]

61. You are right

All 537 of you can pat yourselves on the back for making a profound statement. Meanwhile, 99% of the left will vote ABB.

[Walt Starr]

66. I see quoting blatantly historical numbers is meaningless

537 is the number of votes Bush won Florida by.

Those 537 votes were meaningless, I guess. You would not have wanted an additional 537 votes in 2000, I guess.

:eyes:

[FrankBooth]

73. Of course I would have wanted those votes

If we'd had those votes in 2000, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right now, and the country would not be nearly as screwed up as it is, and we wouldn't be in this war.

And if we had those 537 votes, then ABB would not be the potent political force it has become.

The original gist of this thread was that ABB was an "illusion." In my opinion, ABB is THE reason behind the democratic rejeuvination. Of course there are going to be people on the left that cannot bring themselves to vote for any candidate who voted for the IWR or Patriot Act. I can empathise with those feelings, as I've had them too. I just happen to believe the consequences, at this particular point in the history of our country, make that view short-sighted.

And I also happen to believ that ABB is the mood of the American left. When push comes to shove, most will pull the lever for whichever candidate wins the nomination. Those who do not, will not be significant this time, as they were in 2000.


Edit: typo

[CWebster]

60. Yes, that is what we always heard about the Greens. nt

[FrankBooth]

62. The left was in disarray in 2000

Bush has seen to it through his incompetence and outright evil that we will be united in 2004 - united around the Dem Candidate, whomever that may be. The anti-ABB bloc will be insignificant this time.

[dreissig]

59. Tiny Minority

Actually the antiwar Left isn't as small as you'd think, especially if you rely on the corporate media for your information. Bush lied to get us into a war he could easily have prevented. Now that it's dragging out, he's going to be stuck for an exit strategy.

Kerry has yet to explain his IWR vote. Was he duped?

[FrankBooth]

63. I get most of my news from DU, Buzzflash, commondreams

and internet sites. I am a member of the anti-war left. And I am ABB.

Bush lied and the democrats enabled him, I agree with you on that. I think Kerry, Edwards and and every congressperson of either party that voted for the IWR was foolish.

But the question that I ask all anti-ABBers is this - how does George Bush winning in 2004 help our party? Our country? The world?

[Walt Starr]

70. Some times, things must get worse in order for people to wake up

anf make them better.

Things have apparently not gotten bad enough yet.

[FrankBooth]

76. I think things have gotten plenty bad

And I am terrified of what 4 more years of damage these guys will do if they win. I am truly frightened about the future of our country. I hope you are right, and that if Bush does win, that we somehow survive and can transform our party, but I don't see that happening - call me a pessimist.

[dreissig]

78. We Are Not Thugs

Strategic voting has its merits, assuming that the issues allow compromise. But some issues impact the basic contract of human relationships to each other. In my opinion, it's wrong for one country to invade another and steal property. There's no room for compromise about anything so basic. We are not thugs.

Similarly, I would not vote for a candidate who cast a "strategic" vote for segregation or slavery or child prostitution. I reject considerations of what might happen if the other guy got elected.

Kerry was wrong to have voted for the war. I don't know how I'd respond if he were to apologize. But he hasn't done that!

[FrankBooth]

79. Honestly, I do empathise with your position

ABB is something I have thought a lot about - I have not made an irrational, partisan decision. I have weighed the pros and cons. Believe me, there are a lot of things about all of the Democratic candidates that I don't like.

And perhaps I am being alarmist in my zeal for ABB. But I truly fear Bush and his gang - I think they will try to turn America into a police state. I think they will fuck us irreperably. If they win, any meaningful opposition will be dismantled.

Hopefully I am just being paranoid and am wrong . Perhaps if Bush wins again, we will somehow make it through, democracy intact. But in my gut I fear them as I would fear any fascist cabal.

[dreissig]

83. Remembering 1968

I have lots of conflicted feelings about 1968. Among the bright spots in my memory, I am pleased that I was not taken in by the ABB argument of the time. We were told that not voting for Humphrey was the same as voting for Nixon. I finessed the whole issue by not voting at all! Being a political dropout is a lot less trouble: Don't tell me about it, I don't want to know.

Iowa voters' blithe dismissal of the war issue has brought the 2004 election closer to the 1968 election. If Kerry is the nominee, I may vote for some splinter candidate that gets on the local ballot. But I may decide, as I did earlier in my life, that it's all too much bullshit to bother with.

[redqueen]

52. If it were up to one person to decide

who the nominee is, I could see a plea for a non-warmongering candidate. Since we have to depend on millions of people voting on a candidate, there is not too much we can do to affect the outcome. However I, like you, feel we should try to get the most progressive candidate on the ballot.

But if we don't, I'm ABB, since I want to be able to vote for liberal Democrats again, and have that vote actually count.

[corporatewhore]

49. ABB is a way to kill the democratic wing of the democratic party

[FrankBooth]

51. I like your photo

But I disagree with you on ABB.

[neverforget]

53. You can't change ANYTHING if you're not in power. That's why

who wins MATTERS! A Democrat or a Republican? With a Democrat, the left has influence. With a Republican all you can do is BITCH!

[dreissig]

56. The Nixon Years

By refusing to vote for Humphrey, the antiwar Left enabled Nixon to squeak by in a close victory. Nixon's victory was certainly expensive in terms of progressive values. But voting for Humphrey, after he'd called the Vietnam war "glorious" was unthinkable.

As it turned out, the liberal mood of the country continued to affect Nixon's policies. Among his other accomplishments, Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and normalized relations with China. We'd have gotten those with Humphrey, and we didn't need sellout votes to get them.

[FrankBooth]

57. Like it or not

the liberal mood of the country in 2004 is ABB.

[He loved Big Brother]

69. You speak for all liberals now?

Seems a lot of people on DU are doing that these days.

[FrankBooth]

74. Of course not

I have made it clear that this is my opinion. And I think I am right, but, we will see.

[Guaranteed]

75. You can't win without leadership. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Quite right.

I will be voting anti-war no matter who the Democrats nominate. Either for an anti-war Dem or Green.

[Snivi Yllom]

85. I wont be locked in

If given a candidate who is not honest and chooses to obfuscate his record, I will choose not to vote.