I think the General Election Anti-ABB bunch is fundamentally Pro-Bush*

[MoonRiver]

I'm sorry but that's the way I see it. Flame away.

[Democrats unite]

1. You have a right to your opinion

If a Democratic nominee can't bring us together then we will have 4 more years of Bush.

[wyldwolf]

3. There is no such animal...

..with factions declaring "their guy or else," the majority could be victimized by the extorsion of a few - if that few really mattered.

[Democrats unite]

5. What I am declaring is to be equal

If the Democratic nominee refuses me that right, he will not get my vote. Kerry stated he is against the MA Supreme Court ruling, Clark has stated he welcomes the decision with open arms.

I am a American I can vote for whoever I choose, why on earth would I vote for someone who will not stand up for my rights?

[wyldwolf]

7. No one has ever said you can't vote for whoever you choose..

... do it. Be my guest.

We'll see how 4 more years of Bush treats your rights.

[ShaneGR]

13. War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom

Laughing out-loud, he called me Pro-Bush.

[wyldwolf]

2. No flame here, I agree!

It is the childish "I'm taking my ball and going home" rhetoric of the political novice.

Now, let the typical "you just don't get it" BS begin.

[MoonRiver]

4. I get the feeling sometimes that I've been living in a different

country for the last 3+ years than some who also claim to be Democrats.

[wyldwolf]

6. There is some odd new "club" here of people claiming to be...

"democrats" and not "Democrats." (notice the difference in the "d's")

Under their thinking, one can be a Green/socialist/communist and still be a "democrat."

Thus, working against the Democrats is not betraying the party who are now, according to them, made up of "democrats" and "Democrats."

[MoonRiver]

8. Yeah, their idea of betrayal does not equate with mine.

My idea of betrayal means not voting and ignoring the rightwing fascist take-over of our country. Apparently that's not enough for some 'true believers' though. They insist that their agenda trumps everyone else's, although what they believe in is obtuse to put it kindly.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[The Magistrate]

38. Cute, Fellow, But No Cigar

The battle to which the gentleman refers is the battle against the continuation of the '00 Coup, and the havoc it has inflicted on the people and our country. You seem utterly uninterested in this, but only in futile forensic ploys that wil impress no one able to tie their own shoes.

"If Hitler invaded Hell, I should find occassion to address the Commons a good word for the Devil himself next morning."

[Old and In the Way]

43. Rather disingenuous in your argument.

Is Hitler running as a Democrat? You know full well that ABB is shorthand to reflect "any Democrat who becomes our nominee is our choice". Using a straw man like "Would you prefer Hitler to Bush" is irrelevant and makes me wonder about the true intentions of your post.

The next battle that you cavalierly dismiss is the election of a President who will choose 2 or 3 Justices for SCOTUS. Tell me again why we should hand judicial control of our government to the RightWing for 20 years?

[INTELBYTES]

50. oooo....you busted him!! <sarcasm>

...what an old (and lame)ploy if someone disagrees with you.

"makes me wonder about the true intentions of your post".

So obviously that was a not so subtle attempt to call someone a freeper because they don't fall in line with you. Way to try to shut up the dissenters! Good grief!

[Old and In the Way]

56. Well now that you mention it.

Those that support a 3rd party approach seem to be of only 4 basic camps.

(1) Reality deniers.
(2) Politically naive virgins.
(3) Pro-Bush RNC ops who mask their true intents with posts that support "a 3rd way".
(4) Political masochists.

I don't pretend to know from which of these camps a poster would argue a 3rd party alternative. Perhaps you have a finer sense for the motivations of the poster, though.

[drfemoe]

32. Oh if ONLY

The Democrats who have already been elected would play a role in stopping the RW fascist take-over of our country. If they demand to be made King before addressing the danger, I strongly suspect their motives.

[GreenArrow]

10. well there is a difference

Small d is a broader, more inclusive category. Big D is the name of one established political faction.

[polmaven]

16. And are you not

posting on Democratic....(capital D) ...Underground?

[GreenArrow]

22. Look at it this way

It is fundamentally possible to be democratic without being a Democrat. And vice versa. Consider it like this: democracy (small d) is a concept, while Democrat (big D) is a label of identification.

[The Magistrate]

25. Mere Sophistry, Sir

By that logic, every Republican who votes is a democrat....

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[GreenArrow]

36. Sophistry?

Can you not make a simple distinction between political system/ideology and political party label? They aren't intrinsically synonymous.

[The Magistrate]

41. Sophistry, Sir

Is a Republican who votes a democrat?

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[GreenArrow]

46. You fail to comprehend

Do you not believe that it's possible to adhere to the principles of democracy without being a "Democrat"? By "Democrat" I mean a member of the Democratic Party, as opposed to any other citizen of a democracy, regardles of which faction he may belong to.

[The Magistrate]

51. What You Fail To Acknowledge, Sir

Is that you are engaged in a mere semantic subterfuge, that has no real bearing on the topic at hand, namely, that those who urge withholding votes in the general election this fall from the nominee of the Democratic Party are, objectively, as a Leninist would say, working to support the prospects of victory for the criminals of the '00 Coup.

In fact, the persons who urge this course are not really believers in democracy, for the people en masse reject their ideas soundly, and show every sign that they will continue to do so. Such persons comfort themselves with the idea that the people are fools and dupes, who are not really capable of making informed decisions concerning their governance....

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

[GreenArrow]

58. to be fair, sir

I don't recall weighing in on the merits of the ABB scenario. My comments were directed towards correcting the false idea that a person cannot be an adherent of democratic principles unless they are a member of the Democratic Party. A glance at a dictionary will make clear the various shades of meaning of democrat and democracy.

As for your suggestion that those advocating witholding votes from the Democratic nominee in this Fall's election are "working to support the prospects of victory for the criminals of the '00 Coup," well I simply don't accept that analysis as correct. In practical terms, it may have that effect, in this particular election, but by and large, the majority of those advocating such a measure are working for ends of their own. These ends may be a long time in coming, or not come at all; the mills of God grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.

Your statement suggesting that those who urge such a course are not really believers in democracy is puzzling. I suppose that those in times past who have advocated things like civil rights, suffrage, labor laws, environmental protection, and end to witch burning were at heart undemocratic fools, because the majority of thier fellow citizens were not in agreement with their principles. Or maybe they were ahead of their time.

[The Magistrate]

60. Since, Sir

Its practical effect will be to improve the chance of success for the criminals of the '00 Coup, and the persons urging this are quite aware of it, their protestations of some different intention are mere noise, and properly dismissed as such. They are, in effect, working for the enemy, and traitors to the left, the people, and the country.

The items you mention, Sir, where political, are not the result of exercises in democracy, but of vanguard leadership. There is a difference, and it is well to learn it. Vanguard leadership is at times a fine thing, but it is far from democratic; it is one of the purest expressions of elitism.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[HFishbine]

11. And some of us

have always been straight up about being independents. But hey, I thought the democratic party wanted to try to appeal to us. At least DU welcomes us.

[bowens43]

18. You must be a new Democrat.

Those of us who have been Democrats longer then Clark believe in principle over party. I know that to the new generation of Democrats, like the new generation of Republicans, all that matters is winning the next election. Principle and integrity belong to the past. They are baggage best left behind. You do our party a grave disservice when you prance around waving your ABB signs.

Win the battle but lose the war. No thanks.

[The Magistrate]

23. As A Matter Of Fact, Fellow

You will find in history damned few occassions where winning battles has led to losing wars....

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[GreenArrow]

27. Can you find occasions in history

where losing battles has led to winning wars?

[The Magistrate]

34. Your Meaning Eludes Me, Sir

No good has ever come from acting to strengthen the power of the group most bitterly opposed to one's own views. Even a less reactionary element is prefereable from a left point of view to a more reactionary one.

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[GreenArrow]

55. I'm simply ruminating

and wondering if there have not been occasions where the victors of a battle have so extended themselves in achieving that victory, that their defeated opponents have been able to regroup and gradually attain a more defintive victory of their own.

[The Magistrate]

57. There Have Been A Few Such, Sir

But there are always particular matters underlying such occassions. Speaking generally, a victories won at a very rapid pace, or at a great distance from one's base of supply, bear close watching. Neither of these feature in the current political climate....

[drfemoe]

35. That is unless you consider divorce courts .. n/t

[Old and In the Way]

48. Apparently the poster's grasp of military history is as weak as

the political argument he presumes to further.

[Old and In the Way]

9. What's to flame?

If you can't support our Party's nominee, you shouldn't call yourself a Democrat. You should call yourself a Republican, Green, Indpendent, whatever.....and acknowledge that your anti-ABB position is anti-Democrat which, regardless of noble intent, works to further Bush and the RNC agenda.

What's so hard to understand?

[The Magistrate]

14. It Is The 'Nobility' Of Purpose, Sir

That gets right up my left nostril. Protestations of noble purpose cannot be taken seriously from anyone old enough to buy their own liquor. The only measure of intent behind an action is the knowledge of its consequences: when someone acts in a way that they know will bring immediate benefit to the worst elements of reaction, it must be taken their intent is to lend those reptiles that assistance. It is a damned odd way to demonstrate allegiance to leftist principles....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Old and In the Way]

19. Well stated, as always, Sir!

That old rubric applies: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

One could argue political ignorance in 2000. But this time, one does not have that luxury of excuse - particularly, in light of the consequences since.

[bowens43]

17. If you don't have the integrity to vote your conscience

then your vote is worthless.

[The Magistrate]

20. Nonsense, Fellow

All votes are worth one tick on the meter; they are precisely the same, and worth just as much whether cast for calculated expediency, principled commitment, or fondness for hair color. The only difference is which candidate they are tallied to: those for the nominee of the Democratic Party are an effective effort to evict from office the criminals of the '00 Coup; those not given to that nominee allow one vote other given to those reptiles to pass unchallenged, and materially increase the change of their success. This is not a complex matter, like choosing brands of hand soap....

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

"If a man will continue to insist two and two do not make four, I know of nothing in the power of argument that can stop up his mouth."

[bowens43]

24. Sorry but I see this as much more important

then choosing a brand of soap. I'm sorry that you have such low opinion of our country and our party.

[The Magistrate]

29. Not True, Fellow

You want to be wooed by precisely the same styles of niche marketting that cram the shelves with dozens of various scents and textires and images to be bought into by purchase of the project. If you are not tickled just right, you will sit on your hands in pique. This is the way people choose brands of soap, and it is apparently how you choose to exercise your franchise. But elections are exercises in mass marketing, and there are really only two brands on offer....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Old and In the Way]

31. "Our Party"?

An odd use of words if you are suggesting to support a vote for someone other than a Democrat.

Words do mean something.

[Old and In the Way]

28. A vote for Nader would seem to be quite valuable to Bush

so he'd place a high value on your integrity as well.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

26. I agree

It is abusndantly clear we have the most neoconservative and dangerous administration ever to hold the office currently in the White House. They need to be shown the door NOW!

To suggest ANY ONE of the current Democratic candidates are the same or just as bad as Bush flies in the face of common sense and logic.

We essentially have a two-party system. You're either a Democrat or you're not. If you're not intent on Bush losing in 2004 then don't call yourself a Democrat.

[drfemoe]

61. Not

We essentially have a two-party system. You're either a Democrat or you're not.

Ergo, disenfranchised voters. I don't like *B*'s "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric, and I don't like it from "Democrats" either. The disenfranchised voters may decide to become self-governing someday. That scares the britches off the "two-party system", doesn't it?

[Zhade]

12. Feel free to think wrong things. I can't stop you.

I'm insulted - nay, horrified - but heck, you're entitled to your delusions.

[bowens43]

15. Who cares how you see it?

I certainly don't. It is sad that you are unable to understand the basic concepts of integrity and principle.

[NNN0LHI]

30. All your integrity and principle and a quarter wil get you a cup of coffee

But it will never get rid of Bush.

Don

[FubarFly]

37. Actually, that's not enough to buy coffee, but

it may be enough to convince people that Democrats are a Party of integrity and principle- and that is EXACTLY what we will need to defeat b*sh.

[Old and In the Way]

53. Are you saying that those who choose to support any Democratic

nominee are without basic concepts of integrity and principle? I really would like to see you state that unequivocably.

[stuzzy]

33. This is by far

the stupidest post I have seen yet. And insulting to boot.

[drfemoe]

39. Anyone who writes "flame away" in their OP

seems to be privy to the knowledge that their post is "flame bait".

[FubarFly]

42. It's a weird concept.

If we brow-beat, cajole, shame, terrify, and insult principled progressives enough, they'll abandon their principles and vote for my guy. Yeah, that's going to work. Whatever.

[The Magistrate]

44. Principles, Sir?

The consequences of a course of action are being pointed out; persons who urge that course have a hard time squaring those consequences, clear to all, with their own self image as leading lights of leftism, for to act in a way that will aid the triumph of the worst elements of reaction is a damned poor way to show dedication to left ideals. The discomfort people urging this course feel at this clear disconnect between what they claim they wish, and what they are going to set about to do, results in frequent accusations that people who point out that no, honey, even with your red blanket pinned like Superman's cape and your sister's blue tights on, you cannot fly off the garage roof, are browbeating or otherwise abusing them....

"I am a man of principles, Sir, and chief among them is flexibility."

[FubarFly]

45. Bend but don't break.

Compromise, without sacrificing core principles. That's flexibility. If you want to debate this sir, let's do this on a thread that doesn't advocate stupidity.

[The Magistrate]

49. You Have, Sir, At Least Seen the Core Of The Problem

But you urge a course that will result in the shattering of what you hold dear: let these reptiles get actually elected on top of their coup and there will be no holding them, short of unmentionable extremities that will not develop....

Once the Sage wrote: "At birth a man is supple and soft; in death he is stiff and hard. Therefore it is the flexible who is the disciple of life, and the rigid who is the disciple of death."

[FubarFly]

52. If you take the time to understand my position

you will see that I am not advocating that course at all. In fact, I am proposing the only sane means to prevent it.

Again, I will not dignify this insulting thread with a civil discourse. Perhaps you can use my forthcoming silence to take a moment, and reevaluate your position. If our future conversations hold so many fundamental miscomprehensions between us, then I will be that much closer to realizing the inevitability of defeat in November and beyond. Good day to you, sir.

[The Magistrate]

54. Your Position Is Understood, Sir

It is rejected, however. The two things are seperate concepts, and you should not fall into the error of imagining that only people who do not understand you could possibly disagree. In most instances, people who disagree with your positions understand them quite well.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[stuzzy]

47. Actually, the original post

points out nothing at all. It is merely a broad brush statement.

[JNelson6563]

40. shows what you know

which isn't all that impressive.

[debsianben]

59. Pro-Bush? Sorry, bub, but words mean things!

Yesterday, I went to see Dennis Kucinich speak at the People's Church in downtown Kalamazoo. Now, he's not perfect, and I have problems with various aspects of his record, but he is at least "anti-Bush". That is to say, he opposes and has voted against the most important defining initiatis of the Bush Presidency, the initiatives that cause so many DUers to hate and fear Bush so much: the Patriot Act, the invasion of Iraq, etc.

Now, I haven't decided yet how I will vote in November (for the sake of full disclosure I'll admit to the heinous crime of having voted for Nader in 2000), but there is one thing I can absolutely guarantee: I will not vote for Bush, or for any candidate who supports key elements of Bush's agenda. However I vote, I'm voting for an anti-Bush candidate.

Now, the fact is that when you claim that anybody who isn't ABB is fundamentally pro-Bush, you're counting a lot of people as "fundamentally pro-Bush" you may not realize. Back before Joe Lieberman dropped out of the race, many people like Michael Moore took the position that they would be willing to vote for "any of the non-Lieberman 8" if any of them became the Democratic nominee. I think that I've seen a couple of columnists at "The Nation" take the same position. So you have a lot of mainstream pro-Democrat types running around who took the position that, while they would like to vote Democratic and they were reasonably flexible, they were no entirely ABB--that is to say, they had some principles, some red line which they would not vote for a candidate who crossed. Would you really say that Michael Moore is "fundamentally pro-Bush?"

Now, I take the same principle that Moore does, but I'd just apply it slightly differently. There's no way that I'm going to vote for a pro-Bush candidate.

Any candidate who (1)supported Bush's theft of the Florida election (the fact is that not a single Democratic Senator was willing to sign onto the Congressional Black Caucus' attempt to review and refuse to accept Florida's electoral votes, their legal and constitutional perrogative, so any one who was a Democratic Senator in 2000 fits under this one), (2)voted for Bush's attacks on civil liberties encoded in the so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act (to the best of my knowledge, DK is the only Dem. candidate who voted against it, and even Dean and Clark just say they want to "fix" or amend it instead of repealing it outright), (3)voted for the Homeland Security Bill, which amounted to a massive union-busting effort against federal employees by the Bush administration, (4)helped promote Bush's lies about "Weapons of Mass Destruction", and (5)voted to authorize Bush's illegal, murderous assault on the people of Iraq, is, by virtue of these 5 decisions, a "pro-Bush" candidate in any reasonable reckoning. Sure, they want to replace Bush, but if Colin Powell or Dick Cheney suddenly quit his job and threw his hat in the Dem. primary ring, the same would be true of him.

After all, those 5 acts of the Bush administration--stealing the election, attacking civil liberties, union-busting federal employees, lying about WMDs and invading Iraq--are put together a huge part of the reason that most DUers hate Bush so much.

[Moderator]

62. Inflammatory

Locking.

[Moderator]

63. locked

4. Broad-brush statements about all or some of the supporters or opponents of any Democratic Primary candidate are forbidden. Don't paint people as disruptors or cult members.