How does keeping Bush in office and Kerry out accomplish progressive goals

[ButterflyBlood]

I really want someone to explain this to me.

[trotsky]

1. Copy me on the explanation.

Because I'd really like to see it too.

[The Blue Knight]

2. Yea, get a copy for me as well.

[funky_bug]

3. I hear you!

It's a "my guy/your guy" world here at DU. If Kerry is "your guy" then he's no better than Bush... is that the sentiment you're referring to?

I have been a Clark supporter from the onset, and I did my best to defend the slams against him here on DU. Now I find that in trying to learn about Kerry, I'm back on the battlefield again...

But your post puts it very well. It doesn't matter if I learn to love Kerry or not. Bush in the office is the only "four more years of Bush" that I have to worry about.

I've posted two seperate threads in the last few days, asking for people to discuss the issues they have with Kerry... the pros and the cons... you know, a healthy debate. Both have sunk like a rock. It seems all people want to do is drive-by and flame.

If the voices of DU represent the voices of democracy, then democracy is fucked.

[AngryYoungMan]

4. Ditto. You know what this reminds me of?

In 1992 Clint Eastwood was in the news a lot because he was (or had been, or was about to be) elected Mayor of Carmel, California. (Or some such place; my memory may be faulty.

Eastwood was asked whom he supported for President. His answer? Perot. His reason? "I think it would be interesting to see what would happen."

Translation: "I'm a rich movie star who will not be affected personally by any of this, so for me the U.S. is just a big petri dish where I can watch various scenarios play out."

And today, with the greens etc. we see the same mentality. "Let's let everything go to hell, because there are intriguing theories at work here."

It's like telling the captain of the Titanic, "Hey, why don't you aim for that iceberg? We'll never improve naval contruction techniques without a big naval disaster to wake everyone up to the dangers of using Scottish rivets and not having enough lifeboats."

[GreenArrow]

24. it's more like this...

Everything IS going to Hell, and it isn't the Greens or progressives of any party who are steering the ship.

And when the ship hits the iceberg, guess who gets first crack at the lifeboats? It ain't gonna be you or me, Jack.

[trotsky]

41. Holy smoke, that's brilliant!

That Titanic analogy is PERFECT! Thank you!

[Terwilliger]

5. Well, you'll have to explian who thinks that

and why they think that...because, as far as anybody knows, you're the only one who thinks that way

[ButterflyBlood]

6. the people who won't vote for Kerry

they either think Kerry is no better than Bush, or Bush will do better.

I'm interested in knowing why Kerry won't throw out Ashcroft, appoint non-Federalist Society judges, ect. ect.

[HFishbine]

7. Long term good vs. short term feel good

If it takes another four years of Bush to get the democratic party to truely represent a progressive agenda, so be it.

[AngryYoungMan]

8. That is an appalling and reprehensible sentiment.

In other words, the "agenda" of a political party --- really a base abstraction --- is more important to you than the fates of nations, soldiers, workers, treaties, wildlife preserves, airline passengers, 401-Ks, retirement funds, prescription drugs, European ties, civil rights, gay rights, reproductive rights, the fourth estate, the Geneva convention, and the next four years of my life, your life, and the lives of everyone on this planet.

Good for you.

[Guaranteed]

13. No, what's reprehensible is YOU nominating Kerry.

Don't blame HF. Blame yourself.

[AngryYoungMan]

16. You are not addressing my argument.

Neither you nor the subsequent poster are getting anywhere near rebutting what I'm saying. Could you try a little harder, and maybe use some logic?

[Guaranteed]

17. The rebuttal is DON'T NOMINATE KERRY.

FEEL the LOGICAL simplicity of it.

[AngryYoungMan]

18. In other words...

1) nominate a progressive

2) watch him lose

3) four more years of Bush

4) now everybody's REALLY mad (or dead, or broke)

5) ...and then we have a Dean movement or something like it that meets your exacting standards.

You know, you could spend four years in an opium den dreaming of Marxist utopias while more soldiers die, if you want to.

[Old and In the Way]

20. By all means, we should abandon logic and run to a person

who's averaging 10% of the Democratic vote and about 70% unfavorables.

You can choose to run off the cliff with him Mr. Loony, but I'll stick with the guy that will beat George Bush and keep SCOTUS from a Right Wing takeover.

[funky_bug]

22. I'm with you.

That's why this former Clark supporter is here. I wanted Clark, but I'll take the White House, thank you very much.

[BruinAlum]

35. For crying out loud

How is anyone on DU supposed to stop the majority of voters from voting for Kerry anyway? And why WOULD they? Why should YOUR choice of candidate override the majority of the voters anyway?

Isn't that stealing an election?

[kiahzero]

26. Or, to put it more accurately:

"What's reprehensible is the majority of Democratic primary voters supporting Kerry."

Unless the OP somehow magically controls the nominating process, I think mine's more accurate. In that case, isn't a little silly to blame one individual for the feelings of hundreds of thousands?

[HFishbine]

14. No

It is precisely because of those things you mention that there is a need to pull the democratic party away from its rightward drift.

[CTLawGuy]

30. im sorry

but OUR candidate voted to send those soldiers to die.
OUR candidate didnt bother to oppose the medicare bill.
OUR candidate likes Bush's tax cuts.
OUR canddiate voted for unfunded education mandates.
OUR candidate thinks capturing Saddam Hussein made us safer (I guess Bush will get props from kerry for that)
OUR candidate voted to let John Ashcroft hold "suspected terrorists" indefinitely with all the other spineless Dems with the exception of Feingold.


Yeah, that's definitely someone who will bring change...

[bowens43]

37. Wow talk about not comprhending.....

The poster is saying those things are so important that we may have to endure another 4 years of the idiot to make people realize that that the only solution that will work is a progressive solution. Moving further to the right will not help the country, the people or the party. It's the ABB crowd who is putting party before principle.

[IrateCitizen]

9. Translation:

If it takes another four years of Bush to get a significantly larger number of people see their lives pulled right out from under them, so that the country (as during the early days of the Great Depression) tilts dangerously close to all-out revolution; and the Democratic Party, out of sheer concern for survival, tilts to the left to support progressive reform in order to stay said revolution, then so be it.

While I harbor no illusions about the disdain that much of the Democratic Party establishment holds for truly progressive reform, I also recognize the truth in the Paul Wellstone quote, "Politics is about the importance of people's lives." As much as I would like to see widespread progressive reform in the US, I am not willing to stake that reform on the wrecked livelihoods of millions of people.

[democratreformed]

32. Thank you for this

[tabasco]

11. If I can't have my nudist utopia now, I'm taking my vote ...

and staying home. Were you involved in planning during Vietnam? You know, burn the villlage down so we can build it back even better?? Talk about short-sighted! I better stop now because I will get banned if I tell you how I really feel.

[HFishbine]

15. Hey, I'm just one voter

If Kerry is the right guy, then you have nothing to worry about. Right?

[Old and In the Way]

19. We haven't suffered enough yet, right?

Let me guess...you're young, without kids, affluent, and have a passport.

[funky_bug]

21. Would you look a mother in the eye and say that?

Look a mother of a dead soldier in the eye and say that.

Look a mother of a child who fails the standardized test and say that.

Look a single mother struggling to provide for her family in the eye and say that.

Look a senior citizen struggling for affordable health care in the eye and say that.

I prefer NOT to punish the masses for my own immediate gratification, thank you very much.

[dave29]

29. Look a mother of a dead soldier in the eye

I'd like John Kerry to do this and tell her how is not in some way responsible for her child's death, just so he could take a politically ambiguous position yet again.

This is what we are fighting in our party.

We have to stand for something, not for everything. When will the party leadership look US in the eye and tell us it stands behind it's principles? We are worthless as a party until then. We all want Bush out, and I don't doubt we'll make that happen - I just can't believe the remarkable lack of intelligence we are showing in who we are nominating.

:wtf:

[CTLawGuy]

31. Kerry helped create a lot of dead soldiers...

How dare a Kerry supporter invoke dead soldiers. WTF did Kerry do to even make a nominal attempt to stop Bush from engaging in an illegal war?

I will vote for him if he apologizes publicly for voting for IWR

[Kahuna]

10. LOL! That's a good question.

:eyes:

[Guaranteed]

12. How does nominating Kerry accomplish progressive goals?

Since we're technically STILL in the primary, that's the question that needs to be answered.

[RichM]

23. This is by far the more relevant question.

The lead poster is merely trying to frame the issue in a way that's most favorable to Kerry.

Just because Bush is a stupid assh*le doesn't mean that Kerry is a real progressive. The difference between these two framings of the question demonstrates the fallacy of the mindless "ABB" slogan.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

25. Cut it out and answer post 21

We living breathing Americans owe it.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

27. Fallacy of the ABB slogan?

ABB means anyone but Bush. Whether you agree or not, where is the fallacy?

[IrateCitizen]

28. The fallacy is looking beyond the mere surface of ABB

Many people seem to think that ABB will somehow solve all of our problems. It won't. Perhaps even more important than ABB is ensuring that that change moves us in a net positive direction, rather than continuing in a negative direction but at a slightly slower speed.

[BruinAlum]

36. That's ridiculous

Kerry has one of the most liberal records in the Senate, and of all the candidates, with the exception of Kucicnich. You're not even trying to be reasonable.

[BruinAlum]

33. It clearly doesn't

They are promoting Republican goals and impairing Democratic goals. I see no earthly reason why I shouldn't consider such a person the enemy/opposition. They are clearly out to do me and the Democratic Party harm.

[MadHound]

34. Quite frankly it isn't about Bush or Kerry

It is about giving government of the people, by the people and for the people back to the people. Quite frankly the ideological differences of the two parties have become entirely overshadowed by one large issue, the fact that our government is a bought and paid for subsidiary of big business. You've got Dems voting to offshore union jobs, you've got 'Pugs implementing steel tariffs. Both parties are controlled by the corporations, and the sooner people realize that, and act on it, the better off this country will be.

Putting Kerry into office will not solve these problems, in fact it won't even put on a new coat of paint to cover the problem. We will still be outsourcing all of our well paying manufacturing and hi-tech jobs. We will still have an increasingly widening gap between the rich and rest of us. We will still have record underemployment and working poor. We will still have NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, WTO, IMF, and the rest of the alphabet soup of unfair and immoral trade agreements. We will still have corporate and government intrusion into our lives at an unprecedented and ever expanding rate.

Face it folks, we are living life in the Second Gilded age, when party affiliation doesn't matter, and big business rules the roost. Corporate atrocities at home and abroad don't matter to these politicians. What is important in this day and age is money.

By voting third party many of us are looking to accomplish two things. First, to start building up a peoples' party, one that is responsive to us, and that isn't and won't be corrupted by corporate cash. The second matter is that we wish that maybe, just maybe if enough of us go third party we will get the Democrats to wake up and pay attention to us, instead of simply taking the progressive vote for granted. Why this year? Well, quite frankly the sooner we get started, the sooner we can reap the benefits of our work. The Green party didn't achieve the magic number of five percent to get matching funds. That is a goal to shoot for this year. And if this voting allows Bush to retain the office of the Presidency, so be it. In the past when the issue of going third party was brought up, we were enundated with cries of how (insert any 'Pug president here) was the devil incarnate. And we dutifully fell in line. Well enough is enough. With Dems having become as big a corporate whore as 'Pugs, the threat of one species of corporate whore over another is simply meaningless. Either one will continue to take us down the road that leads to corporate facism, the only difference is that the Dems actually might give us a kiss before bending us over(though judging by Clinton's actions vis-a-vis NAFTA, welfare "reform" and other matters, even that kiss is doubtful). See, we can't be frightened by throwing the election to a 'Pug boogeyman, because the Dem alternative is just as bad!

So this is why we're going to go third party. If it brings about disaster quicker, so be it, because disaster was coming even if a Dem was in office for the next twenty years. At least it will come to a head quicker, which will enable us to get our government back quicker. But make no mistake about it. Voting for ABB isn't a strategy for bringing about meaningful change, that proposition is long dead in the Democratic party. All ABB does is simply prolong the agony that we all are going through. Now if you're a masochist, then it might make sense to go ABB under those circumstances. But for the rest of us, all that lies down that path is insanity.

[Armstead]

38. It doesn't accomplish progressive goals, but that's irrelevant.

This has become the only real position of the Democratic party: "We're not Republicans."

Too often that is the only justification goven for support in campaigns. "You hyave to vote for us to keep the Republicans out."

Not exactly a positive agenda, or designed to whip up enthusiasm.

[still_one]

39. Well lets see

It allows the Supreme Court to be filled with Neo-cons which will outlaw abortion, and affirmative action.

It will allow the environmental rules to be eliminated so we can change the color of the air and water.

It will privitize social security and medicare, so healthcare will be based on profits, and not on helping people.

It will give us the opportunity to experience the draft again.

It will create media monopolies which will help control dissent.

The poor and the middle class will get poorer and the rich will get richer.

Education will be privitized. It will only be for an exclusive set of religious neo-cons.

I could go on, but you get the idea

[Gin]

40. we may get a Democratic president...but if we lose Senate seats..

the SCOTUS being more "right wing" will be a done deal....the dems in power now have a hard time as it is...by electing more of the thugs to the senate....and the dems will be paper tigers.

The presidency is but one peice of all of this. Clinton was strong...and had a terrible time.