"A vote for anyone but X is a vote for Bush"

[Mairead]

I tried to ask this question yesterday, but I was too tired to be coherent. With luck this try will make more sense.

I expect to suffer and to have our situation made worse whenever and while the GOP are in office. That's why I don't vote for them!

But I used not to expect the same thing to happen when the Dems are in office. Having a Dem administration kill people, trash our rights and our environment, and increase the wealth of the few at our expense somehow feels worse to me than when the GOP do it.

I expect the GOP to behave badly, but I don't expect it of the Dems (I'm no longer surprised when they do, but that's not quite the same as expecting it, if that makes sense). For the Dems to do it feels like an extra violation, a betrayal of trust, on top of the 'mundane' crimes of killing, destruction and impoverishment.

So for someone to demand that I vote for the Dem anyway feels as though they're demanding that I ratify the abuse. It feels broadly the way I think it might if I were a child being told that I must say that being molested by my father is less awful than being beaten and molested by the known psychopath who lives in the big house on the hill. Because, the adults say, there are only those two choices: daddy or the man in the big house. And only bad girls won't say they love their daddy.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

1. You Act Like There's No Difference Between Kerry and Bush

Your entire thesis appears to rest on that key assumption.

Because that assumption is completely insupportable, the rest of your thesis does not follow.

DTH

[Mairead]

6. Not so! I specified in the analogy that Bush beats us as well as effs us

You're making the argument I allude to: that because Bush is worse by some metric, he's worse by all metrics. I'm saying it doesn't feel that way to me. Betrayal is a major injury.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

9. How Does Kerry Betray You on 75-90% of the Issues?

Kerry is a liberal Democrat. You might not agree with him on everything, but no one agrees with anyone on everything.

Do you really think Kerry would have led us to war like Bush did? Do you really think Kerry would outsource jobs like Bush is?

I am not that pessimistic about a Kerry Presidency. I think he would reverse much of the damage done by Bush. And his Supreme Court picks, which are more important than just about anything else, will be night-and-day different from -- superior to -- Bush's.

DTH

[Mairead]

17. Wrong question. It's: how would he MEET OUR NEEDS?

From a WP article in another thread:

The result: Voters this year likely will be presented with two clear, but not dramatically different, approaches to solving the nation's domestic problems, ranging from failing schools to soaring drug costs. {the 'two' being BushCo's and DemCorp's}

Kerry and top Democratic congressional leaders have rejected broad policy changes such as repealing all of Bush's tax cuts and moving too quickly to provide health coverage to every American. "While some wanted everything, there is consensus around repealing those on high income," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Democrats said they will not promote completely undoing two other laws of which they have been highly critical: the No Child Left Behind accountability program for schools and educators; and the Medicare prescription drug plan. "In some places, we have learned lessons," said Kerry, who several times used the word "balanced" to describe the emerging Democratic approach.

They've already decided to leave us dangling on healthcare. They're not even going to do the for-profit one that's in Kerry's policy declarations. The Medicare prescription thing was greeted with enormous outrage, but they're not going to do anything about that, either.

So tell us: just what exactly WOULD we get with Kerry? That we want, I mean. And tell us too: how do you know that we would?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

31. Maintaining the Tax Cuts for the Poor and Middle Class Is a Good Thing

It's also the more liberal position to advocate for a more progressive taxation structure.

If NCLB was fully-funded, it might be a very different thing than what it is now. I don't think we know; we haven't really seen it in action, yet.

Healthcare will have to be an incremental thing. We don't have the votes in Congress to do anything more. You cannot substitute outrage and fire for the cold realty of numbers and votes.

DTH

[Mairead]

54. And that's it? That's what he's going to do for us?

That's all you can point to? Not cancelling a tax cut plus some speculation? And that's GOOD? That's going to meet the desperate needs we have as a nation?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

55. That's "It"? Not at All.

You're the one who raised those three issues as points of similarity, and I told you why they were different.

Kerry will do his best to roll back the tax cuts for the rich (huge), appoint liberal judges (huge), veto excesses from what will likely be a Republican-controlled Congress (huge), engage in an enlightened foreign policy (huge), fully fund social programs (huge), advance civil rights for women, people of color and the GLB community (huge), and so many other things I can't even begin to tell you.

That is a huge difference between Kerry and Bush, and I am shocked at anyone who believes otherwise.

DTH

[HFishbine]

43. "his Supreme Court picks"

That's just about the only compelling reason I thought there was to vote for Kerry. Can you tell us which SCOTU's justices Kerry has voted to confirm -- so we'll have some idea of what his standards are.

I'll get you started:

1) Antonin Scalia

[DoveTurnedHawk]

56. Honestly Fellow, Do You Really Believe Kerry Would Appoint Conservatives?

There is an enormous difference between court confirmations of old and judge selections of late.

It is incredible to me that anyone would believe Kerry would nominate conservative judges. Please come out and say exactly that, if you honestly believe it.

DTH

[HFishbine]

8. That misses the point

The point is not whether there is any difference between Bush or Kerry. This is not about the lesser of two evils. The point is, where does one go when the coice comes down to someone in whom you put no trust violating your principles, or someone (or some party) in which you put your trust violating your principles?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

10. If You're Saying Kerry Violates Most of Your Principles

Then I really don't understand your particular variety of liberal ideology, because Kerry is a solid liberal.

DTH

[HFishbine]

13. Don't put words in my mouth

I didn't say Kerry violates most of my principles, just some of the most important ones.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

14. Like Which Ones? (eom)

DTH

[RichM]

16. Can you grasp this not-so-subtle distinction?

Statement A: There is NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL between Kerry and Bush.

Statement B: There are some absolutely crucial points on which there is LITTLE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between Kerry and Bush.

Are you able to recognize that these two statements are not quite the same?

[Terwilliger]

18. are you kidding?

This from the same group that think Nader was saying that Bush and Gore were the same on abortion, etc. even though he was talking about the other 90% of issues where they are virtually the same. The only distinction that means anything is that they're part of the "D" team.

Rah! :eyes:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

29. Nader Lied When He Said Bush and Gore Were the Same

And they differed a LOT, on a LOT more than 10% of the issues.

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

See My Post #14

Which crucial issues? Let's get into it.

DTH

[RichM]

37. For example, Kerry wants to "win" in Iraq, & send more troops. He has

NEVER said that a major motivation for driving the country to war was OIL. He has NEVER even mentioned the word "oil" in that connection. He pretends that the war was about WMD, Saddam being a brutal tyrant, & "the security of the American people." He does NOT propose any cuts in the Pentagon budget. He attacked Dean (whom I don't care for, BTW) for saying, rightly, that Saddam's capture does NOT make Americans safer. // In brief, he accepts Bush's general conceptual framework for the Iraq war. He merely disagrees with the unilateral way Bush carried it out. A Kerry Iraq war would be very similar to Bush's war -- the main difference would be that he'd let France and Germany share the loot, instead of keeping it all to ourselves.

More broadly, Kerry does not ever voice awareness of the dark side of American militarism and imperialism (though he clearly KNOWS about it). He is forever presenting himself swathed in glorious symbols of the military. The US public has been led to believe for many decades that our country's foreign policy is noble and well-intentioned, standing for "defending freedom and democracy" in the world, while the reality is harshly different. Kerry won't get anywhere near challenging this terrible duping of the public (indeed, he seeks to gain from it himself, by playing the role of "war hero"). The REASON Kerry won't challenge this American delusion about itself, is that it plays too vital a role in protecting the interests of the US financial elite. If our government didn't spend untold fortunes violently crushing progressive movements all over the world & supporting repressive 3rd world regimes, our transnational corporations wouldn't have all that nice cheap labor and resources to exploit. Our economy needs it. Powerful interests depend on it, & Kerry is not going to expose any truths that make them uncomfortable.

The military industrial complex lies at the absolute center of the US economy AND political system. It has virtually nothing to do with "defending" Americans; rather, it is all about global domination, pounding the rest of the world into line, & also about huge profiteering. This is one of the central lies on which our society is now based, & Kerry is not in any way going to shine a light on all that.

Kerry is not about fundamental change. He is about applying a few bandaids to a thoroughly diseased & corrupted system. He will reverse some of the excesses (ie, the Bush tax cuts) but will leave the underlying structure firmly in place.

[paulk]

39. No one we elect is going to effect the kind of change you want.

The only way the structure can be changed is from the bottom up.

Do you agree that getting the Bush junta out of office is at least a step in the right direction?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

57. No One But the Fringe Left Is Saying That

The message you espouse is not one that 90+% of Americans would embrace.

Kerry is no radical, absolutely. He is not someone who is going to enact fundamental change, absolutely.

But he is much better than Bush on 75-90% of the issues, and that is good enough for me. Speaking only for myself, I am not so petulant that I demand revolutionary change and that alone, or else take my ball and go home.

DTH

[virtualobserver]

2. we can't afford a business as usual candidate...

if Dean drops out, my avatar changes to Kucinich.

[still_one]

4. The big question is...

Will you vote for whoever the nomination of the Democratic party is?

[virtualobserver]

7. that Depends.....

on whether an additional alternative to Bush exists.

By alternative, I mean someone who is in an actual position to win the election.

[bobthedrummer]

12. On Tuesday, here in WI he gets my VOTE.

I was looking seriously at Dean for an alternative candidate and am very disappointed by what I perceive. There is no alternative to Dennis Kucinich-he gets my vote Tuesday.

I'm ABB and am voting for the Democratic nominee in GE as an independent.

[masshole]

3. get some more sleep

you need it BAD

[Desertrose]

26. let me guess...

you are well named....and I'll take a guess,too, at who you are supporting...

Sorry masshole- just haven't heard that nickname for awhile :)
Peace
DR

[masshole]

51. at times, I suppose I am

;)
but I am a Dean supporter.
I will however, support John Kerry 100% if he is in fact the Nominee.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Bonobo]

11. Amen, brother/sister!

[lovedems]

15. I couldn't agree with you more!

I don't think this election is about me, it is about the future of this country and it includes the SCOTUS, the war mongering, the deficits, the continued shifts in the balance of power (all of the re-districting). I have 4 kids and my vote in November 2004 has very little to do with me and alot to do with the their future.

[Lefta Dissenter]

19. WOW, Well stated, aqua!

We can't afford to collect our marbles and go home in a snit just because the nominee is not 'perfect'. I will go ahead and vote for Wes Clark on Tuesday, but then I will take a deep breath and find whatever I can do to help the Democratic nominee win the election in November. That's the ONLY way we can begin to reclaim our country.

(saying this as I'm listening to the 'proud to be an American' song being sung at the d-500. Yes, I AM proud to be an American, I'm proud of the dissent that is my heritage and my future! So THERE you asshole right-wingers!)

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[tobius]

24. follow up ques: will JFK be able to get his noms thru the gop senate? n/t

[poskonig]

25. Using the bully pulpit, yes.

More importantly, we won't have George W. Bush rubberstamping Tom DeLay's wackos on the high court.

[JVS]

28. What bully pulpit? This is 2004 not 1904, and Kerry is no Teddy Roosevelt

[poskonig]

34. He's beating the crap out of your candidate.

What would Dean do? Say "yeeeeearrrrgh" and have everyone fall in line? :crazy:

[JVS]

35. Umm, back to the topic, what bully pulpit?

[poskonig]

36. The office of the presidency, of course.

One can make public appearances, go to states with moderate senators of the opposing party and publically apply pressure, and so forth. Bush does this well, and Kerry understands how leverage works in this game.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[mike_c]

27. he also stands for...

...the Bush tax cuts for the rich, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the USA PATRIOT Act. Sorry-- that's not the person who represents my interests!

[poskonig]

32. Kerry wants to repeal the tax cuts for the rich.

In addition, Kerry would not have invaded Iraq. There is not a substantive, robust case against Kerry.

Like, bummer dude. With Kerry's rollback of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, repeal of attacks on the environment, and appointment of progressive judges on the Supreme Court, we are like, so totally screwed. </SARCASM>

[no name no slogan]

49. Hey may not have invaded Iraq, but we're there now...

and he has NO PLAN to get us out of there anytime soon. In fact, he wants to send MORE troops!

Escallation didn't work in Vietnam, and it sure won't work in Iraq, either. Sure, Kerry may not be as bad as Shrub, but he's not going to be distinguishably different on several key issues that motivate Democratic voters.

[snoochie]

50. Kerry said Saddam brought military action on himself

He just wanted a coalition before getting his war on.

He, like bush, favored invading over the 'WMD threat'.

What threat they're talking about is still the subject of an investigation.

[JVS]

21. "A vote for anyone but X is a vote for Bush" is a falsehood

A vote for A is a vote for A
A vote for B is a vote for B
A vote for C is a vote for C
A vote for D is a vote for D
...

[Dr Fate]

23. But at the end of the day, we will either have Bush, or a better man.

I'll pick the better man over any logic-math games you can throw at me.

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Desertrose]

33. I get it Mairead.....but am amazed at how many don't...and

that is what really scares me...

To have a chance at the best...AND to get rid of Bush...or to go for someone they *think* can eliminate bush and excuse me, but how anyone thinks Kerry has this certain lock on beating Bush... I just don't see it.

Before anyone goes to the trouble of trying to explain it all to me...I have heard all the arguments...I have been paying attention to what the spin is about Kerry...I am just not buying into it.

I know what you are saying Mairead...I get it completely...I find it disturbing that so many others do not.

But we will do what we can,eh?
Peace
DR

[TreasonousBastard]

38. I understand what you are saying...

but I just can't agree.

The Democratic Party is not a family, social services agency, religion or anything else but a political party. I rather prefer it to most of the others, particularly those elephant types, but it is still far from perfect.

It contains its own fair supply of aggrandized egos, incompetant gasbags, criminals, unbridled ambition, and other such annoyances, as all political parties do.

The Democratic Party has, in my memory, helped steal the election for Kennedy, did what it could to maintain racism and apartheid in the South, filled many states prisons with ex-mayors, started every war but one in the 20th Century, and has otherwise competed handsomely with the Republicans for perfidy, albeit in various different directions.

I do expect Republicans to bribe the wealthy for support, and Democrats to bribe the poor and not so well off. I expect modern Democrats to have more respect for the environment and civil rights, but don't always know just how much more.

Basically, I don't expect much from Democrats, and nothing at all from Republicans.

That's not a particular slam at Democrats, just the political reality of living in this two-party system. Quite frankly, even if we had a dozen more parties with power, the little ones would soon enough learn to play the game and lose their innocence.

So, I am not terribly happy with Kerry for various reasons which I need not dwell on, but I am happier with him than quite a few of the other candidates. I am also happier with him than with the only other alternative in the GE. Much happier.

As far as issues go, I am in general agreement with him about 90% or so.

But, issues, or voting records, are not the only thing. No politician can get everything he wants, and I think we all recognize that as a good thing, even if it's some of the things we want that they can't get.

More to the point is one's attitude toward governing, personal principles on where to draw the lines, and the trust that the President, or any other elected official, will do the best to his ability for the good of the nation.

All of this is assuming Kerry has it in the bag, and that seems to be a fair assumption so far.

Even if he doesn't get it, one basic point still stands-- there can be only one winner. If "our" guy in the primary didn't get it, we still have to worry about the GE. We are electing a President later this year, and if we are seriously interested in electing the best person for the job, we have to vote for the best person who can win, not a vanity, protest, or conscience vote that likely won't even be recorded.

The best person who can win in November will be the Democratic candidate.

Even if it's someone I don't like all that much.

[buddhamama]

40. excuse me a moment while i laugh out loud

i have spent countless hours on DU 'discussing' my vote in the last election. i am to blame obviously for putting Bush in office because i chose to vote for the candidate of my choice not theirs. so imagine my surprise to come here this morning and read on more than one thread DUers whom have chastised me endlessly over the last election, making statements that would have the same effect, if DEM candidate "X" should get the nod they won't vote for him.

[KFC]

41. Trying hard to rationalize keeping Bush in office

I say we'll be better off with that bastard out. But that's just me.

BTW, what Democrats have "behaved badly"?

[mvd]

42. I don't think people who vote for someone other than Bush..

AND our nominee are necessarily bad Democrats. But even as a Kucinich supporter, I'm going to support our nominee because he has a chance of getting Bush out of the White House. I just don't think I could take another 4 years of Bush - I think I'd move unless he stole the election again. In that case, I'd see how much other outrage there is first. I love the U.S. and want to stay - a very, very important election is coming.

[corporatewhore]

44. I counter my friens who say that by: Avote for a freetrade guy isa votefor

Outsourcing of jobs
Slavery
oppression
rape of land
theft of indgenious peoples land
militarization
privatisation of public services
rampant corporatism

[John_H]

45. LOL! n/t

[Goldberg]

46. Well, a vote for the main candidate would be much better...

than voting for someone who doesn't have a chance, right? I mean, after all, this coming election is very important to defeat Bush...correct?

[revcarol]

48. So when did the primaries end??

And when did people stop contributing to their candidates who aren't Kerry?

And when did people stop pointing out the differences between candidates?

Sounds like the media, my friend. We should all just sit down and shut up...

[HereSince1628]

47. X isn't going to be on a ballot until next fall, let's quit this.

This is not only very old (there's been about a year of this on DU) and it verges on inappropriate sort of social pressure.

All this pressure for unity seems rather akin to gleichschaltung, doesn't it? I find the whole advocacy for one-people, one-party, one-candidate very uncomfortable in a time when the country as a whole is under a dark cloud of authoritarianism.

Can't we let DU be a place where the sun shines on the faces of persons with different beliefs and where fear isn't the driving factor?

The primary season will end, the convention will occur, one candidate will be endorsed by the democratic party. There is plenty of time to let people play out their hopes and dreams, and plenty of time for people to grieve hopes and dreams that fail.

[NV1962]

52. Two key differences: primaries/GE and unity/perfectionism

In primaries, I truly resent "appeals to unity" - for the general elections, I think such appeals make sense (personally, I even consider it a moral imperative, especially this year, to vote united against Bush.)

Then, there's the issue of casting a "pragmatic vote" versus an "idealistic vote." In an ideal world, we'd all be living and breathing pragmatism. In this real and much more complex world, I believe we need to be pragmatic while focused on the ideal.

However... It's a democracy - do what ya gotta do.

[bowens43]

53. Everyone should vote their conscience.

If you can't support the Dem nominee then don't vote for him. It is your right to vote for or not vote for anyone you chose.