Why I Cannot Vote in 2008

[NanceGreggs]

After looking over the candidates and weighing my options and my principles, I realize that I cannot, in good conscience, vote for any of the current crop seeking election in 2008.

I don’t think it necessary to even comment on the GOP contenders. Given the events of the past six-plus years, I think it goes without saying that anyone with an (R) after their name is not worthy of consideration – despite the fact that Giuliani single-handedly saved NYC from the terrorists (albeit after-the-fact), the fact that Freddie Thompson has been established as the Great White Hope (sans applause), the fact that McCain will whup everybody’s asses (as soon as he scrounges up the bus fare to get to where those asses reside), the fact that Tancredo’s idea of threatening to bomb Islamic holy sites can’t help but convince the Middle East that our only hope is peace and understanding.

That being said, let me address the real contenders, the Democrats, and my reasons for not being able to vote for a single one of them.

In keeping with my personal principles, I cannot vote for anyone who does not agree one-hundred percent with my own views on every issue, from education to the War in Iraq, from the economy to the separation of Church and State, from mint-chip being the best flavor of ice-cream Baskin Robbins has to offer to taupe travertine tile being the only reasonable option for a front-entrance foyer. (Who doesn’t know that a neutral color is the best choice in today’s volatile resale market, I ask you?)

My vote can only be cast for the candidate who lives in a home of reasonable square-footage, who spends exactly the right amount of money on a haircut, who displays exactly the right amount of religious fervor that is not too hot, not too cold, but is just right.

My perfect candidate wears an American flag lapel pin which is positioned in exactly the right place on his/her suit jacket, which is made of politically-correct fiber and was purchased at a price that I deem to be not only acceptable, but worthy of applause.

Not only must my candidate be beyond reproach in both their public and private lives (not only currently, but from the day they were born), every person employed by their campaign, every family member, every friend they have ever had, every acquaintance they have ever known, every person on earth they have ever seen or spoken to MUST be equally free of scandal, real or imagined, and MUST be ready, willing and able to prove their innocence of any wrongdoing – whether such wrongdoing ever occurred or not.

My candidate meets my expectations in every regard, and never wavers one iota from my personal beliefs on any topic, including immigration, international diplomacy, white meat versus dark meat as the best part of the turkey, baseball versus football as the most exciting sport, or bridesmaids’ having a choice of dresses versus the bride having the final say, like it or not.

My candidate must have the right last name, the right spouse, the right number of children, the right campaign slogan, the right website, and must never have verbalized anything positive about a movie I dislike, their fondness for a vegetable I loathe, or offer anything less than a total condemnation of songs I hate, TV shows I think are dumb, or books I found totally boring and over-rated by the so-called critics.

My candidate for sainthood must be able to prove their direct involvement in at least three miracles before I can consider their beatification in furtherance of – oh, we’re not choosing candidates for sainthood? We’re discussing candidates for the presidency – among people who are flawed, less-than-perfect human beings who are capable of mistakes? People who aren’t all-knowing, all-seeing, all-everything I ever desired in a president?

Oh, I see now.

Okay.

Nevermind.

[durrrty libby]

1. K & R Well Done

:thumbsup:

[IndianaGreen]

2. The "one-hundred percent" agreement on issues is a strawman argument

However, some issues are of such importance that they trump all others. For example, there is no point in supporting a candidate that feels that the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights, is not worth fighting for (or impeaching for). There is also no point in supporting a candidate that fails to see the moral imperative of protecting human rights (by not torturing, for example), or that considers international law a bothersome constraint on our doing what we please to whoever we please.

[Frances]

7. Lighten up!

It's Saturday night. Even saints need a break every now and then.

[NanceGreggs]

10. It's NOT a "one hundred percent agreement" argument ...

It's just a little bit of reality, delivered with a healthy dollop of levity, served somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Lighten up, my friend. It's good for your soul.

And I mean that in all sincerity.

[IndianaGreen]

11. I'll drink to that!

:toast:

[NanceGreggs]

17. May I join you?

:toast:

It's time to have a relaxing Friday night among friends!

Shalom!

[ChiciB1]

54. Glad You Wrote This... I've Been So VERY Sick And More Than Suspicious

of many posts of late! While I myself do support ONE candidate, and there is one I feel I DON'T want to vote for... TRASHING is simply that TRASHING!

[Warren Stupidity]

63. I'm confused then.

"I cannot vote for anyone who does not agree one-hundred percent with my own views on every issue"

Is quite simply a one hundred percent agreement argument and therefore a strawman. Of course you meant it in jest, but that is what your statement is: a joking mischaracterization of the opposition to the kleptocracy and war party candidates running as nominal Democrats.

[noamnety]

68. That's a good summary.

I'm mocking you with stupid shit that deliberately misrepresents your points completely.

PS. You don't get to defend your position, cause I was MOCKING you. You are inherently wrong for not letting this misrepresentation stand unchallenged. Lighten up and laugh at me mocking you, it's good for your soul.

The thing that ruined it was including serious issues. The end result is mocking people for refusing to compromise on the war, for example.

If it had just focused on candidates' height, or amount of cleavage showing, or flag pin wearing, or similar superficial things, it could have had some merit.

Instead it comes off as mocking people for not compromising core principles. I'd rather see a post mocking those who WILL compromise core principles.

[NanceGreggs]

80. I was very deliberate in my choice of words ...

"I cannot vote for anyone who does not agree one-hundred percent with my own views on every issue from ..."

Not important issues, or core principles, but every issue, including choice of favourite ice-cream flavour. I lumped the sublime and the ridiculous together for a reason.

I am mocking people who were completely behind a candidate because they agreed with their positions on the war, health care, education - and then started trashing that same candidate when they found out he/she lives in too big a house, or drives a vehicle they don't approve of, or has a friendly relationship with someone they hate.

In short, I am not 'mocking people for not compromising core principles' - but rather people who aren't willing to support a candidate based on core principles, instead of based on trivialities that don't matter nearly as much as getting us out of Iraq, coming up with a solution to the healthcare crisis, etc.

[truedelphi]

94. It'sjust Nancy Greggs- When she burps it is nominated forty seven hundred times

Sometimes she is worthy - this time, she's confused. And I am not at all clear if she understands your concerns - I am not sure that "kleptocracy" is in Gregg's vocabulary

After all, D Kucinich does live in the house of adequate but not above average square footage, likes mint chip ice cream, and most importantly wants out of Iraq, he would work to achieve Universal health coverage (single payer,) and perhaps get us out of working class-middle class Destroyer Policies (such as CAFTA and NAFTA) etc.

So unless she remains confused, she'll vote for DK.

[NanceGreggs]

97. I'm not confused about the candidates ...

... or where they stand on issues that are critical to the direction of the country.

What I am confused about is why some people think that the sound of Hillary's laugh is of such vital importance to the nation, it should be analyzed, argued about, debated - or discussed at all.

Personally, I LOVE Hillary's laugh; I find it delightful and infectious.

However, I totally disagree with her stance on Iraq and her pro-corporation attitude.

My lack of support for her candidacy is based on the latter, not the former.

[truedelphi]

116. BTW, my husband just happened to red this OP of yours, & likes it far better than anything else you

(Which is why we are getting divorced tomorrow! ;-) )

The Hillary laugh brou-ha-ha (I guess that's a somewhat intended pun) is a SAD statement on the MSM - her laugh is *really* wonderful. Anyone's laugh would start to be obnoxious after a moment or two spun through a tape loop.

That sort of thing is unfair. But it is a hypnotic device and it works very well into mesmerizing some people. Back in 2004, that device took two people I knew and formerly liked and had them saying "I'd vote for John Kerry but his wife is a conceited snob."

Even though people who really know and are friends with Teresa Heinz say that she isn't. But the MSM has the time and energy to spin any aspect of any candidate's being any way they want to.

[NanceGreggs]

119. Yes, as we all learned with the infamous Dean Scream fiasco.

The first time I saw that video clip was on a Canadian news station. You could hardly hear Dean above the din in the audience; people were yelling, screaming, applauding.

The next time I saw it, of course, was on an American news station. Amazing how people within just a few feet of Dean can be seen screaming away - and yet there is not a sound coming out of their mouths, no sound of their obviously wild applause, etc.

Amazing indeed ...

[Warren Stupidity]

143. Ah, will pitt farted syndrom, I see, thanks. nt.

[durrrty libby]

15. Don't forget.

www.mycommitment.org

It will make your soul sing

[NanceGreggs]

37. I read it ...

... and it did indeed bring a song to my soul. Thanks for sharing that, my friend!

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Perfectly Stated

I can overlook a disagreement on, say, farm subsidies - but backing war, torture, shredding of our constitution, and the wholesale outsourcing of American jobs is beyond the pale.

[emilyg]

27. You need a drink, too. Relaxes-vous.

[vssmith]

43. I have been drinking for going on seven years now

[emilyg]

26. Go fix yourself a drink or something.

[L0oniX]

66. Peak oil trumps all other conserns

Google peak oil and read up.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[HughMoran]

109. Strawmen are tasty when roasted over an open fire

Typical example of an all or nothing argument - she has you pegged.

[IndianaGreen]

154. Enjoy living under tyranny!

You fully deserve it!

[HughMoran]

161. That's a horrible thing to say

You really are all or nothing, my way or the highway - exactly what you criticize all here for. What a bad quality to have.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. My dear Nance!

What's this?

A path?

Oh, I see!

A GARDEN path!

And you're leading us down it!

:rofl: :rofl:

Well done, sweetie!

K&R, of course...

:applause: :applause:

:hug:

[silverweb]

4. LOL

Great job, Nancy!

You've articulated far better than I ever could exactly what I've been thinking when I read some of the posts here.

:applause:

[More Than A Feeling]

5. *snicker*

I feel that way sometimes, and it makes me defensive when I'm reminded of Edwards' flaws (which he does have, shock o' shocks!) I have to remember to remind myself that no matter how much they try to build themselves up, these are just people.

[NanceGreggs]

6. Exactly, H&E!

I wish everyone would remember we are choosing from amongst 'just people', and not flawless beings from an alternate universe.

[vssmith]

56. Correction

We are not choosing from amongst 'just people'--We are choosing from amongst 'power-hungry people'

[samplegirl]

8. Incredible post!

I have just the right person to pass this along to. Thank you for making such straight forward valid points.
K&R Great Job!

[onehandle]

9. I never go outside unless it's a perfect day.

I never go outside.

Good post.

[NanceGreggs]

13. Hmmm ...

That's another reason I haven't found my perfect candidate. Where do any of the current contenders stand on what constitutes the the perfect day, and their ability to deliver same on a regular basis?

Apparently, you share my lack of faith in this entire process ...

[Kurovski]

12. K&R. (nt)

[Mz Pip]

14. Damn you, Purist!!

:rofl:

Now about those miracles. I've got a couple of things I'd like to submit for consideration. And dman it! I won't vote for that candidate unless he/she walks on water (or floats across the sky) and grants at least one of them.

:thumbsup:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Tinksrival]

16. Sadly the DU is now........

One stop shopping for the GOP smear machine in '08. :(

[comtec]

142. You say that as though it's a BAD thing?

Seriously, what ARE you smoking.
Bashing the gop , aside from cathartic, is necessary. it's also like shooting ducks in a barrel.
The average goper now a days is ill educated/informed. And with teh internet that is a unforgivable sin!
There are more than a few ways to educate yourself about the realities behind an issue and choosing not to do so is a crime against this country!
Yes I said it's a CHOICE! There is free internet access all over the place, and while old pharts are probably lacking the skills, there is little excuse for modern kids (anyone under 25 should know how it all works, at least on a point n click level)!

There is free access and help and the like at libraries all over the country (and world, libraries are safe as they can enforce certain policies, like no porn).

The better part about libraries is that's were these things called BOOKS reside, many books, especially HISTORY BOOKS! I have lost all my sympathy for the pathetic gop voters. They are NOT republicans, they DON'T believe in the republic, they are nearly all self centered, selfish, ill informed bastards, who GULP down the fixed noise news gallons at a time, as long as they can goto wal-mart (your own slice of fascism) and get their 10 dollar shot guns, so they can go out and kill things to feel like a MAN!

All the while not giving a rat's infested ass that they are destroying the world, the economy, and their own lives, as well as their own livelihoods! to hell with SOCIAL medicine, we don't wan t to be no COMMIEZ like kanada! To hell with common sense, we want out gallon beer!

If this post seems like a harsh reply... I haven't even gotten started.. but I'll stop none the less.

BTW nice ironic post Nancy :)

[Tinksrival]

147. You misunderstood my post

My point was that the GOP could just read The DU for dirt to use against Dem Candidates. They don't need to search far on the internets.

But your right about Nancy's ironic post being nice. :hi:

[comtec]

148. Sadly that does make a good point

my bad :)

[hlthe2b]

18. I know what you mean... How can I ever vote for someone...

who does not share my love for my particular favorite flavor ice cream from Baskin Robbins?










:sarcasm:

[NanceGreggs]

20. Oh, I hear ya, my friend.

I'd almost be willing to accept pistachio as a viable alternative (if the candidate was truly sincere in their reasoning) - but, let's face it, we've all got to draw the line somewhere.

[tomreedtoon]

19. Sadly, that's how many people will feel.

I know it was intended as humor, but this is a time when the political process is so poisonous that this is why many people will not vote.

I know a lady who insists that she won't vote because "it just encourages them." She won't listen to arguments that she is simply opting out of the process, and has become the passive recipient of whatever the elected officials wish to sicc on her.

In Obama's book, he reported he was asked why a nice, intelligent man like him would wish to be involved in something as Satanic as politics. The idea of compromise has left American life. Absolutism has spread all over the place, partially due to attack ads, partially by the paranoia that everyone has suffered beginning with Kennedy's assassination. And "vote suppression" is the way you win elections now.

Ms. Greggs could take the sarcasm out of the article, leave the other opinions, and publish it, and one humongous quantity of people would nod their heads and say "Yeah." And I'm not certain that they'd be wrong.

[NanceGreggs]

21. Oh, so sadly ...

... you are right in saying what you have.

That's why we all have to keep fightin' the good fight.

[tomreedtoon]

53. We need someone to convince everyone to fight.

I don't want to get into partisanship, but there's only one candidate - whom I will not name - who gives speeches that suggest the American spirit isn't dead, that we can have hope - that we should permit ourselves to have hope. One candidate among the Democrats, and none among the Republicans.

It's almost a farce to see the Mitt Romney ads that are running in Florida now. He tries to sound so impressive, when his message is "I'm going to proudly carry on the tradition of George Bush - without a single malaprop!" It must be embarrassing to work for that man, or to do it with a straight face, unless he pays his volunteers well.

Romney has deep pockets, so I'm expecting to see even more unadulterated stoicism from him in the campaign. It may be the only really fun part of this election cycle.

But if the barn-burner candidate I mentioned keeps talking...maybe reaching out to the people who have no hope, and convince them that their vote still counts...that might make it worth living through the next six years.

[madamesilverspurs]

22. Troublemaker!

Here I was, all ready to call it a day. One last check of DU, then time for lights out. Uh oh. So now I'm all wired up again, thanks to a second read while imagining you speaking your words to O'Reilly and Hannity and Coulter...and visualizing the look in their eyes as they realize that they have been utterly and totally outclassed. You are definitely a danger to the reality-challenged population. Awesome, just awesome!

[classof56]

75. Well, said Troublemaker. Couldn't agree more. And--

if you're new to DU, welcome! Even if you're not new, welcome anyway! Glad to have you on board.

Tired Old Cynic

[maximusveritas]

24. Excellent

Another one that bothers me is what I call the experience excuse. Like the other things you mentioned, I think it's just an excuse for people to disgard candidates they don't like for other reasons.
People will say they don't think a certain candidate is experienced enough, just because they don't pass this magical experience threshold, which is usually set at some random number of years in the US Senate. Of course, if you serve as Governor or mayor, you're automatically experienced enough, no matter how long you serve. And serving in state government or your local community counts for nothing.
And all that despite the fact that some of our best Presidents had the least experience prior to being elected and some of our worst had the most experience.

[emilyg]

25. K&R

[frogcycle]

28. Damn you Nance!

I swore some time ago I would abstain from logging in to DU, thus avoiding getting sucked into inane feces-throwing fests.

But you just lured me off the wagon. Not that this is one of those inanities; just that you made me log in to tell you what a delight it is to read everything you write.

You are a TEMPTRESS!


Oh, and I feel that if a candidate's image has not appeared on my grilled cheese sandwich, then he/she is totally unworthy.

[NanceGreggs]

29. So glad to have you here, frogcycle ...

... and surely the image-in-the-grilled-cheese sandwich is a test that only the worthy can survive - sort of a modern-day version of extracting Excalibur from the stone.

:hi:

[frogcycle]

60. Thank You Nance!

seeing some of the negative responses in this thread reminds me why I went on the wagon, and reinforces that decision.

I was sooooo tempted to jump in and call several of them out - you know - get into feces-throwing - but I have restrained myself, as I see you have too. It amuses me no end to see protestations against your biting satire - but then, those who demand perfection almost by definition must insist on the rectitude of their demands. It is like arguing with a religious zealot; as long as it all circles back to "you're a deluded heathen; I'm right; you're wrong; the devil is in you" no actual discourse is possible. My congratulations on your ability to dismiss their sophomoric comments.

back to my lily pad...

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pushed To The Left]

31. K&R! It's scary how much your post resembles a lot of the real ones on DU! n/t

[DFW]

32. I think she's got it

By George (no relation), I do believe she's got it.

(apologies to 'enry 'iggins and GBS).

[apex nerd]

33. If the Democrats nominate a pumpkin...

then I'm voting for the pumpkin.

(And if any of these candidates walked on water, they would be criticized for not learning how to swim.)

[NanceGreggs]

35. "And if any of these candidates walked on water ...

... they would be criticized for not learning how to swim."

One of those great phrases that I wish I had thought of myself!

Edited to add: I was so dazzled by your way with words, I totally FORGOT to welcome you aboard the Good Ship DU! Looking forward to seeing more of you on-deck, matey!

:hi:

[wiley]

95. Cheers! and Welcome!

[ourbluenation]

163. me too. I'd vote for the devil himself if there was a D next to his name.

welcome to DU

:hi:

[avrdream]

34. Oh shit, you got me. My heart sank.

After all your REASONABLE posts, I was shocked that you couldn't vote for at least ONE of the Dems. Then I kept reading.

As usual, good job pointing out the obvious.

[DeepModem Mom]

36. A great one! K&R!

[gateley]

38. Brilliant. Thank you! nt

[Mythsaje]

39. Unfortunately, Nance, I have my standards.

I don't expect them to be perfect, just clearly better than a Republican in all the areas that matter.

:shrug:

[NanceGreggs]

40. Clearly better than a Republican?

Well, if you're going to set the threshold that low ...

[Mythsaje]

41. LOL...

What can I say? I'm generous. ;)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

76. Well then, rejoice! All the possible Democratic nominees easily meet your standards.

So you're sure to have someone you can vote for in good conscience.

[Mythsaje]

82. If only...n/t

[watercolors]

42. Our perfect candidate

will be the won who wins the nomination for our party. Hopefully we will all come together and do the responsible thing and VOTE for him or her! Thats all that counts in the long run, because we have to regain control of our country.

[zazzle]

100. I'm voting for John Edwards!

Obama can't win the nomination and it's doubtful Hillary could win the general - but Edwards would.

[Prophet 451]

44. Couldn't agree more

However, if we're talking sainthood, I propose Fred Rogers as the first American saint.

[GTurck]

45. Beautiful...

satire.

[cali]

46. Nice, Nance!

Spot on piece of snark and a fun read.

[trof]

47. OK, you had me goin' for a minute there.

Nicely done.

[Vidar]

48. Cute & recommended.

[mmonk]

49. My candidate must have a conscience about the ongoing Iraq occupation

and support the constitution unequivocally without a second thought. That's basic, not seeking a miracle.

[mmonk]

59. I want to add I love this part

"We’re discussing candidates for the presidency – among people who are flawed, less-than-perfect human beings who are capable of mistakes? People who aren’t all-knowing, all-seeing, all-everything I ever desired in a president?"

[ileus]

50. Hillary is the one for you...n/t

[DWilliamsamh]

51. Nance, You almost broke my heart...

I read the headline and mentally screamed, "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!! Not Nance. They couldn't have gotten to my girl. Arrrrgghhhh."

I thought for a minute and a half that all the nay sayers and purists had broken your spirit. I thought I was going to have to write you a personal message imploring you not to succumb to the the dark side of segmentation politics.

And then.....

I felt the verbal smack in the back of the head! How refreshing!

DW

[ChiciB1]

52. I WILL Vote For One... But Otherwise I'm In Total Agreement With You!

I find it amazing that many many Democrats are coming to this conclusion! AND we ALL know what this means! While we tout how many GREAT candidates we have, as time goes by I see Democrats peeling away from most of them!

And there is ONE that almost makes my skin crawl! NEVER in my life have I said that about a Democratic candidate... but "shit happens!"

[riona]

55. I hope this serves as a wake-up call

This country is in a mess and one big reason because qualified voters willingly stay home on election day. Well, thanks a bunch. I hope your idealism or whatever has been so satisfying that you haven't minded losing a few battles. Our latest Supremes are delightful - their agenda is so obvious that they may as well not bother listening to opposing arguments. Abortion rights are being chipped away like a sculpture in progress. Oh, and if you haven't noticed, church and state are getting all warm and cozy. Have you convinced yourselves that Kerry would have invaded Iraq? I could go on and on - but it doesn't matter to you because you worship at the shrine of idealism. But remember one thing, there's a certain block of voters who will get out no matter what. Can you guess who they are??

[Totally Committed]

57. I have loved and admired your work for a very long time.

This is the first time I've ever felt personal insult in it.

I guess that's okay as far as track records go, but it's still diappointing. Between you and our other resident author, those of us without your talents don't stand a chance these days. You don't agree with our stand so we are held up to ridicule and derision.

I'm sorry you can't understand how hopeless and abandoned people like me feel. We feel our country is gone, and now our Party is, too. I hope you never feel that hopelessness. I hope you never feel that no matter who you vote for the country, the Party, and all your fellow Americans will get screwed.

That's the reason I can't sleep some nights. That's the reason I worry about my grandchildren. That's the reason why I cry every time I think about the state of this Party, this country. I grew up wanting and expecting so much more for all of us. Why does that make me and people like me a target for your enormous talent?

Oh, I see now.

Okay.

Nevermind.



TC

[NanceGreggs]

125. I don't know how you can think I am ridiculing your 'stand' ...

... when I don't even know what your 'stand' is.

As an example of what I was talking about in the OP, Hillary is far from being my favourite horse in this race. That's because her position on the issues that are important to me are too often diametrically opposed to my own, or what I think is best for my country.

I choose not to support her based on that criteria, and NOT the fact that her last name is Clinton, or because she doesn't like broccoli, or because she wears turquoise suits (I HATE turquoise and, BTW, I think she looks AWFUL in that colour). But none of those things are important in choosing a president - however, from what I am seeing here on DU of late, those kinds of things are being discussed and argued as though they actually matter.

I've seen discussions about Obama and the flag pin, or lack thereof - again, as though something like that matters. If someone is going to seriously discount this man's ability to lead the country based on whether he wears a pin in his lapel or not, then I am going to hold them up to ridicule - and I think they deserve it.

I was deliberate in choosing ridiculous things - like favourite ice-cream flavours and the colour of the tile in one's foyer - in order to make it abundantly clear that those were the kinds of trivial things that SHOULDN'T be part of serious political discussion.

You are certainly not alone in your constant worry over our country, and where it is headed. We are all worried, and there are literally hundreds of reasons why our bouts of despair are warranted.

But throwing Edwards' haircuts, or Hillary's accent, or Biden's lack of enthusiasm over the new season of Curb Your Enthusiasm into the mix doesn't get us any closer to choosing the appropriate candidate to lead us out of the mess we're in.

[bear425]

58. Nance, you forgot that your candidate must be the right height, too.

Even though Madison, both Adams, VanBuren and Harrison were short - 9-11 changed everything, doncha know.

edit: k/r

[Rosa Luxemburg]

61. A crop, LOL!

home grown! :hi:

[LWolf]

62. You are way more extreme than I.

I can vote for many candidates that don't agree with my positions on different issues.

I just have a very FEW issues that are deal breakers.

The top of that short list of deal breakers:

DLC/Corporate politicians who will continue to allow big money and power holders to influence them more than average citizens.

Also: those who will not take responsibility for their votes, stands, or actions, or who cannot take a clear stand on an issue.

Also: those who are willing to allow people to die for someone's financial gain.

And finally: those who do not do everything they can to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.

While your little satire is quite good, it mis-characterizes most of us who stand on the above principles. It's not about perfection, and it's not about getting a candidate who clones our pov. It's about fundamental principles of social and economic justice, of freedom and democracy, of ethics in government.

It is a better service to the party and the nation to withhold votes from candidates who violate the above principles than to continue to put them in office.

All the satire in the world doesn't change that point.

[NanceGreggs]

83. But that's my point!

Yes, we all have 'deal-breakers' - that's as it should be. But let's confine those 'deal breakers' to things of substance (like the issues you have set out above), and NOT things like who wears a flag lapel pin and who doesn't, or how much someone spends on a haircut.

[LWolf]

102. You are correct about that.

The flag-pin, the haircut...they are irrelevant. Many of us have serious concerns about some of the current candidates on those items of substance.

It's not campaign rhetoric for me. I'm not just trying to promote one, while tearing down the others. I really do see grave problems within the party structure, and with some of those running. I don't see how we can make a difference in the WH or in Congress if those inner problems aren't addressed first.

[NanceGreggs]

106. I think MOST of us have serious concerns ...

... about party structure, and some of those running. I know I do.

It's really coming down to a chicken-and-egg situation. My feeling is to get the WH and a solid majority in '08, and then get to work on the inner party problems.

If we have to scream at our party reps then, at least there's a chance for them to do something constructive for the country. That puts us in a much better position, IMHO, than screaming our heads off at Dems who are again in the minority, and have no hold on the presidency.

[Sander]

64. Nance - You Did it Again!

You are by far my favorite blogger. If you were on TV, you'd give Keith Olbermann a run for his money.

Each week, month after month, you come up with such insightful commentaries, I am left speechless. Thanks for all you do.

:toast: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :toast:

[L0oniX]

65. I totally agree and no one is addressing the biggest issue ...peak oil

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

We are at peak oil production right NOW! Oil consumption is still growing. We are a doomed country and everyone is playing the ostridge with their heads in the sand about this issue. It is a very extremely serious and dangerous to everyone on a personal level. I challenge anyone who doubts this to Google peak oil and do a hour of reading and tell me that a catastrophe is not on our door step.

Get ready to do without gas and be out on the streets without a job and by all means get a gun and get ready to defend your family against all your fellow american asscarrots who will steal your food and rape your wife. The best thing you could do is to move away from big cities where it will be the worst. Maybe get a small farm and plenty of guns.

Go ahead and laugh. You won't be laughing for long!

[philosophie_en_rose]

67. ~ ~ applause ~ ~

This is fantastic.

But I would have you know that I prayed to John Edwards. And - the VERY next day - I found the keys I lost a week beforehand.

:rofl:

[OKNancy]

69. Just when I was about to give up on DU (again)

I read this! Thanks.

I try to take vacations from the over-the-top hand-wringing for my sanity and just about decided to come back after the nominating convention when the DU rules change. Nice to see this rant here!

[frogcycle]

81. you're taking "the pledge" too, huh?

maybe we should form a "DU Annonymous" group, call each other when we're tempted to log in...

:)

[Blue_Roses]

70. Awesome!

:applause:

[immoderate]

71. You are vindicated.

In so many of your writings you affect a tone that is rational, reasonable, practical, and sensible.

Some of us were beginning to worry. Is perfection too much to ask?:shrug:

--IMM

[TheIndyVoice.com]

72. Single Issue Voter

Excellent article, that's why in 2008 I'm a single issue voter. Candidates only have to vow to remove our forces from Iraq immediately to get my vote. The petition at NO VOW - NO VOTE (http://www.novownovote.com/sign-the-no-vow-no-vote-petition/) lets the candidates know that they must take a stance and do the politically courageous thing.

[NanceGreggs]

84. Welcome to DU, my friend!

And thanks for the link!

:hi:

[SaveAmerica]

73. Are you looking for a virgin, too? You had me for a minute, I thought you were series..

[Maestro]

74. Bingo!

Some people hold his or her candidate plus others' to the highest of marks to the point which, well, they are not even human. Humans are fallible. Nice rant!

[tavalon]

77. It's funny,

I came to DU following another writer but you've become the salve that soothes my embattled soul.

[ProudDad]

78. You know sometimes "satire" goes too far

and just becomes meaningless, insulting, demeaning and, well, not that funny. For once, one of your posts is not very funny nor very useful to the debate.

It's beneath your usual high quality of post to demean people who have values and principles and are willing to live by the most important of them.

There are plenty of supporters of the Anointed One who are willing to insult people with strong principles and do, ad nauseum.

But hell, nobody's perfect. :evilgrin:

Better luck next time, my friend. :hi:

[NanceGreggs]

87. If you think I was demeaning people with principles ...

... you've really missed my point.

If anything, I am mocking people whose 'principles' include an insistence that a candidate be in total agreement with them on every issue, including a dislike of asparagus and a complete infatuation with the Harry Potter series.

If a candidate is willing to get our troops out of Iraq, I really don't give a damn whether they are wearing a flag pin when they make the announcement or not.

[ProudDad]

89. I'm with you there

"If a candidate is willing to get our troops out of Iraq, I really don't give a damn whether they are wearing a flag pin when they make the announcement or not." -- but I'd definitely PREFER NOT...

Cheers: :toast:

[NanceGreggs]

92. I truly apologize ...

... to anyone here who missed my meaning - which is, of course, more often the fault of the writer than the reader.

Voting based on one's principles and the core issues that need to be addressed these days (and good God, there are a lot of them), is what this election should be about.

What it shouldn't be about, IMHO, is the personal imperfections of each candidate, especially those totally human flaws that have absolutely no bearing on their ability to act in the best interests of the country.

[ProudDad]

111. And I truly apologize for my hair trigger...

maybe I need a rest.

It's a good thing for all of us to get some perspective (and recover our senses of humor)...

Happy Sunday to You...

[NanceGreggs]

112. And a Happy Sunday to you, sir!

:hi:

[tandot]

79. Another great post. Thanks, Nance.

:yourock:

[stlsaxman]

85. Well done, Nance!

but- oh, how i await the stump removal service... (see avatar)

[Emillereid]

86. Just curious -- do you have ANY threshold principles in deciding whom

to vote for -- or do you vote for anyone who wears the democratic party mantle? Do you always rationalize that the democrat must always be the lesser of the evil? Is there ever a point at which the evil both the dem and the repuke would do in the name of the corporatocracy is just too evil for you to actually choose? Don't want to get your knickers in a knot and don't have the time for a long back and forth -- just curious?

[NanceGreggs]

88. Yes, I have very high threshold principles ...

... they just don't include haircuts, the wearing of flag pins, the size of a candidate's house, or the sound of their laughter.

Silly me, I think things like getting out of Iraq, affordable health care, and a commitment to addressing domestic problems such as job losses and a failing education system are more important.

And yes, I will vote for the candidate who winds up wearing the 'Democratic mantle'. The alternative is not even an option.

[Emillereid]

96. I thought you were simply being facetious concerning those trivial matters.

I just wanted to know whether ALL of the democratic candidates meet your high standards. Personally I question whether HC would get us out of Iraq and from my reading of her health care plan it appears to be another gift to the insurance companies and probably not affordable to most. And though I was persuaded to vote and WORK for Kerry though at the time could not find himself on the right (as in correct) side of the moral divide that is Iraq - I don't know if I can be so persuaded this time. I look back at the wasted 8 years of the Clinton administration when your concerns and mine were largely unaddressed -- and he was probably responsible for more (so far) Iraqi deaths than even W -- he was basically republican lite and I have not been convinced that Hillary will be any different. The only way to build a truly progressive movement is to work and vote for real progressives and stop enabling those who are right of center. There are alternatives beside the repukes you know.

[sellitman]

104. That dog won't hunt

A vote for a third party candidate vote can make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside... but in actuality all it does is help get another Republican elected. Those who saw no difference between Gore and bush or Kerry and bush are TOTALLY F'N BLIND if their rear view mirror shows them anything but a tragic accident.

Speeding up to another one is beyond belief.

[Emillereid]

139. There were vast differences between Gore and Bush. That's a straw man

argument. Besides Gore won. His presidency was stolen from him. Nonetheless, I wish the Greens had gained the percentage they needed to take part in the national dialogue. I think Nader particularly would add much to the discussion.

This time around I am sure that Hillary would be marginally better than the repukes, but when you get to be an old as I am you get tired of the lesser of two evils argument. Besides I think she is a very vulnerable candidate who has incredible negatives. For instance, my normally staunch republican brother-in-law has had it with Bush and doesn't like the republican field and said he likes most of the democrats and would most like to vote for Gore - BUT under no circumstances would he vote for Hillary.

Unless and until we actually field a real progressive and keep settling for anyone who wears the democratic (read DLC) mantle, we will never actually change this country in the profound ways we need to - our country will continue to slide into a corporate fascist state. Only with Hillary, it will seem like a gentler ride.

Your argument that a vote for a third party always gets a repuke elected in false -- I routinely cast my vote for the Green instead of Dianne Feinstein and still she gets elected.

[sellitman]

164. Facts are....

There were clearly enough Nader voters in Florida to tip the election to Gore beyond the reach of the Supreme Court.

Third party votes weaken the Democrats.

[Emillereid]

165. Facts are ... there were enough 'other' third party candidates

besides Nader to tip the election. There were way more than enough votes either under or over counted; there were also a massive number of black votes suppressed. If Gore had asked for a recount of the whole state he probably would have won -- picking only a few counties gave Bush the edge to claim 'discrimination'

I think we should encourage third parties -- maybe then the Dems would actually get scared of losing the progressive vote and clean up their act. I have been a life long democrat -- but the party is definitely losing me.

[HughBeaumont]

90. What if you don't agree with said "inevitable" candidate on SEVERAL issues?

I don't even agree with Dennis Kucinich 100% of the time.

I don't, however, wish to settle for a supposedly Democratic candidate whose positions, statements, votes and speeches on several issues, including Iraq, Iran, job offshoring, health care, curbing unbridled corporatism, etc, etc. are not in accordance to my views or the views of many here and abroad who wish to see these things corrected.

What if I work my ass off for a candidate I WANT in the primary, but America goes stupid and selects . . . someone who you CLEARLY have to get does not work in the interests of the American people over corporations?

You know exactly who I'm talking about too.

[wiley]

99. OMG, I do know!

Now may I say that Obama's Faith and Families Tour (40 days and 40 nights?) is kind of creeping me out? And much of his money comes from the Black business owners he has carefully cultivated over the years. Heaven help us, what will he owe those corporations if elected?

"In those instances, he said, "my job is to try to draw a connection between the values that I express to the church and the challenges and issues that we face in politics. ... I don't think there's anything wrong with expressing faith in the public square and I think there's nothing wrong public servants expressing religiously rooted values." Faith `plays every role' in Obama's life, By JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer

How could you possibly support a candidate like that? Or Clinton - don't even get me started on that royal family wannabee. After 15 years of abuse and smears directly from the rectal spout of the Republican elite and their gnarled servants you'd think she would know better than to ask for anyone's vote. Edwards is obviously just waiting to reprise Warren Beatty's role in "Shampoo", right, so we can assume you're not talking about him.

So, it's pretty obvious who you are talking about. Anyone who isn't K! Thank You for letting us know what the "views of many here are and abroad are" as well, and who the real problem on this board is, MR.CAPS

Do you think this post has anything to do with you?

[HughBeaumont]

123. I stand for democratic values, the front-running candidate doesn't and I'M the problem?

Congrats.

You just made my Red X toilet. Not only did you not understand, much less digest a damned thing I said, but that was the shittiest attempt at sarcasm I've ever read.

It isn't about anyone but Kucinich, Kreskin. It'd be wonderful if people didn't care that their president looked slightly less strapping than your average Marlboro Man. It'd be terrific if your average voter paid attention to the issues rather than the cost of someone's house, haircut or visits to Syria (which, incidentally, never seems to be brought up about a Republican candidate). It'd be splendiferous if people READ a candidate's plan rather than demand they be spoon-fed substance-less sound bites with all the rapidity of a news-ticker.

But unfortunately, that's another planet. We live on this one. And on this one, Kucinich cannot win and he knows it. No media outlet is going to treat someone who looks like a combination of Mike Wallace and a wood sprite as anything more than comedy relief. It's not just that, it's also because he puts the needs of the PEOPLE first, and corporations second.

Unfortunately on this planet, it appears we have to settle for who sucks less.

One or two issues isn't anything. I don't know why everyone makes light of this. What, do you think even GORE is a perfect candidate? No one's without a past or without a flaw. But I'd be happy as hell to vote for him because I agree with at least 80 to 90 percent of what he says. Or Edwards. Or Obama. I don't really see anything overly horrible about them. Of course, I don't know about Obama that well; people are too busy buzzing about "The Inevitable" to care, apparently. Edwards touches on issues that are important to me, particularly about this administration's failed policies, workers affected by unbridled corporatism and bringing this useless oil grab to a gradual end.

But what if the list of issues I agree with suddenly becomes less than 60%? And what if the conflicts are mostly showstoppers?

Where does the line get drawn in the sand and how far can the candidate step over it before they just become another Corporate plant with a (D) in front of their name? And what if that candidate is the one EVERY media outlet pushes, is buddy/buddy with the same Reaganites that tried to bring her husband down, thinks there are positives to job offshoring, supports continued war with Iraq and isn't opposed to starting one with Iran, proposes a health care plan that does nothing but suck LESS than the current one we have and has not proven to anyone that things WON'T be business as usual?

Stop me if I'm using too many CAPS for you, sonny Jim. I'm just trying to make a point here . . .

And you're right. It isn't about me. It isn't about YOU.

It's about soldiers who aren't going to get out of the hellhole the current fucker holding the White House hostage sent them to until at LEAST 2013, when the body count is more than likely to be double what it is now despite the Failure Fuhrer lying to his audience on TV about troop reduction. That's 5 and a half YEARS.

It's about the lives of 47 million Americans; men, women and children, without health insurance. It's about millions more who have lousy health insurance; one of the most mediocre in all of the world, who have the specter of one major illness hanging over their heads. If that happens, most likely everything they worked so hard for will be gone in an instant; straight in the pockets of Big Insurance, Big Med, Big Pharma and their CEOs.

It's about the livelihoods of hard working people who lost their jobs because of plants moving overseas, downsizing, offshoring and the continued plundering of the middle class by heartless CEOs and their shareholders. Often times, they never recover what they made. Underemployment runs rampant in this country thanks to the shifting from industrial to a service (read: lower paying) economy.

It's about people who've been lulled into acceptance that no one is going to correct these problems because they've either lost all hope or even worse, become apathetic in their comfort zones and 24-7 entertainment.

I voted for Kerry and Gore, made no apologies about either. I never gave a second THOUGHT about a third party. I thought Gore had great ideas, as did Kerry. The problem with both is that they were bad campaigners competing against a corporate-owned media, a corrupt voting process, a stacked Supreme Court, a disaappointed electorate and about 57-something million Americans that shared the same brain.

The problem this time however, is not bad campaigning. It's a bad candidate.

I'm not settling anymore. There's no heroism in selecting against your best interests because they have a (D) in front of their name. This country needs CHANGE, not business-as-usual inevitability. We're throwing all of those people mentioned above to the wolves should the person these "loyalty oath" posts are really about become our candidate. THAT to me is a wasted vote and in turn, a wasted democracy.

Don't worry about MY vote.

Worry about getting a candidate that will UNITE people. Because if a Democratic candidate cannot beat the weakest GOP roster since 1996; if this election becomes yet another close-enough-to-steal debacle . . . I think people on our side might do best to wake up to the idea that possibly moving to the center isn't really the best idea?

Oh yeah, when you resort to tossing ad hominems about prosaic style . . . it usually means your argument is weak to begin with.

[DireStrike]

91. hmm... not quite right

My problem with most of the candidates isn't that they don't match me closely enough. Rather, it's that they do match rather closely with some people: the R candidates.

[codjh9]

93. Yeah, a few on here need to read your post and think about it. But only a FEW. :^)

[Joanne98]

98. I still hate Hillary!

[bookman]

101. Just remember....

... all those who wouldn't vote for Gore. Look what we got instead.

I'm an advocate of work your tail off for your ideal candidate in the primaries, but don't sacrifice your vote.

I'll vote for any Democrat over any Republican. Perhaps not my first choice, but still a better one.

Nice post.

[Sparkly]

103. Your candidate is Republican-lite!!!!

:rofl: :applause:

[NanceGreggs]

107. Oh, yeah!?!

Well, your candidate cackles when they laugh.

Oh, no, they don't.

Yes, they do.

Are you telling me I'm too stupid to know a cackle when I hear one?

Yep, that's what I'm telling you.

Okay, that's it. If we can't agree on the important issues, there's no point in discussing anything.

Fine, I'm putting you on IGNORE right now!

[AZBlue]

105. Bravo!

:toast:

[Laurab]

108. It's all about ice cream, really.

And the only candidate I'll vote for will be the one who states publicly and loudly that their favorite ice cream is Stephen Colbert's Americone Dream. I'm a single issue voter, and that's that!

Nicely done, K&R!

[HughMoran]

110. I can't believe mint chocolate chip isn't your favorite flavor!

I would never vote for you.

Excellent post - I appreciate you putting my feelings about much of the strife lately on DU into words.

[Mad_Dem_X]

113. BRAVA!

:applause:

[muffin1]

114. Nance,

I think you are fantastic. You rock my world, woman. I've written five LTTEs, and each one has taken me at least two days to write. Just out of curiosity, how long does it take you to pound out a rant? I sit here in utter awe, awaiting your response.
Some writers leave me in :cry: , and you are one of them - in a good way, obviously.

[Odin2005]

115. The Nance Strikes Again!!!

I'm God Damn sick of the purists who bash candidates over worthless minutiae.

[Usrename]

117. What makes those republicans so bad and those dems so good?

If it isn't anything about their behavior, what is it? Their accent? :shrug:

[puebloknot]

118. I hope all your loyal fans at DU will help you get your tongue unstuck ...

... from your cheek, because a writer of your talent surely understands that "these are the times that try men's souls," and a cavalier approach to the seriousness of an illegal war and encroaching fascism in the U.S. of A. -- and most especially the loss of our voting rights -- is something to grieve about. This post assumes a fact not in evidence -- that those seriously questioning the future of the Democratic Party, and the fate of the nation, based on the terrible performance seen by the Dems so far, are somehow just unenlightened whiners and probably closet Repugs whose secret agenda is to infiltrate and undermine this board and the Dems. But not to worry because a good dose of "cute" will obliterate any such influence.

I will have no trouble voting for a Dem who will address the serious questions of the impact of the Iraq occupation on the country, and who will assure me that they will give their all to fully restoring the Constitutional rule of law in the U.S. -- not just rolling back parts of patently illegal laws they've helped to enable.

People who are honest enough to post at DU that they cannot, in good conscience, support a Democrat in name only, deserve respect, not ridicule.

We have a year before the next presidential election. Many people are thinking out loud here, earestly searching for answers to the dilemma we face with regard to changing course for our beloved Ship of State. Those crying out that the emperor is wearing no clothes may be our most valuable citizens.

This question will go unanswered, and is basically just from my own musing: Should we encourage and admire an ethic that says we should vote *for* a candidate who falls short of every principle We the People have ever held in our hearts when we exercise our sacred right to vote? That exercise has never produced a saint, nor has it been likely that most citizens expected that. Respecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights *has* served well so far, and remains reasonable in our current darkest hour.

We the People issue indulgences to our politicians at our own peril and -- unfortunately -- at the peril of the next generations who inhabit the Earth.

[NanceGreggs]

122. Again, I will explain what I thought was obvious ...

This post was not aimed at ANYONE who is taking the issues you have mentioned seriously.

It was aimed at those who are taking the trivialities seriously (like the cost of Edwards' haircut, or Hillary's laugh, or Obama's lack of a flag lapel pin) and giving those things equal weight to the candidate's positions on things like the War in Iraq, the economy, vote fraud, etc.

It was also aimed at those who don't want to take into account that all of the candidates - whether you like them, love them, or loathe them - are flawed human beings, just as we all are, and there are times each of them individually are NOT going to live up to some of their supporters' concept of perfection.

Maybe you think that Edwards worries about his hair too much, or Hillary laughs inappropriately, or Biden's voice is grating when gets ratcheted up in a debate. If THOSE are the kinds of issues that people are basing their political decisions on, then yes, I think they are 'unenlightened whiners', as you've put it.

No ONE candidate is ever going to be my be-all and end-all, always in one hundred percent agreement with my views on every, single issue from the war to farm subsidies to how many people should be invited to the Inaugural Ball.

That's why I try to stay focused on the issues that are MOST important to me as a voter, and choose my candidate based on views that most mirror my own - and those issues DO NOT include their personal views on what to wear on their lapels and when, nor the sincerity of their reason for doing so or not.

The country is in a f*cking mess on so many levels - that's why I can't believe that some people are debating such nonsense, instead of focusing on the real issues at hand.

[puebloknot]

135. With due respect, your OP seemed a study in the very trivialities...

...you are now decrying in this response. I have seen some posts from DUers who are concerned over such matters as John Edwards' haircut, but most of all I've seen a rallying 'round the Dem "flag" and accusations of disloyalty on the part of anyone who expresses concern over the morality of voting for any candidate, even a Dem, who does not stand for Democratic principles -- who does not work to end our use of torture, who does not go to the barricades to restore habeus corpus.

When concerned and mature people express their concerns over whether they can ethically vote for any of the Dem candidates, rather than a reasoned dialogue there generally ensues an onslaught of "I'll vote for the Dem, whoever it is" -- and it is all too often put out as a challenge to the loyalty of the honest "Doubting Thomas." The Democratic Party stands to become as locked down and narrow as the Republican Party, if long-standing and hard-working Democrats are denied a voice, are shouted down to the point where they leave the party in disgust.

On the other hand, a recent post by TimeforChange expressed his sincere concerns over this more and more frequent expression of concern on the part of Democrats who have worked hard for the Dem party, now feel betrayed, and in despair are considering whether they can support any Dem candidate -- based on their very obvious recent performance. It is a mistake to assume such expressions of concern mean the person is necessarily going to vote for a Republican or an Independent. As I said, we have a year to go. But for anyone who cares deeply about this country, it behooves us all to ask questions now, make demands now, of the candidates who are running. They need to earn our respect if they want our votes. We need more than "Read my lips" rhetoric which disappears in a heartbeat, as soon as the candidate is sworn in. To say "I cannot in good conscience vote for the Dem unless..." should not be assumed to come from the mouths of the mentally incompetent or traitors to the Democratic Party. The need for critical thought has never been so much in evidence as it is now!

Should we continue to run on the track we are now on, there are serious reasons to withhold a vote from anyone who is not committed to taking back our democracy, and the flaws in *all* the candidates are much more serious than a lapel pin or the price of a haircut or a house. A "mea culpa" such as the one John Edwards issued not too long about his vote for the war is a starting place in building trust. But it's not enough. I want to hear really substantive issues discussed in upcoming debates which speak to ending the slaughter of our troops in Iraq for the bloodiest "moral" reasons. I *don't* want to hear about anyone's *faith*! It's none of my business, and separation of church and state is not some trivial matter. It is one of the defining principles upon which this nation was founded.

Thank you for responding.

[NanceGreggs]

137. It WAS a study in the trivialities ...

... THAT was the point, to ridicule the obsession of some people with complete trivialities in the face of the seriousness of our situation as a country.

As for, "'I'll vote for the Dem, whoever it is' is all too often put out as a challenge" - I have often stated categorically and without qualification that I WILL vote for the Democratic over a Republican every time.

That is not a challenge - that is simply a statement of fact.

For the people here who say, "I cannot, in good conscience, vote for any of the current Democratic candidates", I can only say that if that is your position, then you shouldn't vote for any of them. What else is there to be said?

But I should add that in the same way you don't like your position to be marginalized, those who have great faith in one or more of the Democratic candidates also don't appreciate being treated as though they are simply caving-in to the banner-waving mindset and are too stupid to see the Big Picture.

I will vote for the Dem, no matter who it turns out to be. You will not vote for the Dem, no matter who it turns out to be. In that scenario, we are BOTH exercising our rights, and we both have valid reasons for doing what we think is best.

I can live with that.

[puebloknot]

140. I didn't say I would not vote for the Dem, no matter who it turns out to be.

And there's a big difference in people having great faith in one or more of the Democratic candidates, and claiming that those expressing doubts about all or most of the Dem candidates are not "real Democrats." As some wiser than I have said, we need to be discussing the issues, more than we need to be discussing specific candidates, at this point. A poll not too long ago showed that on the issues, a majority of Americans favor Dennis Kucinich's positions -- though many would probably claim he's unelectable.

I think a lot of readers in this thread read your intent rather differently than what you feel was your main point. Those in your cheering section seemed to feel you had nailed the fools who just couldn't find anything good about any Dem candidate, and were willing to say so (with great frustration and sadness, BTW); some of us, however, found your comments a bit demeaning and suggestive of a mindset too stupid to see the Big Picture.

I guess this is the main problem we all face with the Internet. Our eloquence fails us all at times. Misunderstandings occur that might not happen if we were all sitting at a modern-day Round Table where each voice had equal weight. Now that I think of it, that's what the Democratic Party has always advocated as its banner.

[djjimz]

120. Thank you, Nance.

:toast:

[MasonJar]

121. Once again, Nance, thank you for being a voice of common sense and just plain sense.

[D23MIURG23]

124. Would taking favorable stands on 50% of the most important issues be unreasonable?

Because Congress hasn't and most of the Democratic candidates won't. If Hillary was ever asked whether she would support publicly breaking unindicted "enemy combatants" on the wheel, she would probably have to dance around the question and make qualified statements.

Perhaps I should lighten up, but its been exceptionally frustrating watching the black hand of fascist corporatocracy overtaking America, and our supposed knights in shining armor have all come riding in like Sir Robin.

"when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled..."

[NanceGreggs]

126. Sorry, but I am at a loss as to what kind of response ...

... you're expecting. A number? Is 50% okay? How about 48%, or maybe 53.609%?

The list of things that are frustrating a lot of us is a pretty lengthy one.

But in the end, I will stick with this: Better the worst Democrat we've got than the best Republican they've got.

[D23MIURG23]

130. I'm basically just venting my frustration.

I don't really think I expect too much from the Democrats but they are coming up pretty short lately, which is why I found your post disagreeable.

I agree with you about the repigs; they are a cabal of megalomaniacal lunatics and calculated psychos. Its just that our only other option is a party that thinks itself wise for meeting the loonies halfway on issues that should never be negotiable, and I see that as a serious problem.

My (relatively weak) stand for right now is that donations are "off the table".

If the Democrats don't eventually gain traction on the sorts of issues that have Jefferson spinning in his grave (like the Domestic spying, and secret prisons for instance) then maybe it will get stronger...

[NanceGreggs]

134. I hear ya ...

Everybody is 'venting' these days, and with good cause most of the time. I just have a problem with people who are 'venting' about issues that are virtual ant-hills as compared with mountainous issues like Iraq, torture, upholding the Constitution, etc.

But there's still one thing I will not compromise on: I will vote for a Democrat over a Republican no matter what.

[TechBear_Seattle]

127. Is it too much to ask...

For a candidate who does NOT support the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Who does NOT actively oppose my rights as a gay man to marry my male partner? Who has NOT sold him-/herself, body and soul, to corporate special interests?

I don't give a rat's ass about "right" anything, provided that the candidate is actually, solidly and has a proven voting record of being left. None of the Democratic candidates meet that one critieron. None.

[NanceGreggs]

129. I think you're asking for the Wisdom of Solomon here ...

... and I don't know what to tell you - except that the alternative is a Republican, and I don't think you'll be any happier with that choice.

Or you could write me in as your presidential choice - because I would fight tooth-and-nail for recognition of same-sex marriage. I will never understand why people cannot see the out-and-out logic of doing so. It is better for society as a whole on so many levels.

And besides the logic of it, there's the other side of it for me. God created heterosexuals and homosexuals, each meant to love the person of their heart's choosing. And I never screw around with God - he can get really mean when he's pissed off.

Keep fighting for your rights, my friend - because they are just that: YOUR RIGHTS.

[TechBear_Seattle]

131. No, I'm asking for something *other* that a vote between two evils

Even if it is the lesser of two evils, it is still evil.

Maybe I'm foolishly naive, wanting to cast a vote that doesn't leave me feeling like I've betrayed by values and my country. Maybe I'm willfully stupid, thinking that I can make any kind of difference within the Democratic party at any level on what kind of candidates the party insiders deem "electable." Maybe I'm hopelessly ignorant, expecting elected Democrats to treat the party platform as a roadmap rather than meaningless campaign babble that gets pulled out every four years and then repeatedly and brutally violated for the three years following the election.

I really am an ureasonable, miserable excuse for a voter, aren't I?

My apologies for pissing in your chowder, but my frustration with the Democratic Party and with politics in general just keeps growing and growing. I usually agree with your posts, but this one.... I'm TIRED of being ridiculed for expecting even the slightest hint of support for progressive values from Democratic candidates. And frankly, I don't think I can take much more.

[NanceGreggs]

133. I'm tired, too ...

"I'm TIRED of being ridiculed for expecting even the slightest hint of support for progressive values from Democratic candidates."

If you honestly think my OP was about 'ridiculing' anyone who wants support for progressive values, you have missed my point by a mile - and then some.

[puebloknot]

136. "And I never screw around with God - he can get really mean when he's pissed off."

Is this tongue-in-cheek, too? Jerry Falwell expressed similar sentiments on 9/11 about God taking out his wrath on abortionists, lesbians, etc.

[NanceGreggs]

138. Honestly, my friend, I HOPE you're kidding ...

As everyone undoubtedly knows, I was always a BIG FAN of Falwell.

I seriously think I need a vacation from DU. I am actually tempted to start a thread about the fact that I LOVE chick-peas - just to see how long it takes to be flamed for my support of fascist food products, and everything they stand for.

Honestly, I give up. I have to figure that when there's no place for humour on DU, when every comment is analyzed under a microscope in an attempt to find some dark, ulterior motive, maybe it's time to lay low until formerly-reasonable people come back to their senses.

[puebloknot]

141. I should have used a ROF,L smiley.

It's late and perhaps we're both tired. I'm not sure who makes the judgement about who "formerly-reasonable people" are. I didn't get the feeling that you were being flamed in this thread -- only that a number of thoughtful people were disagreeing with you.

[NanceGreggs]

151. Sorry, it WAS late and I WAS tired ...

By 'formerly-reasonable people', I wasn't referring to this thread in particular, but the general vitriol on DU lately.

In the past few weeks, I've seen posters at each others' throats over the most inane things - some of whom I used to think of as the voice of reason in any debate.

A recent thread about a personal difficulty the OP was dealing with ended up (literally within six replies) in a bitter argument between two posters as to who was being MORE SINCERE in their sympathy for the OP than the other.

As I said, formerly-reasonable people ...

[puebloknot]

158. Understood. And I agree.

I tend to avoid one-liners in my responses, and too often get too wordy in trying to respond to posts, just because I see so much misunderstanding here at DU. A recent thread I was involved in ended up with someone whose writing I've admired posting almost a dozen reiterations of an accusation that she thought I'd made against her lineage.

I'm thinking of a French film I saw years ago called "Queen of Hearts" (I think it was), where the inmates of an asylum were out and about on the grounds because a war was going on, and they were left on their own. So...I'll see you out in the yard! :)

[NanceGreggs]

160. Out in the yard, then ...

See ya there! :hi:

[HughBeaumont]

144. The mood has turned bad. I blame the HRC shills.

They're the ones

* calling for "loyalty oaths",
* attacking posters for expecting progressive values from a Democratic candidate (how DARE we!),
* telling us to form a "Third Party Underground" or better yet, go to RimJob's cesspool,
* asserting we're not real democrats if we refuse to vote for whoever has a (D) in front of their name no matter HOW centrist their economic positions are or how hawkish their war stance is.

Someone has to take a stand on things and say "enough is enough". If not us, who will? Are we just going to be stuck with corporate-locked and loaded candidates on both sides of the fence the rest of our days?

Who stands up for the people?

We can't storm the White House and demand resignation. Police and the corporate military (not the ones fighting in Iraq) will bullet-spray us and whoever is in high office will be instituting those marching orders to shoot us down.

We can't storm the homes of the greedy & predatory wealthy.

I don't see it as humorless. I see it as we're losing hope and we're being given a hopeless solution by blindly annointing a candidate who doesn't offer much in the way of real change.

I think we lost that hope when America . . . with the help of election theft . . . chose the Failure Fuhrer over Gore and Kerry.

The way things are going, it's looking as if one clown is going to run against another clown in 2008. And the joke is on US.

I don't need any more "inevitability" or "suck it up because this is the best I can hope for" posts.

My overreaction above stemmed from only seeing this as yet another "you aren't going to find a perfect candidate" post without seeing that you only mean haircuts, trips to Syria or cackles. I lumped it in with ALL issues. And for that I'm sorry. You know I'm a big fan.

[TechBear_Seattle]

153. Put much better than I did

:toast:

[HughBeaumont]

156. It's like, wouldn't you just ONCE . ..

. . . after an election, NOT say "Damn I need a stiff drink" whether you drink or not?

:)

[frogcycle]

162. Although I hate DU to lose your posts, I encourage you to do so

Like Gulliver, you just need to get away from the Lilliputians. Of course the most aggressive responses against your post came from those you mocked. That is not surprising. But the level of self-righteous zealous fervor here is so bad that as I suggested light-heartedly a few weeks ago and got savaged for, including several counter-threads to beat the point to death, that the place is "in the DUmper". Take a break. Post rants directly on your website; let those of us who appreciate them read them there.

Meanwhile, check out your Algae Award. link below; select "blogs"

[Apollo11]

146. Kucinich not "left" enough for you?

Most lefties here on DU seem to be quite happy with him.

Personally I don't think DK can win the general election (never mind the primaries).

I think we should nominate a candidate who stands a chance against Romney or Giuliani.

[TechBear_Seattle]

152. I meant to say "None of the leading candidates."

I do support Kucinich, and have comitted to attending the Democratic caucuses in Washington and standing for him.

[Apollo11]

157. Instead of "None of the Democratic candidates"

So you can see why I got confused ... :kick:

[ldf]

128. nance, you read us like a book...

and understandably, living through the nightmare that is the "w", we are all a little punchy.

i think i can safely say that we here at du feel that we are the true core, the true base of the democratic party.

we watched for eight years while, arguably, possibly the best president we have ever, had endured nothing but constant attacks of outrageous proportions, most of them fabricated. a few may have had some basis in fact, but they were minor in scope. our party could not bring itself to fight back. instead we ran from supporting our president.

i personally feel that bill made a foolish mistake. he made many policy decisions that i disagreed with, but the one "they" went after him for, paled in comparison to the atrocities committed by the republican party, and it's elected politicians.

across the board, those politicians, and those who voted for them, put party before country. to me, that is treason.

we continued to watch as our party failed to address the avalanche of hate from the other side. our party leaders were (and still are) afraid.

over the last few years we have watched our party stagger to the so-called "center", which seems to be ever further to the right, in a misguided, desperate appeal for votes from people who will NEVER vote for a democrat. they, essentially, kicked sand in our face.

that misguided staggering is a direct result of the policies put into place by our so-called democratic party leaders, who, all the while, never let an opportunity pass by to insult us, the "fringe" of the party. yet more sand in the face.

even though in a minority standing, and by definition an "opposition" party, our leaders, repeatedly, could not find the courage to take a stand on issue after issue. more sand.

our democratic party leaders accepted outright lies as truths, while pandering. and it was nothing but that, pandering. the result? we now have a policy of "pre-emptive war". we are now in a "pre-emptive" war based on those very lies. we have physically destroyed a country. we will face the mental destruction of the people of that country for decades to come. our congress has watched while the non-elected "president" has wiped his ass with the constitution and the bill of rights. we now torture. we are now one of the most hated nations on the planet.

as outrage amongst citizens grew, at least enough to TRY to start to reverse the course, in 2006 there was a breath of hope.

we party members hoped it was not too late. our leaders could actually do something.

and what have they done? essentially, nothing. except kick more sand.

and now we are facing another election. our choices are being provided by those very democratic party leaders who have failed at every turn.

these very same democratic leaders who, at every chance, belittle our concerns, accuse US of being leftwing radicals, out of the mainstream.

US...

we believe in choice, control over our own body, equality across the board, with no caveats, the right to earn a living wage, and to organize to protect that right, safety nets for those less fortunate, affordable health care, affordable education, to name a few.

but we are now the freaks of the left. sand, sand and more sand.

so, unfortunately, but rightly so, we are transferring our absolute disgust of our party to the candidates who are being presented as our choices.

so, yes. many of us are going overboard. but it IS understandable.

hopefully we will, in the end, act as a family should, and that is rally round our own, support our own, and as a result ELECT our own.

that is, unless we have had so much sand kicked in our face that we are unable to see our way into the voting booth.

humans are like that. do people wrong time and time again, and many times they WILL do something that is not in their best interest.

i hope that is not the case.

as far as your post, as usual, you hit the nail on the head. you are one of the reasons i am here.

:thumbsup: and :loveya:

edit for spelling

[NanceGreggs]

132. This is far too eloquent a post ...

... to languish here, where it may or may not be seen. I IMPLORE you to post this as its own thread.

I agree with (almost) everything you've said. My problem with DU of late - and judging from some of the replies here, I am not alone in my utter dismay - is that trivialities are being discussed as though they should carry some weight in choosing a candidate, or determining the direction of our country in future.

It's the fact that the vitriol about issues of no consequence are becoming an over-riding factors in what should be level-headed, serious discussion.

It's the fact that threads about something as innocuous as what Jay Leno said about Paris Hilton are getting hijacked by people who think every discussion thread should be about who THEY think we should all vote for.

Perhaps my oft-times seemingly overly-optimistic stance stems from the fact that I am a great student of American history - gleaned from books, as well as from the stories of relatives who lived through Prohibition, the Depression, WWII, the McCarthy era. They too, at times, despaired - feeling that the evils that had gripped their country would never change for the better. But they did.

Again, I urge you to post this as it owns thread - it is truly beautifully stated.

[Apollo11]

145. If you are invited to dinner at someone's house, then you have to eat what is put in front of you.

But if you are offered a choice of (right now) 8 (or 18 including GOP) candidates in a Presidential Primary, you have a responsiblity to carefully consider the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate.

It means looking for reasons to support a particular candidate.

It also means looking for reasons why one candidate is better than another candidate.

Obiously - it also means looking at each candidate's (potential) flaws and weaknesses.

So it's not unreasonable to criticize the candidates.

In fact I would say it's RESPONSIBLE to do so.

IN GORE WE TRUST :patriot:
www.algore.com
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com
www.americaforgore.org

[NanceGreggs]

149. Well said.

And criticism IS the responsible thing to do - so long as it's about the issues, and not about flag pins or haircuts.

:patriot:

[puebloknot]

159. Yes. And it's also the RESPONSIBLE thing to do to remember ...

... that's it's The People's House that those candidates are hoping to occupy! They're hoping to be invited to dinner at *our* house. And it's not potluck, and they don't get to call in their favorite caterer. They have to eat what We the Voters put in front of them!

In metaphor/analogy-speak, that is! :)

[Eurobabe]

150. Good one Nance!

kick :kick:

[oasis]

155. Well done. k&r