A total waste of time

[WilliamPitt]

This is an edited version of the post I deleted last night. If you missed it, don't worry, because you sure didn't miss much. I should have learned by now never to post here when I am annoyed.

So much of what has been posted in this forum to date has been a total waste of time. I'm talking about the so-and-so can't win threads, the my-candidate-is-better-than-yours threads, the your-candidate-is-a-criminal threads, the this-poll-says such-and-such threads, and let's not forget the oh-my-God-you-bashed-my-candidate threads. My own participation in these time-waster go-rounds led to my revelation here.

Let's take them one at a time.

===

1. 'so-and-so can't win threads'

Dean has received most of this fire, but Clark, Kerry and Kucinich have earned their fair share. Here's the deal. Not one Democrat has had the opportunity yet to face Bush on the national stage. They've all been buried behind each other, nine deep on the debate stages and relegated to 30-second blips of policy talk that are meaningless because of the signal-to-noise ratio. There is no way to tell, no way at all, how one of these candidates will stack up against Bush in the general election. But here's a bet. If we all pile in behind the eventual nominee, we will make that nominee better with our presence and organization. I think the GOP has reason to be scared.

2. 'my-candidate-is-better-than-yours threads'

Take pictures of each of the candidates, and glue them to a dartboard. Walk ten paces away, close your eyes, turn, and throw a dart. Whichever candidate the dart hits will, undoubtedly, not only be a good Democrat, but will be better than Bush by orders of magnitude.

3. 'your-candidate-is-a-criminal threads'

Clark met with a war criminal (debunked). Kerry is BFEE (laughable). Dean loves Enron (joke). Kucinich was anti-choice (Catholics are like that sometimes, and he changed his mind like an intelligent human). There's one of these for all of them. It's fun to pretend like you're a GOP dirt-digger, but what a waste of time and energy this has been.

4. 'this-poll-says such-and-such threads'

Polls are masturbatory tools to give press people something to write about. Take Iowa and New Hampshire, for example. Most people there have not yet fully decided who will get their vote, as every interview and post-poll conversation has indicated. Any stated support is 'soft' by description, and therefore meaningless. Likewise, polls pitting Bush against Democrat X have no meaning because Democrat X has not yet run against Bush in the public eye.

5. 'oh-my-God-you-bashed-my-candidate threads'

This one is my favorite. This applies to suppporters of all the candidates, but not most or even many of them. Just a few. Just a few who feel a soft breeze and scream about hurricanes, a few who see a wisp of cloud and shriek of sandstorms, a few who hear the mildest of criticisms about their candidate and bellow about 'bashing.'

I must admit to a personal sin. I am, in my black-comedy heart, looking forward to watching this certain breed of candidate supporter get turned to jelly by what is about to happen in the next several months. While all of what I have described above in Nos. 1-4 is indeed a waste of time, it is also an unfortunate but standardized aspect of the primary season. Res ipsa loquitor.

This certain breed of candidate supporter - in the tiny but vocal minority - is going to swirl down the drain like hot Jell-o come the general election, because if what has transpired thus far has caused this level of angst, just wait. Just wait. Personally, I'm going to laugh as it happens, but that's because I'm kind of a jerk about these things. I will tell you this, however: One of the main reasons this forum has been so dismal is because of the vocal dominance of this soft-shelled minority. 2004 is going to be a hard path for them. Warning: Sharp Learning Curve Ahead.

===

I'm not even going to address the if-my-candidate-doesn't-win-I-will-not-vote-Democrat garbage. If you can't see the forest for this particular set of trees, then go your merrily deranged way, and I will thank Jesus there are more of us than there are of you.

[Walt Starr]

1. I can't argue with you

It most certainly was.

[WilliamPitt]

2. Um...about that sig

It has to go, dude.

[Walt Starr]

5. You first

:D

[WilliamPitt]

9. My sig goes to a book that says

anyone is better than Bush. I'm a-keepin' it. :)

[Walt Starr]

14. My sig is pro-my candidate

I'm a keepin' it.

I'm not a loyalty oath kinda guy. ABB is a myth. ABB includes LaRouche. ABB is literally Anybody But Bush and I can think of people worse than Bush.

[WilliamPitt]

21. In reality, however,

ABB = Dean or Clark or Kerry or Edwards or maybe Lieberman. I think you'r obfuscating to justify your obdurate stand here. You know that LaRouche isn't going to be the nominee. If you don't, you need to either bone up on your reading or find another hobby.

[Walt Starr]

27. Will, I would have thought you above personal attacks

:shrug:

I know lot's of DUers who will not vote for Lieberman, and Lieberman is a real force in New Hampshire right now. He does have a chance to win the nomination and I know many on this board that would walk away immediately.

I am pro-Dean. No others need apply. I gave up on the Democratic Party Insider Elitists after the debacle of 2002.

[WilliamPitt]

29. You did?

Not a personal attack, but since when? You've changed candidates more often than some people change underwear since 2002, and some you have supported have been those self-same 'elitists.' You've also been ABB, then not, then ABB, then not, etc.

[Walt Starr]

31. Yep

I sure did, I tried them all on for size and found them all, except for Dean and the minor candidates with no possibility of winning, to be Democratic Party Insider Elitists.

DPIE are no longer worth the bother. If I had 2002 to do over again, there are several things I would have done differently too.

[VelmaD]

35. I am sick to death...

of this "Party Insiders are the root of all evil"-thing (I refuse to use the word meme).

You know what being a Party insider means. It means somebody cared enough to get involved and stay involved for the long-haul.

[Walt Starr]

38. It means somebody found a cushy job

and was craven enough to keep a full time job in politics.

That's my opinion. I'm up for my hopes. I'm keeping fear of what might happen if I don't cave in out of my actions in the voting booth.

[VelmaD]

40. Wow...you're just...

a little ray of sushine. :-)

Here's a question for ya. If anyone who gets and keeps a job in politics is "craven", doesn't that apply to your guy too? He did what it took to get elected to office and stay there too.

BTW, I'm not saying that you shouldn't vote with your hopes, especially in the primary. I'm just hoping that when it comes down to it, if necessary, in the General Election you'll be a bit more pragmatic.

[mouse7]

39. "Party Insiders" arent... Al From...

*GRRRRRR*

[Hep]

43. You know,

I didn't push myself away from Kerry, Gep and Lieberman. They pushed me away. And if they want me back, it's up to them to pull me back in.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with not voting in 2004 if my plan is to move out of the country if Bush or the three above win.

[Walt Starr]

44. I don't plan to move out of the country

I also don't plan on allowing fear to rule my actions.

[VelmaD]

48. This may sound mean...

but why don't you just move now then?

I'm sorry but the attitude of "if my guy doens't win I'm moving" pisses me off. Stay and fight the good fight or just go and get out of the way.

And can you honestly tell me you think Kerry or Gep or even Lieberman wouldn't be a VAST improvement over what we have now? :eyes:

Kerry has a long record of being on the correct side of liberal causes (IWR vote notwithstanding). Gephardt annoys me but he's often on the right side as well and he's really behind the unions. And Lieberman has an impecable record on civil rights and abortion.

[Tadah]

51. unifying the party...

I am pro-Dean. No others need apply... I am pro-Dean. No others need apply

As an independant who likes Kucinich, I would probably walk away from the Democratic ticket unless Kucinich's name is on it. The local Democrats don't like Dean much and would campaign with little enthusiasm for him-- they prefer Kerry.

In the general election, you'll have to offer more than "this guy can beat bush."

This thread started talking about unity. Coming together will be difficult.

[VelmaD]

54. If you walk away...

from the Democratic ticket then you are walking straight into 4 more years of the current mis-Administration. It's that simple.

And all of the Democratic candidates have something to offer. Something beyond just "they aren't Bush". Yes...even Lieberman. :-)

Go hear them speak in person if you can. Or go to their websites. They'll tell you why you should vote FOR them. You'll never get that from the media - they're too preoccupied with the horse-race aspect of the primary. They play up the candidate attacks (on Bush and on each other) because they think that's what gets ratings. But if you get the candidates unfiltered they will usually talk about the positive reasons you should consider voting for them.

[diamondsoul]

55. Actually, Will,

dreamer that I am, I think ABB includes all of the 9 who have been at the debates from the git-go.

Unfortunately right at this moment, I'm not all that enthused with ABB myself. Even so, I freely admit I see-saw back and forth on the ABB thing. Some days I believe I can vote for any of the 9 and other days they've all pissed me off so much I don't want anyone but Kucinich.(There was even one occasion I was pissed enough to say none of the above!) I guess we'll see what happens when I have that ballot in my hand on Nov. 4th.

I want to win, Will. I want Bush gone...hell I want his lying worthless sociopathic ass behind bars forever! Him and all his cohorts! At the same time, I want the victory to be a resounding one not just against Bush, but FOR this country, if you undderstand what I mean?

BTW, that really is an excellent post.

[Hoppin_Mad]

95. This fervent Dean supporter disagrees -eom-

[Alice Franken]

7. That has not yet been decided

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=10146

[Walt Starr]

58. The move I have made is hopefuly temporary

I'll let the Administrators decide. I know my Pro-Dean signature offended many sensibilities.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=10195

on edit: The decision has come down:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=10146

[Jerseycoa]

90. Maybe if you just made it a bit smaller

It wouldn't smack everybody in the face at every turn. But I defend your right to bear your sig. :)

[Walt Starr]

123. Maybe it would

Then again, John Hancock may not agree with that sentiment.

[Jerseycoa]

124. You changed it nt

[Walt Starr]

125. My new sig is far far far more important than NBD

Jeff Seemann stands a chance of defeating his the Republican incumbent in his district. By linking to his donation page, maybe some DUer will give him some money, the pndits will get shocked off their asses, and another seat in the House will fall into the Democratic slate.

[Alice Franken]

3. LOL

:yourock:

[ozone_man]

88. I didn't think you were referring to his sig line. ;-)

You will submit and vote for any Democrat, no matter how spineless, and no matter how close to Bush or the neocons that candidate is. Forget the Iraq war and all those that voted for it and the Patriot Act. (sarcasm off)

I voted for a Republican Senator (Jeffords) who voted against the Iraq war, not because I knew he would do that, but because I believed in the man, and when Bush came into office, he bolted the Republican neocon led party. To my great dismay, most of the Democrat candidates voted for the IWR and they have lost all sense of who they are representing here, being more interested with trying to protect there asses, so they might make it to higher office.

I reserve the right to vote anyway I damn well please, and if that means voting for Nader or some other third party candidate, then at least my vote is a vote of conscience. I only see Dean and Kucinich as meeting my requirements as Democratic candidates.

[VelmaD]

89. And what will your conscience say...

when you wake up the day after the election and discover chimpy is gonna get 4 more years in the White House?

on edit: color me confused how you can support Dean and Kucinich given that they are so far apart from one another in terms of political philosophy.

[ozone_man]

101. I will ask who voted for the IWR that put him there?

Who voted for massive deficit spending that allowed him to fool the American public into thinking that it was experiencing an economic recovery, the truth being that he has mortgaged away our future.

The silver lining will be that a Bush 2nd term will see things getting much worse. He will unquestionably be blamed with a failed economy and foreign policy. Hopefully, the next time, we will see real change, maybe even a revolution, allowing real change to a system where there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Regarding Dean and Kucinich: DK is where my ideological center is, Dean is the limit of my compromise. Ralph Nader says that he will not enter the race if Dean is the candidate. That ought to tell you something. He says that he sees very little difference between Dean's positions and his own. Both Dean and Kucinich have been against the Iraq war long before it started, and have not wavered. Both are social liberals, Dean has strong civil rights, civil union positions, strong alternative energy, energy efficiency, education, health care. Dean is a fiscal conservative, and believe me, we need that as we are fiscally hemorrhaging at this point. Dean is electable, Kucinich is not electable this term. Kucinich would require the above hypothesized revolution to get into office, maybe 2008/2012.

[VelmaD]

102. I refuse to see things getting worse...

as a silver lining. It certainly won't seem like one to all the soldiers who will die under 4 more years of shrub. I'm sure it won't seem like a silver lining to the people out of work as the economy slides further into the toilet either.

[ozone_man]

106. It's going to get worse regardless of who gets in.

Again, it was not Dean or Kucinich who voted to send these soldiers to their deaths.

We are and have been in a declining period in our "American Empire" for many years, but it is accelerating now. The country is being gutted, all the jobs exported to China and India. Clinton was more responsible for this than Bush. The stock market crash was not Bush's fault, but it was a bubble created under Clinton administration.

There will be less pain in the long haul, if we can effect real change. Yes, many people will be suffering, but they are already suffering, and will continue to suffer. Is it better to suffer 4 more years of intense pain to get real change to our system or should we be satisfied with a slow death over many years? Anyway, I prefer to stop the hemorrhaging and take steps in the right direction with Dean, than elect one of these slow bleeding "Republicrats".

[VelmaD]

109. How exactly is Dean...

a step away from the status quo? Seriously. This is not me being snarky. He didn't step away from the prevailing economic/political system when he was governor of Vermont - what makes you think he's going to bring the revolution now?

[ozone_man]

113. I didn't say Dean would start a revolution.

Maybe a gradual revolution or a movement in the right direction (the steps I was referring to). Who knows what the future will bring. The revolution I was referring to was if things continually get worse, at some point, there will be one, and this would be the time when dramatic change will occur. Kucinich could probably beat Bush in 2004, if he had the nomination, but I don't see him getting that.

Regarding Dean, he has balanced the budget for 11 years as governor and will trim the ballooning deficits that Bush has run up. This is the most important issue this year. We cannot invest in our country, because we have to pay interest on our national debt. Most truthful economists agree on that, even Greenspahn. Dean is not very revolutionary, but he has the common sense needed to turn us back from the brink of financial disaster, the common sense to oppose the Iraq war, the common sense that will get him elected, because people in their guts, yearn for that.

[Scott Lee]

114. He didn't. People did. He's just taking up a leadership call.

And this is what Dean's opponents still do not get about him. He is not the movement - but he is leading it.

Howard is People Powered. Don't forget that. On second thought, do forget it....so we be victorious in the nom and move to the GE.

[ozone_man]

120. That's right, he is the medium that we have chosen. :-)

He's adaptable and we might him more than he ever imagined, bwaahahah.

[VelmaD]

115. I guess I just don't see Dean...

as substantively different from what you termed "republicrats". In fact I see him as much closer to the repubs than most of the others running in the primary based on his own assertions that he is in the center.

You talk about him having the common sense to balance the budget - what makes you think the other Democratic candidates don't? Howard Dean does not have the market cornered on fiscal responsibility.

[ozone_man]

119. Do you know any republicrats that passed civil unions?

Dean's health care and education initiatives like "Success by Six" (VT) for example. He knows that "No Child Left Behind" doesn't work and will result in destroying public schools. He is a public school advocate and in real life. Dean sent his kids through public schools all the way. The senatorial candidates all voted for this loser legislation IIRC, and they voted for the IWR and the Patriot Act (Bush wins the trifecta).

"Howard Dean does not have the market cornered on fiscal responsibility."

I see other candidates and supporters talking about Dean's eliminating the tax cut as raising taxes. That is just plain foolishness. Refer to my last couple replies for that.

[VelmaD]

4. Amen!

You already know I agree with you on this stuff, especially number 5. Don't feel like a bad person because deep in your black little heart you look forward to watching certain people around here get jellified. If you don't laugh about it you'll cry. Plus evil glee is a good look on you. ;-)

[AP]

6. Are the posts where we try to determine what a politician's policies are

....are those a waste of time.

That's what I'm interested in. I want to know what they mean when they say something.

[WilliamPitt]

11. Those are not a waste of time

but often become contaminated by 1-5 (especially 5). I can't wait for the primaries to be over.

[Jerseycoa]

37. Counting the days

Any attempt at serious discussion of issues in terms of any candidate is swiftly redirected by 1-5. On the other hand, there is some kind of mass amnesia about charges that have been analyzed, answered, refuted again and again. The same cheap shots taken day after day until it becomes too tiresome to respond fully and 1-5 sets in. I've been ensnared in 1-5 myself on some points and I hate it. But if you take the time to write a comprehensive response it often goes ignored and next day or next hour the same old shit. I can't wait until the primaries are over, yes.

[AP]

98. What Republicans know: the power of a few words, repeated ad nauseum.

"Class warfare," "liar," etc. etc.

Fight it by getting your own. Just because they're slogans doesn't mean they have to be untrue.

Fight fire with fire.

[maddezmom]

those are not a waste of time

:)

[Hep]

20. Yet somehow

requests for proof that someone even SAID something go ignored by those who make the claims.

My favorite thing on this board is measuring the wide distances between what people claim their intentions are and what their intentions really appear to be.

[Bozola]

8. You forgot a big one, Will.

freeper-mole-masquerading-as-a-democrat

[Hep]

10. never mind

Deleted.

[WilliamPitt]

13. deleted because above was deleted

:)

We should do this more often.

[Hep]

16. Not deleted

My post, which I deleted before, was stupid, and I apologize for not reading your post more carefully the first time.

[WilliamPitt]

17. Also not deleted

No sweat. :toast:

[JNelson6563]

12. The point you overlook

in your gleeful anticpation of certain candiate supporters going to swirl down the drain like hot Jell-o is pre-mature and misguided. Somewhat "deranged" even.

See, when the GE is in full swing, we all expect brutal full frontal attacks. The difference is we fully expect them from our enemies (that would be the Republicans). We certainly never expected such from our supposed "allies".

But then again, who would have guessed some "hard-core liberals" would have been on-board for impeach-Clinton-over-a-blow-job fiasco or BFEE sponsored wars?

Ah, politics, always full of surprises! ;-)

Julie

[WilliamPitt]

15. "brutal full frontal attacks"

That's the rub. Some are. See: Lieberman. Many aren't, but are translated as brutal full frontal attacks by the soft-shelled. Selah.

[Walt Starr]

23. So would an Anybody But <insert Dem Candidate Name> movement

be a full frontal attack, or not?

I say it is, but I suppose some wouldn't.

I'm not made of Jell-O (ick), I'm just sick of the Democratic PArty Elitist Insiders. They are not worth my bother to get out of bed and go to a polling place.

[WilliamPitt]

25. It sure would be

and are those 'insiders' worth beating Bush and removing his ilk? Forest, meet trees.

[Walt Starr]

30. Nope

I feel good about being FOR a candiate. To hell with being AGAINST anybody.

[VelmaD]

28. If you don't "bother"

to go vote...then YOU (yes you) are to blame when chimpy gets re-elected. No coming in here after the general election to whine about the state of your country.

[Walt Starr]

34. Nope, not me

If The Democratic Party can't get me to vote FOR the nominee, it's the party's fault.

I'm through being taken for granted b the party. If living in a post-9/11 world has taught me anything it is this one thing:

Never let your decisions in this life be ruled by fear. Fear allows you to be manipulated into doing things you would never have rationally accepted if it were not for the fear.

I'll go with my hopes. If the Democratic Party cannot offer me hope instead of fear, fuck it. I no longer fear a Bush win in 2004. I hope for a Dean win in 2004.

[VelmaD]

36. Fear in and of itself...

is not a bad thing. It's our reaction to fear that is sometimes bad. I do fear a Bush victory in 2004 but I'm using that fear to motivate me to work for whoever wins the Democratic nomination (and then hold their feet to the fire to do the rights things in office). I WILL NOT live under that...chimp...for another 4 years.

[JNelson6563]

41. Ah Will, still smartin' over yesterday eh?

Well your insinuation that I am "soft-shelled" has been noted, not to mention your informing me yesterday how "pathetic" I am, not forgotten. Not to worry.

No, many of the attacks between Dems have been nasty. Of course, if I were a bitter, frustrated supporter of a candidate who looked like a sure bet but turned out to be anything but, I might see those attacks on the up-start front-runner as not so bad either. ;-)

Julie

[WilliamPitt]

62. Am I?

I don't see your name anywhere up there. Funny how you volunteered here to be a victim...again. :eyes:

[madfloridian]

69. Or me?

Remember me, the "half-assed martyr"? I remember. I remember I was attacking no one.

[JNelson6563]

70. Barking up the wrong tree, again

I see no victim talk in my posts. Probably because I don't feel like much of a victim. People on the winning team rarely do. Especially when they were on the team long before the team was in front of the others. As far as I've noticed, success tends to breed a "poor-me" attitude in Republicans. Look at them now, they hold all and whine constantly. Even with the press giving them free passes in spades. Go figure.

The only real victim I see here is America at the hands of BFEE and their supporters/enablers. I am looking to remedy that in short order though.

I doubt I'll take as much glee in their downfall as you would in your much anticipated pain for some of your fellow Dems--which seems to me some pretty twisted wishful thinking on your part but hey, that's me. Thinking it crazy to wish misery on my supposed allies. :eyes:

Julie

[WilliamPitt]

71. Allies are people in the fight until the finish

And then there are my-candidate-or-nothing types who couldn't be more of a drag on the process if they were wearing a parachute. None of us will be on any winning team until the votes get counted next November. Any thoughts or opinions to the contrary tipify what I was talking about. Thanks.

[JNelson6563]

85. Agreed

Allies are people in the fight until the finish.

I guess this makes us allies, you and I. :toast:

Julie

[Walt Starr]

64. Hey JNelson!

LOVE your sig!


:pals:

:hi:

[Walt Starr]

18. Yep, politics is certainly full of surprises

Who woulda though two years ago there would be a rising Dean Republicans phenomenon?

[bearfartinthewoods]

19. does you dismissive opinion of polls extend to subject such as

'wrong track/right track' and 'which issue is important' polls?

perhaps, if you've ever worked in any campaign you might see how much money they allocate for polling. if they see value in them, i'm not sure why i shouldn't?

[WilliamPitt]

22. How many internal polls make it into the mainstream media?

There's a huge difference between internal campaign polls - which are, by and large, a carefully guarded secret - and those done by MSNBC or CNN or Fox or Pew or Zogby.

[bearfartinthewoods]

42. many news orgs hire the same polling firms that the candidates do

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Dec. 18-21, 2003. Registered voters nationwide (from a total sample of 1,001 adults). Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Dec. 18-19, 2003. N=828 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.

Associated Press poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Dec. 15-17, 2003. N=756 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.6

[VelmaD]

45. Ok, I'm gonna be pedantic

I do surveys for work. And the thing that I always wonder about that they never report on those polls, is the response rate. That makes a big difference in the accuracy of a poll and they never say a word about it.

The more polls/surveys I do, the less I trust the resulting data. I've discovered over time that a 30% response rate is often teh best one can expect and that's just not good enough. Plus there are huge problems with self-selection - who responds depends on when you call or where you go to ask.

I'm also curious about how they select their sample. Is it really a random sample of people across the US?

Like I said, I'm being pedantic but I'm really paranoid about poll results anymore. I blame Karl Rove - I had him for my campaign politics class in grad school and he feels no ethical qualms AT ALL about abusing polls.

[La_Serpiente]

47. whoa

Karl Rove in person - kind of scary. Did he have hair?

[VelmaD]

49. A little...

but not much.

It was fascinating and horrible to have him for a prof. I had a friend who had to sit between me and Karl every class to keep me from climbing over the table and strangling him.

Our class guest speakers included Ralph Reed. Blech.

I do have the dubious honor of having been called a "Shi'ite feminist" by Karl.

[retread]

72. Not a dubious honor. We would all be better off if your friend had moved!

*

[VelmaD]

73. *snort* Too true

In his defense he was trying to be a nice guy and keep me from getting kicked out of grad school. I'm thinking even as liberal as it tends to be, the LBJ School would have to do something if a student strangled a prof for being a conservative asshole. Oh well. *big fake sigh*

[DuctapeFatwa]

24. LOL I'll add a category: the "No, no, what he MEANT when he said that"

thread.

Someone posts a quote from Candidate X saying he does not like foam rubber cheesehats.

Someone else posts a reply, yes, I saw that, and that's why I support Candidate Y, he understands the cheesehat issue.

Then Candidate X's Protection Squad arrive, to accuse the poster of making it up, attack the paper that published the original article, and deplore all this senseless bashing of Candidate X, and explain that Candidate X really loves foam rubber cheesehats, that is what he meant to say, and here is another quote from him saying he was so glad to get one for his birthday.

This post is quickly followed by other members of the Protection Squad who attempt to reassure cheesehat fans that X is just saying this because he has to, but once he is elected, his cheesehat policy will be the bestest ever, because Candidate X is the bestest ever, and will win.

And so it goes, until the Candidate Y people smell cheese, and proceed to post Y's praises of cheesehats for the last 10 years, and post a few photos of a smiling Y wearing a cheesehat.

This really makes the X people mad, Y is just pandering to cheesehat fans, but X is the one who really understands them, and when he said he didn't like them, it is because he LOVES them, and anyway, he will win, because he is bestest.

[KittyWampus]

33. Ah, The Foam Rubber Cheesehat Incident!

I remember it well :D

[curse10]

52. LoL

But cheesehats need a voice!

[oasis]

56. That was a dandy. eom

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. You understand the dynamics perfectly!

:7

[chimpymustgo]

61. This is one of the most insightful posts I've seen around here

in a long time.

Very funny. Very astute.

[Tinoire]

103. Stop it DTF!

You are making me laugh and I don't want to laugh because I'm still angry enough over yesterday but I can't stop laughing.

Damn you my friend!

I will not laugh. I will not re-read that post! I will not laugh!

You really are "the bestest"! :toast:

That was the "bestest" analogy of what goes on here that I've ever seen!

[sistersofmercy]

117. Hey DF

You are so clever! ROFL! Happy New Year, mon ami!

[no name no slogan]

122. As a native MNan, I heartily oppose foam-rubber cheesehats!

Only Packer fans wear those abominations!

Seriously, though, you not only smacked this one out of the park, you hit a grand slam as well! However, you forgot to include the part where Candidate X says cheesehats are bad, but then Campaign Manager X goes out on the blog and explains that what Candidate X REALLY said was "cheesehats good".

:D

[DancingBear]

26. Firesign Theatre said it best

"Oh, Will, you're such a ... tool!" :) :) :)

On a serious note, thanks for the input. Some of us ( on all sides) try, vainly at times, to raise these very points you addressed. The political commentary=bashing stuff is a bit of a hoot, in a sadly macabre sort of way.

Until, of course, it happens in the GE - for real - at Mach 3 to what it is now. Then the protestations won't matter, and the onion skin will not protect.

[Iverson]

118. They also said ...

"Vote for me and go home!" - Mayor Pnisnose

"Look at your only logical choice: me, George Tirebiter."

Be groovy.

[LWolf]

32. kick for common sense.

Did you ever see one of those threads, start to pass it by, and then someone posts a response that pushes the reaction button, and...there you go.

Here's a "until the nominee is decided" resolution for me. Hit the little x box on all of those threads, and get on with discussing issues.

[kodi]

46. U forgot 2 mention that most candidates wives covort with known thespians

i dont know if they are just acting or actually are thespians themselves. but it worries me.

but here's my take, i dont trust a candidate who doesn't have a pet. which is why i am a founding member of the "Wag the Tail" Party, also known as the "WITS."

our campaign slogan is "we've been witless long enough in washington, vote WITS!"

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

50. You forgot the "Other threads are Bad" Threads

Those are by far the biggest wastes of time.

[curse10]

53. I'm a personal fan of the ask the admin forum with

"why-was-my-truly-inflammatory-thread-locked?-this-must-mean-you-are biased-against-my-candidate" thread :-)

Hours of entertainment.

[knight_of_the_star]

59. ABB all the way

Anything else will destroy us.

[sistersofmercy]

60. Telling it like it is!

Will, I'm so glad you are back.

[John_H]

63. "There is no way to tell....how one of these candidates will ..."

My High School football coach used to tell us a version of this--usually right before we got pummelled by one of the big high schools. Trouble is, the any-given-sunday argument can't be applied to presidential elections.

Of course there are many ways of figuring out who can beat chimp and who can't. Do I really need to list them?

Why not start with common sense? We're in the midst of a war time election in which the president is the recipient of sympathetic media coverage and high polling numbers on national security. There's no way to tell who'll fare better? Please.

We all hate pollsters, I know, but guess what? They're ususally pretty accurate. We all know what the general election polls say.

Let's look at what the politicos say. Tweety and Lunz push Dean, Carville and Begala say he can't win? Who do you believe?

How about history? Generals do better in time of and just after wars, which pisses off some DUers but has a 200 year history of being a fact. Washington, Grant et. all. The Dems even ran a general against lincoln 'cause they knew it was their only shot. The repugs ran a general right after WW II just as the cold war was heating up and won by a landslide. Truman knew what was going to happen an recruited the shit out of Ike. Carter was percieved as weak on national security.

I know the any given sunday thing peg fits the "whole" of post. But in real life the likely outcomes of a Dean or Clark nominations just can't get more obvious.

[TeacherCreature]

65. I'll say

I guess some waste of time threads are just more equal than others.

[Walt Starr]

67. Excellent Animal Farm reference!

Gotta love it when things get Orwellian in the world!

:hi:

:pals:

[Tinoire]

104. A Royal thumbs up to that one!

:toast:

[rucky]

66. #2 can be healthy debate

"My candidate is better than yours & heres why..."


Don't get the dartboard analagy.

[VelmaD]

68. Basically he's saying...

that you could pick any Dem candidate at random...and no matter which Dem candidate it was they would still be WAY better than Bush. This is a point on which Will and I are in TOTAL agreement.

[dsc]

74. Pro lifers are criminals?

I know that is not what you intended to say but lumping Dennis' pro life record in the secion you did says just that.

[VelmaD]

76. Tell that to the people...

who have been threatened, shot at, assaulted, etc by Operation Rescue just because they worked at Planned Parenthood.

[dsc]

86. Dennis Kucinich did none of those things

He represented the views of himself and his constituents in DC, which last I checked was not criminal activity. By that standard a pro enviromental Representative is responsible for eco terrorism, pro gay ones for ACT UP's behavior, and anti VietNam were ones were repsonsible for the Weathermen.

[VelmaD]

87. Didn't mean to imply...

that DK did any of those things. In fact, he's one of the 2 candidates I support because I agree with him on most issues and he changed his stance on abortion.

[dsc]

91. Then you need to write more clearly

or else read what is written more clearly. Will labeled Dennis Kucinich's pro life stand with the heading your candidate is a criminal. It is that to which I asked if he considered pro lifers criminals and then your post says they are and links them to the activities you listed. And that is my point. Being pro life is not the same as doing the things you listed.

[VelmaD]

93. Actually the point Will was making...

was that accusing candidates of being "criminals" was ridiculous.

What you said in your post was that pro-lifers were not criminals and then I pointed out that some are.

[dsc]

99. This is what Will wrote

3. 'your-candidate-is-a-criminal threads'

Clark met with a war criminal (debunked). Kerry is BFEE (laughable). Dean loves Enron (joke). Kucinich was anti-choice (Catholics are like that sometimes, and he changed his mind like an intelligent human). There's one of these for all of them. It's fun to pretend like you're a GOP dirt-digger, but what a waste of time and energy this has been.


The Clark charge certainly would be criminal actvity. So would the Kerry one. The Dean one would arguably be. Then there is the Kucinich one. Again the paragraph is headed your candidate is a criminal. It is hard to argue that the typical meaning of this paragraph isn't what I said it is. I do assume he means what you say but he didn't say that.

[windansea]

75. my personal favorite

are "unity threads" which usually start out good and then gradually evolve into an insult fest.

I also just love the sweet little question...venus fly trap stealth bashing threads...always a hoot...

hit and run pooping...thread hijacking...the list goes on and on

I'd rather be an honest attack dog than a hypocrit...but thats just me

good to see you posting Will :hi:

[Woodstock]

81. there is a third option

1) attack dog

2) hypocrite

3) respectful debator (who sticks to facts and doesn't character assasinate the person who very well might end up the only thing standing between us and 4 more years of Bush)

[Woodstock]

77. thanks, maybe they will listen to you

I haven't had much luck...

what a waste of resources - this could have been a unified against Bush force of motivated Democrats & progressives

debate yes, character assasinate no

the OBVIOUS reasons for not doing the latter don't seem to have sunken in to most here

[WilliamPitt]

78. GREAT DAY IN THE MORNIN'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=10195

[VelmaD]

79. You sound stunned...

but is it because he agreed to take down the NBD sig line or because the admins said it didn't break the rules?

[WilliamPitt]

80. I'll take curtain A, Bob

Oooooh, it's a washing machine! :)

[VelmaD]

82. Neato...

just don't trade it for what's behind door number 2.

Ya know, there's all sorts of fun to be had with a washing machine. And I don't just mean sorting your unmentionables. ;-)

[Capn Sunshine]

83. OK, now let's take a look at what you could have won...

It's a brand new White House !
That's right Bob, it's a brand new White House, brought to you by the friendly folks at NBD.

Yes, "NBD , why look anywhere else when the answer is smacking you in the face?"

contestant responsible for taxes , license, maintenance and upkeep.

[Woodstock]

84. anyone who keeps singling out the "NBD" element for blame

is HARDLY taking the high road - au contraire

might I suggest, that you use a more neutral term to voice your objections to such a philosophy? since as we all know, it's not just that particular candidate who has fringe supporters who feel that way? (and if we don't know that, perhaps we might look up the meaning of the word "subjective")

how about critiquing the NBMC (nobody but my candidate) position instead?

[Walt Starr]

94. The public calls for NBD to be banned were just too many

Since those opposed to my Pro-Dean signature chose to go public with that opposition by starting two separate threads in GD04 (both of which were locked) and one in ATA, I felt I must publicly remove my signature until the Administrators ruled.

The Administrators ruled in a manner consistent with the rules. I also fully understand that an NBD signature is no longer consistent with the rules should Dean not be nominated. I knew that when I chose the signature in the first place.

[sallyseven]

92. You sir

are absolutely right. I have my favorite but I will support whoever the democrat is as I have for 47 years of voting. There is no best man for the job if he is not a DEMOCRAT. Everyone focus.

[Hoppin_Mad]

96. Thanks Will - I agree -eom-

[cryofan]

97. Reading your pro-Dean puff pieces is a waste of time....

Why did you not respond to my posts regarding Dean's Vermont Governor quotes that reveal him to be a cryptoRepublican PseudoLiberal, which contrast markedly with his speeches and his bought-and-paid-for media puff pieces, which paint him as a Liberal?

For your benefit, once again, here are the quotes to which I referred:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Most of the Democrats in the legislature rebelled against Dean over the budget cuts, and he ended up depending on Republican votes to pass most of his proposals. At the time, a local Vermont newspaper wrote, "The biggest items on Dean’s agenda for next year are likely to provoke more opposition from the Democrats than the Republicans. Nevertheless, Dean said he feels no particular pressure to deliver the goods to his party or to promote the Democratic agenda."15

In the mid-1990s, Dean even aligned himself with the likes of Republican Newt Gingrich on his stance on cutting Medicare. He opined at the time, "The way to balance the budget is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut everything else."16
....
The Rutland Herald described how one protestor, Henrietta Jordan of the Vermont Center for Independent Living, "said it would be much fairer to raise taxes on people with expensive homes and cars, children in private school and a housekeeper at home than to cut programs that helped the 66,000 Vermonters living with disabilities."17 Dean responded callously, brushing off the pleas of Vermont’s most vulnerable by saying, "This seems like sort of the last gasp of the left here."18"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The rest of this article is here:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/dean.shtml

[VelmaD]

100. Hey Will...apparently you need to...

make up your mind just exactly who it is you're whoring for. ;-)

And here all this time I thought you just wrote Kerry puff-pieces. *snort*

[Scott Lee]

105. Or at least clear them with truthout.org first....

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[dfong63]

107. nice evasion there, Will

So much of what has been posted in this forum to date has been a total waste of time. I'm talking about the so-and-so can't win threads,

instead of saying "so much of what has been posted", you should say, "so much of what Will Pitt has posted". you not only participated in those threads, here's one you started:

example

``...
In a better world, a man like Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich would win the nomination and barnstorm into the Presidency.
...
In a better world...but this isn't a better world. This is this world, and this world is a mess.
...''

so, being an admitted participant and an initiator of such threads, when it suited you, where do you get off slamming other people now for their doing what you did?

I'm not even going to address the if-my-candidate-doesn't-win-I-will-not-vote-Democrat garbage. If you can't see the forest for this particular set of trees, then go your merrily deranged way, and I will thank Jesus there are more of us than there are of you.

you don't address it because you have no coherent argument to support the proposition that absolutely "anyone" is better than Bush, and in fact there might be a good reason not to back a democrat. mindless partisanship is part of the GOP mindset, not the dem. there are some bad (and phony) democrats, and they do have "(D)" after their name. hence the term "DINO". thanking Jesus is a good thing to do, but it's no substitute for facts and logic.

[Eurobabe]

108. spend less time on here and get out for your candidate!

"In the military, I learned that generals don't win wars, soldiers do," General Wesley Clark said. "We're all in this together."

Stop the bashing and do something positive and constructive! It is appalling how much time people waste on these boards, talk to me after you have spent months pounding the pavement for your candidates like some of us have.

I'm going to NH next week to work for Clark, TTFN. -Crozet

PS. Yes this is snarky, it's meant to be.

[DancingBear]

110. Maybe I'll see you there?

Still working things out logistically.

Manchester or Keene??

:hi:

[Green4Dean]

112. Iowa

Clark needs at least one volunteer there...just kidding...

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[Paragon]

116. How about "I'm afraid..." threads?

And they say the Democrats in Washington are spineless.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

121. Agreed except for 2. 'my-candidate-is-better-than-yours threads'

Surely which candidate is the best choice and why, is not a topic that is a waste of time discussing?

[Mairead]

126. exactly. the 'and why' part is the crucial part

'abb' is like the old joke-story about how assholes ended up ruling the world