The Lesser Of Two Evils

[demwing]

UNBELIEVABLE!

CNN is reporting two men claiming to be incarnations of Jesus Christ and Guatama Buddha have appeared in Washington, DC, and are running for the United States Presidency. Jesus and Buddha were unavailable for comment, as they were busy raising the dead, feeding the masses, healing the sick, and enlightening just about everyone that came by to visit.

Not likely, is it?

Bloody ridiculous, actually.

But until the perfect man or woman walks the Earth and decides to run for the US Presidency (and happens to qualify, constitutionally), then we will always have to settle for a candidate that is considerably less than perfect.

That's why I think it's time to retire the stale old complaint that voting for so and so is the only pure vote of conscience, and that we must (cue "sigh" and "rolling of the eyes") settle for the lesser of two evils.

Oh WAH! Get over it!

John Kerry is not the "lesser of two evils." He is just NOT PERFECT.

And if you're out there saying that Kerry IS the lesser of two evils, you're probably just trying to promote some other candidate. Well guess what?

It's damn transparent! We can see through it!

In addition, I'll bet my last $50 that your candidate isn't out there multiplying the fish and loaves either. But that's OK. We don't expect it.

So don't expect kerry to be perfect. And when he acts imperfectly, don't play the drama queen and complain that he's the lesser of two evils. There's only ONE evil in this race. His name is George.

Lets put aside our false expectations of perfection in a candidate, ok? Kerry will be a damned good Pres. He won't be perfect in the Whitehouse, but if we don't expect perfection, I promiss you that we won't be sorry we put him there.

[mermaid]

1. DAMN Well Spoken!!

Nothing I can add wiuld make your words any more powerful. You hit the nail dead-on, my friend!

[JI7]

2. great post, i agree

[realisticphish]

3. Hear, Hear!

:hippie:

[janx]

4. Why do you feel the need to post this?

I'm not coming at you; I just wonder. Why are you posting this?

[demwing]

7. Because I'm getting fried, Janx

Fried with the idea that "my guy" is the ideal, and anything less is a cop out, or a sellout, or just plain evil (even if that evil is less evil than some other evil). That attitude is an insult.

I'm fried with the anti-Kerry sentiment. The primaries were a tough fight. Not everyone here supported Kerry, but damn it, Kerry won, and that finishes that. Some may think that there were some irregularities, but none of the other candidates are challenging the fairness of the primaries, so the followers of those candidates should take a clue. The candidates accept Kerry, so we should also.

And I'm fried with those who constantly harp on about whether we can defend Kerry or not, as if we owed them our words.

Well, these are my words. These are my answers to all those things that have been bothering me lately.

thanks for asking Janx :)

[janx]

11. I haven't seen too many anti-Kerry posts.

But then maybe I just didn't see them.

In any case, it's not practical to bash Kerry at this point. We have to get Chimpy out.

[demwing]

15. Janx, read Sean's post #12 for an example

I know you know Sean from our earlier Dean support days, and from the Dean forum that sprang from DU. Whether his position surprises you, agrees with your views, or doesn't even register a blip on your radar, I don't know, but it is a good example of what I'm talking about.

[pansypoo53219]

5. no duh

that is my position and i am sticking to it.

[olddem43]

6. Good points that can be used to sway those -

right leaning friends that don't like Bush but are reluctant to do more than stay home.

[LimpingLib]

8. Kerry.

What bugs me the most is a bunch of canidates trying to look and sound like progressive populists and sucking the air out of the real thing. Kerry was one of the few canidates who didnt try and act like something he wasnt.Honestly Kerry was and is more progressive than Dean, Edwards , Clark , and many others who tryed to paint somthing misleading on their sleeves (though I really liked Deans comment about media reform , would have been revolutionary and was a progressive position if anything was)His more moderate tone also is the reason why he is leading Bush. If a canidate is a moderate then its best they at least talk like one. Kerry did the whole race and it enabled the media (which is right of center even on its most progressive moments ) to respect him. Plus Kerry didnt go around acting like a fool.

Im more bugged by the base than Kerry. He is just a reflection of our endless biannual drive to win which precludeds any dangerous boat rocking proposals. At least with Kerry, one of my most important concerns (one I think is almost cataclysmic, make that my *most important*), the concern of oil running out, will be adressed (though he adresses it from environmental and foreign policy perspectives, which is also important but nothing compared to the problem of oil wells being exausted in the face of growing industrial activity worldwide).Google "peak oil".Anyway, true we have rejected the most overt of DLC canidates and to some extent policys , but I dont think most Democrats (and I am understating it)would reconize what a genuine progressive populist proposal is unless the mainstream (generaly conservative)media made it headline news which will never happen unless we make them.

At least till Kerry picked Edwards he got high marks from me for truth in advertising. Now simply because Edwards is on the ticket , nearly 90% of Democrats are going to think every lame proposal and position the ticket takes is somehow hard left material.I hope Kerry wins but by 2012 (and if he looses then by 2008) I sure hope the discernment factor in our party raises itself like 100 notches .

In the post DLC period (no longer are we prey to the mass deception)I hope that getting rid of Bush and getting Kerry will get us to start having canidates consider and list specifics. This last primary was in the context of us making a mass exodus from the DLCs propaganda bondage and any clown of a canidate could easily come out and with rhetoric try and sound like a savior without any major policy diviation from the status quo.Plus the fact that progressive populist positions have been absent for so long (Clintons 6 year back burner approach after 2 fumbling years 1993-1994 then Bush's indifference)make almost any half-assed policys seem revolutionary especially from politicians aiming for the white house.

On the other hand (the future scenario I fear most) we might become a bunch of stadium fans rooting for the hometown team and whoever our Presidents present VP is we will just support like he is entitled to our souls.If we do go down that path then it will do it for several typical reasons:bandwagon crap,feelings of "loyalty" to whomever our Democrat President is as we will be grateful he won and just let it overwhelm our senses, plus we will (our WORST problem) think it is politicaly expedient and the best way to "gurantee victory" as if issues arent important but winning and only winning is.I admit thats my biggest fear.And its looms rather large in my mind.

[sandnsea]

9. The right has picked it up too

Kerry's just the lesser of two evils so I'll just stick with Bush because at least he will "fill in the blank with wedge issue."

I've seen it quite a bit in the last week or two on some other boards.

[demwing]

10. So, the Repukes knowingly vote for the "greater of two evils?"

thats too weird.

[Sean Reynolds]

12. To some...HE IS the lesser of two evils.

People fail to admit it here, but the harsh reality is that a lot of people aren't sold on Kerry. Escepcially a lot of the liberal crowd. In fact, they're not really high on the Democratic Party either.

Of course I'm talking about the people that didn't support the war in Iraq. Yet find it very hard supporting a presidential and vice presidential candidate that did. I'm talking about people that actually support gay marriage. Yet find it very hard supporting a presidential and vice presidential candidate that do not. I'm talking about people that want our troops home now, instead of continuing an imperialist occupation of a country. Yet find it very hard supporting a presidential and vice presidential candidate that does. I'm talking about the people that actually want a fair Middle Eastern policy, not one that is aligned in the back pockets of Israel. Yet find it very hard supporting a presidential and vice presidential candidate that thinks different.

It's that simple. To a lot of people John Kerry IS the lesser of two evils. Hell, the whole Democratic Party to many is the lesser of the two evils.

It's quite sad really.

Finally, I must laugh at your little spew about others supporting different candidates than John Kerry. It's quite amusing that we're all expected to bow down to John Kerry like he was the next Messiah, totally undermining the true existents of this board. That being dissent in the face of political difference.

Why should one be chastised because they don't share the adore of Kerry? I surely do not expect everyone to support *MY* candidate.

But I guess it's all false expectations. Maybe my expectations actually intertwine with my beliefs and hopes for this country. Sadly, when I look at John Kerry my beliefs go unnoticed and my hopes are dashed.

Killing off any expectation I have that John Kerry actually could be a decent president.

[dmkinsey]

13. The thing is

there just aren't enough really left, real progressive, true believers in the USA to elect a president.
To state the simple and obvious, a candidate has to appeal to a BROAD swath of the voting public in order to get elected. A true progressive, like Kucinich, just doesn't have the breadth of appeal necessary.
We're not saying we want to win as an end in itself.
We're saying that in order to actually DO ANYTHING we first must win.
In my view the time for "boat rocking" and pushing for meaningful change is AFTER our candidate gets elected.

[demwing]

14. Well Janx, here is the typical anti-Kerry post

Sean, I'm surprised. You step in all the holes as if you intended to.

You see, not being sold on Kerry is ok. Hell, I'm not "sold" on Kerry either. Like you, I supported Dean through the primaries. But the fact is that it doesn't matter now. Dean supports Kerry very enthusiastically. Because of Dean, I support Kerry, and so should you, even if we can't match Howard Deans energy (but then, who can?).

But just because we aren't as enthusiastic as Dean, or because we recognize that Kerry is imperfect, doesn't mean that Kerry is evil. What a crock of shit!

And laugh all you like about my "spew." With every word you reaffirm my original post. You scoff at the idea of--how did you put it? Oh yeah, of being "expected to bow down to John Kerry like he was the next Messiah, totally undermining the true existents (sic) of this board"

Now tell me Sean, where have I expressed an expectation that anyone would bow down to Kerry?

--I have not. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Where have I indicated that I thought Kerry was messianic?

--I never did. I said Kerry was not evil, just imperfect. If you see that as messianic, you are deluded, or purposefully subverting the content of the debate.

And where did I chastise anyone because they don't "adore" Kerry?

--The correct answer is "Nowhere." But I do chastise those who can't tell the difference between the fact that they are personally disappointed that Kerry beat their candidate ( I was there, I know it sucks) with the false meme that Kerry is evil, just less evil than Bush. That is one of the big lies of this campaign season, and I'm surprised that somone of your intelligence buys into it.

In the end, you are right Sean. It is about expectations. I acknowledged that in my original post. But your expectations are your responsibility. John Kerry is not perfect, but he is damn good. He is not a messiah, but he can save the country from four more years of Bush, IF we get behind him and give him a chance.

But as long as anyone expects perfection from a candidate, they will be disappointed. Get mad at Kerry for being imperfect and falling faint before your hopes and dreams if you like. I think it's a damn poor strategy for building a better country.

And isn't THAT the real reason behind this forum?

[Sean Reynolds]

16. Well.....

Sean, I'm surprised. You step in all the holes as if you intended to.

You see, not being sold on Kerry is ok. Hell, I'm not "sold" on Kerry either. Like you, I supported Dean through the primaries. But the fact is that it doesn't matter now. Dean supports Kerry very enthusiastically. Because of Dean, I support Kerry, and so should you, even if we can't match Howard Deans energy (but then, who can?).

This is what should make America great. I shouldn't have to be forced to support Kerry, and I'm not. So I won't. It's my opinion to not like Kerry, it's my belief to not vote for him in November. You and Howard Dean are afforded the right to think otherwise.

But just because we aren't as enthusiastic as Dean, or because we recognize that Kerry is imperfect, doesn't mean that Kerry is evil. What a crock of shit!

In my eyes, Kerry has done some evil things. Things that I can't easily forget.

And laugh all you like about my "spew." With every word you reaffirm my original post. You scoff at the idea of--how did you put it? Oh yeah, of being "expected to bow down to John Kerry like he was the next Messiah, totally undermining the true existents (sic) of this board"

Now tell me Sean, where have I expressed an expectation that anyone would bow down to Kerry?

--I have not. Quite the opposite, in fact.



Hm, I didn't catch that flub, thanks for pointing it out. ;-) Anyway, you expressed such thought by making a post. In a way, my reply wasn't about you, rather the collective whole here at DU. I've been attacked many of times because I don't conform to the notion of ABB. Which is fine, I guess. Here at DU you're expected to support Kerry. Anything less can get you banned -- ask a lot of people. Is it right? Who knows....but it's the truth.

Where have I indicated that I thought Kerry was messianic?

--I never did. I said Kerry was not evil, just imperfect. If you see that as messianic, you are deluded, or purposefully subverting the content of the debate.

Again, a generalization on my part. Talking more about the collective whole here at DU. People here attack conservative Democrats, albeit not as badly as Republicans, for saying stuff John Kerry says all the time. Yet when it comes out of John Kerry's mouth they just chalk it up to being a smart move by the Kerry campaign. That pisses me off and it does make me think some people here look at Kerry in a totally different light.

And where did I chastise anyone because they don't "adore" Kerry?

--The correct answer is "Nowhere." But I do chastise those who can't tell the difference between the fact that they are personally disappointed that Kerry beat their candidate ( I was there, I know it sucks) with the false meme that Kerry is evil, just less evil than Bush. That is one of the big lies of this campaign season, and I'm surprised that somone of your intelligence buys into it.

I never said it was you that chastised anyone. But there is a large hostility toward people unwilling to support John Kerry. I don't think that is warranted. See I guess I think liberals are an open minded group of people. People willing to rationally sit down and debate the justification of both sides.A lot of the times rationality is thrown out the window for personal attacks. I'm not just saying it's the supporters of Kerry that do this, it's cleary a double sided event. But many are vilified here for not supporting Kerry 100%. Even people that support Kerry, but have questions and aren't fully sold on him, get attacked too. I don't like that.

In the end, you are right Sean. It is about expectations. I acknowledged that in my original post. But your expectations are your responsibility. John Kerry is not perfect, but he is damn good. He is not a messiah, but he can save the country from four more years of Bush, IF we get behind him and give him a chance.

Damn good to you, damn disgusting to the next. It all rests within that person's expectations. I have different expectations than you, and you have different expectations than the next person. That is why I firmly believe you should vote your hopes and your beliefs. If you can't support John Kerry because of it, you can't support him. If you think he's the lesser of two evils because of it, he's the lesser of the two evils. Of course, if you like him because of it....well vote for him because of it.

I can't.

I won't.

I'm not a compromising voter. So if he wants my vote, he'll have to earn it. Which says I'm not going to get behind him until HE gives me a reason to get behind him. He's trying to sell himself to ME, not the other way around. That is HIS obligation as a candidate. My obligation as a voter is to look through each candidate and vote for the guy that addresses MY issues the best. If Kerry can't do that, Kerry can't get my vote.

But as long as anyone expects perfection from a candidate, they will be disappointed. Get mad at Kerry for being imperfect and falling faint before your hopes and dreams if you like. I think it's a damn poor strategy for building a better country.

Perfection? No. Hope? Sure. Kerry doesn't give me hope, so why should I entrust my vote with him? It's obvious he connects more with other people -- a lot are compromising their vote to John Kerry. A lot genuinely do like him, I don't. I say let them support Kerry, I'm not going to attack them or call them wrong. Just as I hope they'd not attack me or call me wrong because I could possibly support a candidate I genuinely like. I don't think that is a piss poor strategy at building a better America. John Kerry and I share two different Americas.

I'm not going to endorse his America, until he accepts MY America.

And isn't THAT the real reason behind this forum?

You're right....and that is exactly why I'm here.

[dmkinsey]

17. So I just don't get your motivation

Your not a Democrat but you come to DU to tell us that we're corporate whores and our candidates suck and no enlightened person could support our party.
Why?

[Sean Reynolds]

18. No I come to have a lively debate....

Listen, I've been posting at DU since it opened back in January of 2001. While I don't agree with a lot of you, I respect many of you. I enjoy having debates and I enjoy talking politics.

That is why I come here.

Not to attack or belittle a candidate.

[demwing]

19. It's the lame "lesser evil" meme.

John Kerry is less evil than GW Bush?
Democrats are less evil than Republicans?
Du is less evil than Free Republic?

Well, here is a new one.

The "lesser evil" voters are themselves the lesser of two evils. At least they vote. Some people don't vote at all. Those people who don't vote are like little cancers on Democracy. A few won't hurt the body of Democracy, but a few bread, and spread, and if enough people stop voting, Democracy dies.

"Lesser evil" voters are not as bad. But unfortunately their vocal lack of enthusiasm for anything less than the ideal is one of the contributors to voter apathy. People listen to this drivel, and believe that their vote doesn't really matter. All the candidates are essentially the same, so why bother voting? Vocal "LE" voters actually encourage apathy, and as such they are also dangerous to the body of Democracy.

We must not pretend that the good is really the bad, just because it is not the perfect. That attitude (in November 2000) contributed to the mess we find ourselves in today.

[LimpingLib]

21. No, the 2 (or 4 ) year nearsightedness is the reason for our mess.

I agree we are stuck with Kerry (so lets get past that)but we are going to have the same problem every election cycle because we didnt have the vision back (not in 2000 and not earlier)in elections past to really start taking bold stands. And we dont this time.

Courts will be just as inacessable , houses will be just as expensive , jobs will be just as lousey , military spending will be just as economy draining as before, etc. etc. in 2008 as now.


Till we risk actualy getting rained and poured on a few elections while rebuilding a new house (tearing down the old one)then we will all be grumpy and unhappy every election.

[demwing]

23. But does that make Kerry the lesser evil? No!

It makes him imperfect. Imperfect is ok. No one is perfect.
I have no problem voting for an imperfect candidate, but I won't vote for an evil candidate. Kerry is not an evil man.

There is only one evil in the race, and his name is George.

[dmkinsey]

37. Our Lesser Evil folk are overlooking the fact that

this IS a democracy.
Our LE voters could have had any near-perfect progressive candidate of their choosing if only they could have mustered sufficient support for that person.
Lot's of progressive wail that Kucinich is not our nominee but the reality is that few Democrats chose to put their faith in a ticket headed by DK.
Our progressive wing feels cheated that the DLC somehow rigged the primary's and shoved John Kerry down our throats.
There are two ways to overcome the DLC. Get inside and change it or develop a bigger, stronger group and render the DLC inert.
The reality is that even Paul Wellstone would have been an underdog in a national race. Any other pure progressive would be a write-off.
The first step in changing America is getting control of the government and that requires the support of 50% plus 1 of the voters. Or in the post 2000 environment 50% plus a very large and obvious plurality.

[demwing]

38. good points all around

I've thought that some of this LE attitude is just sour grapes.

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. I am voting for Kerry, but he's still not my fave choice.

Do I think he is evil? No. Do I think he is going to institute all kinds of wonderful progressive reforms during his term? I am cautiously hopeful.

Still, I reserve the right not to vote for him again in '08 if he falls short of what I am looking for, which is not perfection but at least forward movement.

[demwing]

24. 2008 is another story, but only if Kerry wins in 2004

Otherwise we are in for a world of hurt.

Agreed?

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. Yes, a * with no fear of re-election is a monster I don't wish to see.

[LimpingLib]

26. Gee is there some lack of people compromising?

Kerry has plenty of support from Democrats and progressives that arent crazy about him , some would even say more than he deserves.

Why are you beating a dead horse?

[demwing]

28. Compromising?

Talk about straw man arguments.

Supporting Kerry is a compromise only to those who aren't satisfied with moderation amongst Democrats.

Do you want to know why we have DINOs and the DLC? It's because of this attitude, the notion that a progtressive candidate is best, no, is only a REAL progressive when they seat themselves at the far left.

This pushes those other Dems further to the right. Then we get men like Miller or Lieberman.

Loosen up.

[LimpingLib]

29. No!

Its because we keep refusing to take a stand on issues that are further than marginaly more "left" (and I hate labels btw , dont use them in real life fyi , rather discuss issues)than the GOP and thus drive turnout down and turn off potential voter after potential voter every election.

We try to pander here and there and try to patch up as many holes as possible to eek out a win every 2 years. We never risk "loosing" but we sure have done a good job , endless times in a row for congress most governor races , and of coarse every Presidential election has been lost or on narrowly in recent history. Heck had we taken a stand long ago then we would be no worse off now than we presently are (we are out of power in every branch)but sure would have the nation united on our side real soon if not now.

We are getting sick of it especially when people cant even ask questions about issue stands of our canidate without being accused of being some divider plus endless other crap accusations.

I hate to inject issues into such an important topic as pointless blathering (all we seem to be able to do now) but just spare me the opportunity to ask 1 single solitare question. How much less than the typical non employer sponsored $600-$700 a month a typical family of 4 has to pay in health insurance will that family have to pay if Kerry gets everything he asks for in his health care plan?

[demwing]

31. Fine with me. Talk about issues!

Saying Kerry is somewhat less evil than Bush is not talking about the issues.

You don't have to adore him, love him, worship at his altar, or even want to have a beer with the guy.

But he has a very good progressive record, with a few EXCEPTIONS.

He is not a Bush enabler.

He is not a Rose Garden Democrat.

He's a decent candidate, not a compromise. He'll be a fine President unless we eat ourselves up over whether he is progressive enough.

Not that I don't understand your point, I just dont think it relates to Kerry. I believe that, collectively, we have been forced to swallow DLC types for so long that we don't know how to deal with a decent candidate anymore. We had better learn, and quick.

[janx]

22. Many people vote the "lesser evil" way in elections.

It's nothing new, and there's nothing wrong with it. What counts is that they vote at all.

So if a few people here and there aren't exactly electrified by the Kerry campaign, just be happy that they're going to vote for him.

In the end, that's what is important.

[Larkspur]

27. OK, I follow John Kenneth Galbraith's view of politics...

Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous (Bush & Cheney) and the unpalatable (Kerry & Edwards).

[mr715]

44. nt

Kick

[PVnRT]

30. No, he's not perfect

and I'm still not fired up about him, but I'm going to vote for him. I'm more energized by Edwards than Kerry.

[demwing]

32. Find your inspiration and roll with it

If its Edwards, great.

My beef is with those who must paint Kerry in an unflattering light, and I suspect that they do so mostyly out of displeasure that he beat their favoriteprimary candidate.

I should know. I was Dean all the way through the primaries. I was pissed at Kerry on several occasions.

But the battle is over. We have a nominee. Not my favorite, but now that the nominee fight is over, I can say that he's an excellent opponent to throw before BushCo.

[Pastiche423]

33. I have found my inspiration and I am rolling w/it

I've immersed myself in county and state campaigns, backing real progressives. And let me tell you, it feels great to be able to help people get elected that care about issues, want to change things that are wrong, have solutions to problems and did not/do not support the war and elite establishment.

After the 2002 mid-terms, I promised myself I would no longer vote for anyone that did not earn my vote. Furthermore, after over three decades of voting, I will no longer compromise my principals, nor will I vote for evil, or lesser than.

[demwing]

34. So, does that mean that you're not voting for Kerry?

or am I reading too much into your post?

BTW - don't I remember Dr. Dean recently backinga moderate over a more progressive candidate in some race? I believe his explanation was that we NEED to be worrried about winning races in this season and the more moderate candidate was the more electable.

One of the reasons I respect Dr. Dean so much is that he speaks the truth, regardless of whether his followers want to hear it or not.

[Larkspur]

35. And Dean also told his supporters if they can't support Kerry

then find a candidate they they can support, but to stay involved in the political process. Many Dean supporters, who don't like Kerry, have channeled their Dean-energy to local, state, and US Congressional races to help get Democrats elected.

Dean has never demanded his supporters follow his lead in Kerry's campaign. He's asked us to do so but he understands that our loyalty to him is not a commodity to be lightly transferred to another candidate. Loyalty has to be earned by the candidate, and Kerry has not earned mine not that of many Dean supporters. Oh, yes, Kerry get my vote in November but he'll never get my loyalty.

[demwing]

36. You don't have to give him your loyalty

But if all you can do is hold your nose and vote for him, then do that. Drop the "lesser of two evils" bullshit.

Honestly, I thought it was the nature of Mothers to teach their children that if they didn't have anything nice to say, to just say nothing at all. Now I wouldn't apply that towards the opposition--Bush--but we should all apply it to Kerry.

The time for infighting is over. If you want to try to move Kerry or his supporters towards an issue that is important to you, then do so. But be respectful.

After all, at this point in the game, what the hell can you lose by being more respectful?

[Larkspur]

39. No, I won't drop the "lesser of 2 evils" meme

because that is what I think of Kerry.

In regards to Mothers, manners, and politics, the three do not always go together. Politics is warfare without the weapons and warfare is politics with armaments.

I'm not a Kerry fanatic nor a Dem Borg, and I refuse to see him as the Democratic savior. His foreign policy is not much different than Bush's -- put more troops in Iraq to keep the oil fields protected(this could change if Sistani and the other Islamic clerics issue a fatwa to oust our troops from their land), support Sharon's apartheid policies in Palestine, and seek the overthrow of Chavez in Venezuela. I don't support those parts of Kerry's policies and will loudly protest Kerry over these issues and other's I disagree with him on.

After all, at this point in the game, what the hell can you lose by being more respectful?
I have nothing to gain by being more respectful.

[demwing]

41. Enemies and Allies

You wrote:

In regards to Mothers, manners, and politics, the three do not always go together. Politics is warfare without the weapons and warfare is politics with armaments.

--But in warfare you pick your enemies wisely, and you often build unusual, but essential alliances. You seem unwilling to do that, even amongst friends.

I'm not a Kerry fanatic nor a Dem Borg, and I refuse to see him as the Democratic savior.

--Damn. If you had been reading, you would know that this is not what I called for. JUST THE OPPOSITE, if you had bothered to read!

I have nothing to gain by being more respectful.

--You have everything to gain by being more respectful! At least to those who share your goal, which I assumed was to get rid of Bush!

I know you think politics is "warfare without weapons," but you don't have to be at war with EVERYONE at the same time! Put your claws back in, and don't show your teeth! You and I may disagree, but we are on the same side, and WE are not at war, at least not with each other. Or am I wrong? Do I need to reasess your position?

Being respectful to your allies can insure that they remain your allies when your back needs covering. I would think that you should know that much.

[Larkspur]

42. You are not my neighbor

Being respectful to your allies can insure that they remain your allies when your back needs covering.
and since you don't know where I live, you can't cover my back.

I don't need Kerry supporters covering my back and don't need them.

Yes, I want Bush gone, but I want a better Dem Party and government. I don't see Kerry or Edwards doing that without a lot of pressure by their opponents on both sides of the aisle.

Oh, I'll make my alliances, but don't need Kerry supporters to do so.

[demwing]

45. Yep. We are not neighbors.

and now I know something about you that I didn't know before.

That is sad.

[Larkspur]

54. Anyway, my mother told me that as long as I vote...

I can bitch all I want if the guy I vote for doesn't do what I like. Since I'm voting and am voting for Kerry, I can bitch about him.

[demwing]

55. So, its as easy as 1,2,3

1. Vote

THEN...

2. See what Kerry does

THEN...

3. Bitch, if required

You've got your 1,2,3 all mixed up, kind of like you're 3,1,2-ing it.

[Pastiche423]

43. I am not Dr. Dean

I will make up my own mind on who I will vote for.

The people that will get my votes in November, are people that represent my concerns the best. It's a concept that used to be called "democracy".

[PATRICK]

40. Something W this way comes

Anything the other side does now is rooted in illegitimacy, shrouded in lies,, gloating over the motes in the eyes of a real man so that no one can see the snake slits in the squinted eyes of their fraudulent candidate, the hero of Fahrenheit 911, pResident George Bush.

We have a real candidate, a great candidate with whom we can constructively disagree and work with ALL for the betterment of the nation while the other side offers despair and destruction of just about anything imaginable. Taking talking points of W's allies seriously at this point as something we should be wounding ourselves over is to fall under the charm of evil itself. They have NO legitimate candidate to start with and have chosen NO constructive dialogue for the campaign or the betterment of the nation.

It's a one-sided war for democracy, not OF democracy and I don't think we have to be afraid we are too dazzled or unrealistic about our champion as they must be of theirs.

Reject all the glib codes, the politics of smear and discouragement, the twist of "conventional wisdom" to always pump up the hapless Bush.

Good post.

[dae]

46. Great post demwing2, the lesser of 2 evils would not include

Kerry. It's time to roll up the sleeves and get to work. W's going back to Crawford for New Years.

[quaker bill]

47. How about the lesser of 3 evils?

After all, if, for the sake of argument only, Nader actually won he would be faced with a congress that was 98 percent democratic and republican. He would never get a single thing on his agenda done anyway. I see this as just one more compelling reason not to support him.

[demwing]

48. Lol. Ohhhh, the truth...it burns!

This is an excellent point.

If Nader did win, he would get nothing through Congress. For that matter, neither would Kucinich.

At that point I would like to have another discussion about compromise, and the pros and cons thereof.

[rockymountaindem]

49. Whatever man...

I'm voting for Moses. So until he runs for office, I'll just be pissed off and criticize everyone else.

;)

[demwing]

50. Maybe Moses could split the Red States

the way he parted the Red Sea.

Talk about your wedge issues.

[demwing]

51. George W Bush - The Lesser Of Two Evils!

OMG!


That 15 year old conservative Kyle Williams,writing for WorldNetDaily, proposes that GW is actually the lesser of two evils, and that he is not really a conservative at all. Williams urges the righties to remain calm, hoping that they don't jump ship and vote third party this year.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39500

The tighty righties are bunching up their undies this year. They know Bush sucks, and may be faced with a Nader of their own in the Constitution Party's nominee Michael Peroutka.

Oh what a tangled web W weaves...

[no name no slogan]

52. Actually, it's more like "THE EVIL OF TWO LESSORS"

but what can you expect in a system that rewards mediocrity and discourages politicians from taking brave stands.

[Forkboy]

53. The evil of two lessers

[George_Bonanza]

56. Back in the primaries, it was the least of TEN evils

There were probably die-hard anti-Democrat leftists who even spurned people like Sharpton and Kucinich as unworthy compromises to their great crusade. Face it, there are too many opinions in one nation for a candidate to be 100% compatible with a voter's beliefs. If indeed Kerry the monster is the lesser of two evils, what can possibly be gained from acquiescing the re-election of the greater evil?

Even if Kerry is only marginally better than Bush (something I doubt with every fibre in my body), the one thing that can happen is that at least the face of America will be rid of the Bush smear.