Antiwar divisions could hurt Democrats in 2008

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24491

Antiwar divisions could hurt Democrats in 2008
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2007-07-10 14:04. Elections

Indiana University

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Cooperation between the Democratic Party and antiwar activists helped Democrats in the 2006 congressional elections, say researchers at Indiana University and the University of Florida, but the upcoming presidential election could see this support wane because of divisions among the antiwar activists and the instability of the "Party in the Street."

"Many Democratic candidates take the support of antiwar activists for granted," said Fabio Rojas, an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at IU Bloomington. "Growing disillusion with the Democrats might lead antiwar voters to stay home on election day, tipping the scales in favor of Republicans in close races."

He and Michael T. Heaney, a UF political scientist, note that major antiwar groups plan to conduct large protests at the Democratic National Convention in Denver next year, much like they did at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York.

"The Democrats could find that their party is divided in 2008 much as it was in 1968, with many of its natural supporters on the 'left ' camped outside the convention hall," Heaney said. "This situation complicates the Democrats' electoral prospects, to say the least."

Neither political party is insulated from the pressures of the antiwar movement and the public's unhappiness with the war, Rojas said. In the last few weeks, for example, two prominent Congressman, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., have openly criticized the administration's handling of the war, creating more opportunities for antiwar activists.

more...

[shadowknows69]

1. But the nearly unanimously warmongering rethugs

Won't even get criticized for their role in this disaster at all by the "press" will they. By election day, according to the news, Iraq will have been the Dem's fuck up all along. Aint propaganda grand.

[bryant69]

2. I don't think it's as big a problem as that piece suggests

I mean it is a problem, but if ever there was an example of the dangers of holding out for purity, he's in the White House Right now. Most people, even here, get that I think.

I could be wrong.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[asjr]

3. "Growing disillusion-- I have begun to question

statements like this. What is their motive? Is this legitimate? So much crap comes out in newspapers and from "newscasters" no one can really believe anymore. It could be that my tinfoil hat is too tight today.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. That's Why The Anti-War Extremists Are Being As Ignorant As One Can Be.

Their narrow minded tunnel visioned focus is only serving to MAKE THINGS FAR WORSE if they are refusing to vote for the Democrat. With all we know now and all we've seen, how can they be so monumentally stupid to not support the Dems come election time? Do they not realize how absolutely moronic that position would be? I understand their passion and dissatisfaction, but a loss in 2008 would be extremely damaging to our and their cause. They are their own worst enemy and they need to wake the fuck up. Instead of helping to save our country and Democracy, they instead may be the biggest catalysts for its further destruction. I consider those who would be so ignorantly extreme to not support the Dem candidate in 2008 to be my political enemy and ironically true enemies of peace. Harsh, I know. But I'm also right. They need to get their heads out of their asses.

On edit: Jesus Christ. I'm not talking about being anti-war. I'm talking about the extremists who take it so far as to condone not voting for the Dem in 2008. If you do not condone such idiocy, then this post has NOTHING to do with you. If you do, then you are in fact my political enemy.

[babylonsister]

5. I so don't agree with you but am not about to argue. You need to

simmer down. You're equating people who are against this war with your political enemies? I think you're headed in the wrong direction; start with this admin. And please don't dare to assume you can speak for me in my furor over this war, and the compelling need many of us feel to end it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. No, I'm Not.

I'm not equating those who are against this war with my political enemies. I'm firmly anti-war myself and want it to end asap.

What I was equating were those who are not specifically just anti-war, but rather so ignorantly extremist that they condone, encourage and support not voting for the Democrat in 2008. It is a completely ignorant and dangerous position to have and encourage, and could possibly be a huge catalyst towards a republican victory that enables things to GET EVEN WORSE.

So yes: Those that are so narrow minded and ignorant to not see how damaging they are being to THEIR OWN CAUSE, I consider to be my political enemies and enemies of peace, since their actions may serve to further war and destruction via a Democratic loss in 2008. I consider them my enemies the same as I would have anger and hatred towards somebody trying to convince my wife that the potentially life saving medication she will need after chemo for her breast cancer isn't worth taking cause it's like, ya know, pharmaceutical and stuff. Good intentions rooted in stupidity that fail to see the whole picture and serve to damage good causes rather than help them, are not to be applauded. They are to be condemned.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Hmm

"Do they not realize how absolutely moronic that position would be?"

Seems to me what's absolutely moronic is being anything except anti-war.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. My Post Wasn't About Being Anti-War. I'm Anti-War Myself.

My post was towards those who are so extreme in their anti-war stance, thereby encouraging voting for other than the Dem in 08, that they aren't anti-war any longer at all, but instead pro-war and pro-destruction since their ignorance and stupidity may be the biggest thing that enables the republicans to continue with their quest for power and global decimation.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Extreme in their anti-war stance?

What does that even mean?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. Jesus. Always With The Spoon Feeding.

Sighhhhhhhh.

Extreme to the degree that they have become so irrational as to condone, encourage and support NOT voting for the DEM candidate in 2008, thereby not actually being anti-war but instead pro-war, pro-destruction and pro-stupid, since they may enable republican victory. Do I need to say it ten more times?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. So anti-war people should vote for pro-war candidates?

They wouldn't really be anti-war then, would they?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. And Just Which Candidates Are Pro-War Now?

Can you name one who doesn't want a withdrawl from Iraq and an end to the war?

Oh, and if anti-war extremists succeed in getting enough people to not vote for the Dem, thereby enabling a monumentally worse republican victory that seeks to only further war and destruction, are they truly anti-war then either? Nope. They wouldn't be. They would be pro-war and pro-destruction, but just quite simply too ignorant and moronic to realize it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Anybody who's not for immediate withdrawal.

People who vote to fund the war included.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. Such A Premise Is Filled With Ignorance And Narrow Minded Logic. It's False On Its Face.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. I disagree.

I think denying it requires ignorance and narrow-minded logic.

[Marrah_G]

41. I always enjoy watching you argue with yourself !

Because generally the person you are arguing with just shows up as "ignored"

:rofl:

[bvar22]

44. Hillary and Obama.

They have both pledged to continue the Occupation and keep a military presence in Iraq (to protect the Imperial Palace in Baghdad and the privatization of Iraqi Oil.)

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If elected president, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, she would likely keep some U.S. forces in Iraq in a supporting role after 2009 because America has "a remaining military as well as a political mission" that requires a presence there.

However, in an interview with The New York Times published Thursday, Clinton said the American troops would not play a role in trying to curb sectarian violence.
Rather, they would be positioned north of Baghdad to combat terrorists, support the Kurds, counter any Iranian moves into Iraq and provide logistical, air and training support to the Iraqi government "if the Iraqis ever get their act together."

Obama outlined a plan for maintaining a U.S. presence in Iraq similar to Clinton's.
"Withdrawal would be gradual, and we'd keep some U.S. troops in the region to prevent a wide war, to go after al Qaeda and other terrorists," he said."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. My Problem Is With Extremists Who Are Narrow Minded Enough To Call That Pro-War. n/t

[bvar22]

47. Narrow Minded?

Your own narrow vision is probably the product of a narrow mind.

Opposing the continued illegal Occupation and Privatizing of Iraq is very broad and is directly connected to many other issues. (Budget, Deficit Spending, Taxes, Defense Funding, Foreign Policy, Domestic Social Program Funding, Ability to field a Emergency Military response, Domestic national Guard duties, VA funding & expansion,....)

So, YES. Someone who pledges to continue the Occupation of Iraq is PRO-WAR. Do you really think it is possible to maintain the Imperial Palace (Green Zone), the permanent bases, fight the chimera of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, AND protect the BIG OIL Corps as they assume ownership of 70% of the Iraqis Oil without the continued killing Iraqis (WAR)?

The Occupation is illegal.
The Privatizing of Iraqi assets (Oil Laws) is Immoral.
The Occupation & Privatization of Iraq is only one facet of Global Corporatization, which is a BROAD (Foundation) issue if you think about it.

The ONLY ones to benefit from the Occuaption so far are the Global Corps. I don't see that changing any time soon.
Is your candidate willing to kill Iraqis and spill the blood of Americans to further the profits of Global Corporations?

The Muslims of the Middle East will NEVER peacefully submit to an occupation by a European/Christian invader (SEE: History).

We are faced with only TWO alternatives:

1) Complete withdrawal of ALL US forces and contractors. Give the Imperial Palace (Green Zone) back to the Iraqis. Close ALL military bases in Iraq. Let the Iraqi People figue out how to use their oil. Pledge massive reparations. Let the Iraqis rebuild Iraq.

2)More WAR.

I support option #1, and there are several candidates who support option #1.
Hillary/Obama support option #2
If you support option #2, then you are Pro-War. Be honest. Don't hide it.
Even if you are promising a kinder. gentler WAR, you are still Pro-War.

[maximusveritas]

58. Look how you try toforce it into 2 options. That's narrow-minded.

Things aren't just black and white. There are plenty of gray areas in between. Most of the time, being in that gray area offers the best solution even if the narrow-minded folks disapprove.

[bvar22]

64. Enlighten me.

Some things ARE Black & White, like pregnancy, and the illegl and hostile occupation of a foreign country.

1)We LEAVE

or

2)We STAY.
If we stay, we fight.
To think that we can only partially Occupy Iraq is delusional.


Please enlighten me as to the other alternatives.

[maximusveritas]

66. All the candidates want us to leave

It's just a matter of how we do it and what the time frame is. Clinton is obviously working on a longer time frame and talking about keeping troops in Iraq for that time. However, she has committed to no permanent bases, which is something the Republicans won't do. So there's obviously a difference there. Obama and Edwards have talked more in terms of keeping troops in the region as we withdraw in order to prevent things from getting out of hand. I think that's a very reasonable idea, much better than those plans that call for us to just leave immediately and completely regardless of the consequences.

[babylonsister]

19. "Blind Faith in Bad Leaders is Not Patriotism"--Rocky Anderson

You sound like a freeper who believes in the president, right or wrong.

Sorry, I'm not that malleable.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. Has Nothing To Do With Blind Faith. Has All To Do With Not Enabling Republican Victory.

You say I sound like the freeper, but I'm not the one condoning a vote against the Democratic candidate. If anything is of freeper mentality, it is the encouragement of such.

We should all be strongly anti-war. But we also need to remain grounded and of rational mind in realizing that assisting a republican victory would be devastating. Any anti-war activist who would not assist in the Democrat winning in 2008 is every single bad as any freeper voting for the repub. Though on different extremes, their ignorance is the same.

That's not an issue of having blind faith. It's an issue of using common friggin sense in realizing that we cannot endure 4-8 more years of republican power. And if the anti-war extremists can't get that through their stubborn skulls, then they should be condemned for their harmful ignorance.

[babylonsister]

28. Don't put words in my mouth; I never condoned voting against a

Dem candidate. I condemn the war and don't agree with people as condescending as your own self claiming you know what's best for the majority of us.
Which is exactly why I said I wouldn't argue with you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. I've Put No Words In Your Mouth. You Have.

If you aren't condoning such, which is what the article was about, then you are not the subject of my initial post. To have turned it into a personal narrative towards your position is of your own doing, not mine.

You can be as anti-war as you want. I am FIRMLY and AGGRESSIVELY anti-war. My protest is ONLY towards those so extreme and narrow minded in their views that they ARE condoning voting against the Dem candidate or not at all. How much clearer can I make this?

[leftchick]

13. what is moronic

is the democrats thinking it is just the 'looney left' that are antiwar.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. We're All Anti-War. We're NOT All Ignorant Zealous Anti-War Extremists.

There's a huge difference.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. LOL

You're either anti-war or you're not. It's pretty black and white.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. Jesus Fucking Christ What Part Do You Not Understand?

This ISN'T ABOUT WHETHER SOMEONE IS OR ISN'T ANTI-WAR. We're all anti-war. Being anti-war DOES NOT mean also having to become completely ignorant, unaware of reality, and harmful to our good causes. You seem to want to put that forth as being true somehow. It isn't.

I'm anti-war. That doesn't mean I'll ever be stupid enough in a million years to help assist a republican victory. Being anti-war doesn't mean having to be head up your ass stupid.

[mod mom]

10. Extremists? Anyone who is not outraged by this immoral war, torture, corruption,

war profitteering and deficit spending that will be passed to our children are the extremists. I don't think we should budge one inch in our complete opposition to this war and I am certainly looking for a candidate who shares this view.

I don't want a Democratic Party that attempts to pacify republicans. We have a progressive movement to is working for REAL change to make this country a place to be proud of. In the past I blindly supported whoever the Party put forward. After they failed with 2 presidential elections to cry fraud and stolen election, I think it is time for a Democratic leader to work for the people instead of working for their big corporate donors.

[G_j]

22. yea and I can't stand those extremists

who think more than a half a million dead is unacceptable

damn purists!!

:sarcasm:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Again With The Strawmen.

You seem to equate being anti-war with also being anti-logic and anti-productive. My post isn't about being anti-war. My post is about those who are narrow minded and ignorant enough to be so extreme as to condone and encourage voting for other than the Dem in 2008, thereby in essence contributing to republican victory. In their doing so they ARE NOT anti-war, but instead pro-war, pro-destruction and simply too stubborn and ignorant to realize it. In essence, they are more pro-war then lieberman, since at least he still caucuses with the Dems.

[yodermon]

34. OMC, I think people are arguing with you out of habit

It's very simple:
I am an anti-war extremist, and proudly so. I'm also a pacifist. You may not be. That's ok.

However: I will actively vote and campaign for every goddamn Democrat in 08, even HRC (if she gets the nom, and i would be crushed but i'd suck it up), because the alternative it just too fucking unthinkable.

OTOH: I really don't think that the population of these purist "I'll stay home on election day" Dems is really as large as the concern in the OP warrants.
It's easy to take the purist stance at this stage in the game but as election day approaches I think there will be a shift back to sanity.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. I Hope You're Right (As Election Day Approaches).

I'm not thrilled with some of the Dem's actions/inactions on this either. But I'm firmly grounded in reality and understand quite clearly how devastating to the WORLD a lost in 2008 could be.

[Zywiec]

37. Good post. Thanks!

[Tesha]

23. Thanks for your support, but my head *IS* out of my ass; where's yours? (NT)

[Jed Dilligan]

53. Wow, what a surprise...

More impotent, authoritarian flailing from its undisputed master.

Listen: The party doesn't discipline us, we discipline the party.

If you want it the other way around, why don't you move to China?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. So You Condone Not Voting For Democrats In 2008? That's Pathetic.

[Jed Dilligan]

56. Hey omc, thread for you to check out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1295958&mesg_id=1295958

It'll be fun to have your input.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. Don't Change The Subject Pal. Answer The Question.

This thread ain't about Cindy or Nancy. So stop the deflection and stay on focus.

You harshly criticized my post without providing ANY reasons as to why, thereby making it more of an empty ad hominem attack than anything else.

Since my post was about those ignoramuses that would put 2008 at risk by condoning and encouraging the voting against Democrats or not at all, then I can only conclude that either your attacks are in fact empty and only due to knee jerk thoughtless reaction to the poster themselves rather than context, or you actually CONDONE such a pathetic premise itself of not voting for the Dem in 2008. I'm trying to figure out which case it is, the former of the latter.

So please, spare me your disingenuous deflection, and grace us with answering the question. :hi:

[Jed Dilligan]

59. Always the pompous blowhard, aren't we?

All your attempts to make people fall in line with your "moderate" views simply make those who disagree stronger in their beliefs.

The party doesn't discipline us, we discipline the party.

Without any threat to walk away from the party if it is not responsive to us, where is the democracy?

Or are you not in favor of the people having a voice?

I sure would like to see your response to that thread. What you're doing here is amusing but lacks content or specificity.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. Again With Your Void Of Context/Substance Ad Hominem Attacks. Is It That Much Of A Challenge For

you to actually answer the question put forth in reference to THIS thread? Is it only easy for you to cast empty attacks upon your fellow DU'ers without having to provide substance? Why are you so eager to deflect away from the topic at hand and steer us towards a different thread? I got news for ya pal; we're in this thread. There's a direct question and challenge posed to you in THIS thread. Are you incapable of answering it accurately or defending your position? Would it be accurate for me to conclude that you have no defense and only issued your attacks out of knee jerk response void of reasoning simply based on the poster themselves in an ad hominem manner, instead of towards context?

Stay on topic. Stay focused. This thread is about those who are so extreme in their passion that they would advocate or condone the voting against or not for the Democratic candidate in 2008. Being a Democrat; and most importantly someone who cares about this country and the world; I think that prior concept is monumentally moronic, short-sighted and detrimental to our cause. I feel for logical and common sense reasons that such actions, if they enabled further republican victory, would actually prove to be a PRO-war stance as opposed to an anti-war one. You attacked my position without providing even an iota of substance as to why.

So either you attacked just out of knee jerk emptiness, or you are on THEIR side in condoning or advocating the concept of not voting for the Dem. So answer the question: What about my post is wrong? Why the attacks? Can you justify your position? Stay focused this time please. :hi:

[Jed Dilligan]

63. You opened with ad hominem, so why do you expect anything else?

I don't know if it's stupidity or stubbornness that prevents you from seeing my point.

When people say they will not vote for a Democrat unless he/she takes a stronger position against the war, it is a threat to that candidate. That threat is the ONLY political power that we as Americans have. Your authoritarian demand for us to abdicate that power is the most un-democratic and un-American thing I have ever seen on this site.

Your "anti-war extremist" is a strawman. Show me the posts of this person or group of people and maybe I'll be willing to waltz into your idiotic rhetorical trap.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

68. I Had No Such Ad Hominem Attack. I Am Also Not Being Authoritarian.

I am being of sound mind and reasoning and rooted from a deep caring of this country and planet. Enabling further republican victory is dangerous and counter-productive to our goals. Anti-war extremists that take their positions to such a degree as to advocate or condone the voting against or not for the Democratic candidate are doing so out of ignorance, short sightedness, and narrow minded stubbornness. They think what they're doing is right but they couldn't be more wrong. If they help to enable republican victory, as per the article in the OP itself, then they are hurting our country and the entire world. If they only took their heads out of their asses long enough to see beyond their own self-induced limited vision, they'd see how moronic they're being.

If someone advocates for or condones voting against our Democratic candidate in 2008, then they are quite simply politically ignorant and my political enemy, as well as an enemy to peace itself. That's just quite simply the fact of the matter based on where we stand right now. Or do you think splitting our party and enabling another 4-8 years of republican rule could turn out to be a good thing?

Well I don't think it would. I'm firmly grounded in reality and know how monumentally important the risks are towards enabling republican victory. It is too goddamn important now. It is too important to stand idly by and condone these ignorant extremist zealots to stick to their narrow minded stupidity. I care about our country, this world, and its inhabitants. I know things will not be solved in one election cycle, since I'm not an irrational lunatic. But I do know that sacrificing the next 4-8 years to further republican rule could have drastic and dangerous consequences. Anyone enabling such circumstance is my enemy and enemy of peace.

You can feel free to get your last attacking word in towards me and our good Democratic members. But it does not take your agreement or reversing of your limited vision in order for my position to stand firm as logically, realistically, morally and beneficially right.

So have your fun now. But you are helping nothing.

[Jed Dilligan]

70. From your first post in this thread:

"As Ignorant As One Can Be"

"how can they be so monumentally stupid"

"true enemies of peace"

"such idiocy"

Do you really expect to be listened to when you open like that?

I will always condone the "idiocy" of Americans voting their conscience. And I will never publicly declare my intention to vote for any Democrat in any election, regardless of positions. It's their job to campaign to me. It's not my job to elect them.

Do you think that calling people stupid, ignorant idiots is going to bring them around to your point of view? I mean, really, what are you trying to accomplish?

And since these comments were made in the wake of Cindy Sheehan's announcement, I can only assume you are participating in the vile spin that her candidacy might actually cause SF to elect a Republican.

[churchofreality]

60. I agree.

100%

[maximusveritas]

61. Dude, don't bother

Surely you understand that extremists never consider themselves extremists. So they can understand if you called someone an extremist on almost any other issue, but they don't understand what "anti-war extremist" means.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. The obvious solution for the Democratic politicians is to embrace the anti-war movement.

Rather than making empty gestures while continuing to fund the war and talking about bring (some) of the troops home some day.

[babylonsister]

33. Obvious to the majority of us; what's their hold-up? Hell, obvious

to a majority of Americans, and that includes rethugs. I don't get their attitude, and don't think I can bear these clowns running our country into the ground any longer.

[Javaman]

20. I wonder how the dead soldiers would vote? nt

[Jed Dilligan]

21. Obviously,

when you have a poli sci question, you ask an assistant professor of sociology.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Jed Dilligan]

50. Glad to have made someone's pants wet today...

:blush:

:hide:

[Binka]

51. Don't Go Down That Road Jed

I am about to change my handle to Horny Binka. :evilgrin:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

54. Tell Me What You Disagree With. I've Said Nothing Wrong.

You can spout off all you want and use ad hominem attacks on me till your blue in the face. But your words are totally empty if you can't refute what I've said.

[MadHound]

29. Damn straight they could, and yet the Democratic party refuses to recognize this

They continue on their path of enabling the war to continue, thus giving a big finger to all of us who worked like dogs to get a Dem majority into office. The Dems continue to ignore overwhelming public sentiment for leaving Iraq ASAP, and continue to fund this illegal, immoral war.

So yes, it could very well be a blood bath in '08 of the Dems don't end this war, or at least take significant steps towards doing so. People are fucking pissed about the last war funding debacle and if nothing is done, or worse yet, a warmongering Dem like Hillary is thrown up as the nominee, people will abandon the party in droves, either to stay home in protest, or to vote for a party and candidate who actually agrees with the anti-war position.

The Dems ignore the anti-war people at their own peril, and it could very easily come back to bite them on the ass. And you know what? The Dems will deserve every single loss that they get. Perhaps then they will learn to stop ignoring the will of the people.

[babylonsister]

31. Yes, yes, and yes!

:thumbsup:

[bvar22]

45. If the Party is stupid enough to nominate Hillary,

I GUARANTEE a 3rd Party run from an Anti-War Populist that will draw a good number of Independents and Anti-War Democrats. Non of the current "Polls" factor in a 3rd Party run.
It will be all over but the crying.

Then the "Centrists Wailers and Gnashers of Teeth" will blame the 3rd Party instead of their own stupidity. History has a way of repeating.

[Jim Lane]

71. Absolutely we'll blame the third party, and with good reason

The Democratic Party nominee is no longer picked by bosses in smoke-filled rooms. There's a system of caucuses and primaries. The VOTERS choose the nominee. If you don't like Hillary, get your tail in gear and work for some other candidate.

The attitude seems to be, "We have a right to a nominee to our liking even if someone else gets more votes." Too bad. That's not the way it works.

Hillary is my least favorite among the Democratic candidates. Nevertheless, if she wins the nomination, then it's virtually certain that the next President will be either her or the Republican nominee. If some antiwar activists flounce off in a snit and vote for a third-party candidate, they won't change that fact. They'll just make themselves irrelevant.

I find it particularly galling that this clarion call for a third party would be made based on the issue of the war in Iraq. If it hadn't been for a similar third-party run in 2000, there wouldn't be a war in Iraq.

Yes, history does sometimes repeat. Maybe Hillary will be the nominee, there'll be a third party, the majority of the electorate (which opposes the war) will as a result be split between two candidates, and a prowar Republican will be elected as a result. When he nukes Teheran, the third-party supporters will denounce his action and will act all hurt and upset when we blame them for the disaster.

[MadHound]

83. Well, before you go talking about repeating history, perhaps you should study it.

It actually helps to know about what happened the first time, namely that Nader in Florida nor anywhere else cost Gore a damn thing, including the WH. Let's take a look back.

First, during the '00 Florida campaign, Gore screwed himself out of nearly 600,000 votes, choosing to stick up for his oily buddies at BP. See, BP wanted the limits for offshore drilling moved closer into the Florida coast, and Gore, being the good little corporate politician that he was, backed BP's play despite the will of almost 200,000 registered Dems and nearly 400,000 self described liberals. Thus, feeling that their issue wasn't being met, and pissed off at Gore's betrayal, they decided to double screw Al and voted for Bush instead. Whoopsie, there goes that victory margin, down the drain.

Secondly the journalist Greg Palast, the one who originally broke the Florida Votescam story, actually handed Gore the entire Votescam scandal on a silver platter, names, dates, deeds, with the number of voters denied at 50,000 and climbing. He presented this to Gore shortly after the election well before the Bush campaign got into high gear with the recount process. Now think of this, you're Gore, you've just been handed not only the means to achieving victory, but also the means to banish your opponent to the political wilderness forever. What would you do? Well, dear Al, violating his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, simply sat on the story and allowed matters to take their course. By the by, you can find all of this in Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy"

Third, even then DLC president Al From stated that Nader didn't hurt Gore in Florida, rather that Nader actually helped the Gore cause: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race." <http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919>

Fourth, you're forgetting about the real culprits in this matter, the Supreme Court 5, who actually installed Bush.

Fifth, and finally, after the election was settled a consortium of newspapers and magazines, led by Newsday, went in and did their own count. They found that Gore actually won. <http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-01.htm>

So really, if you're going to speak of repeating history, it is best to know what that history is to begin with.

You also might wish to rethink who really picks the candidates, who has the most influence. Sure, people have the vote, well, most of the time. But it really a debatable matter about whether the vote matters as much as all of that corporate cash that flows into campaign coffers, buying ads, influence, TV time, and ultimately offices in high places. Our election system is fatally flawed, and the only real answer is publicly financed election campaigns.

Finally, I find your contention that we owe our vote to one party or another to be faulty. In a democratic system the voter should vote for those who best represent them. Don't you think that it is counterintuitive that a devout anti-war person should vote for a party, any party, that is running a candidate who is demonstrably for the war? It isn't the individual who owes the party their allegiance, it is the party who is beholden to the individual, all the more so since the vast majority of Americans are now decidedly against the war. Yet the Democratic party has not only failed to stop the war, leaving the defunding and impeachment options off the table, but they have actively funded the war in the face of popular will! Furthermore, we're getting Hillary Clinton, a Senator who has not only voted for the war, supported the war, funded the war, and openly spoken of continuing the war if elected, shoved down our throat as the Democratic nominee! Not really a good way to win votes and influence people.

Sorry, but your grasp of history is faulty and your blind support of party uber alles counter-intuitive. If a political party fails to fulfill the collective will of we the people, then another one will rise in its place to supplant it. It is happened before in our history, and frankly if the Dems don't change their course quickly, it will happen again. Perhaps in a few years we can discuss the political merits of a Green-Republican dichotomy;)

[Jim Lane]

96. Why I'll oppose Hillary in the primary but support her if she's the nominee

Most of your post just rehashes the usual apologies for Nader, but I did find one thing of value in it. You linked to a very interesting piece by Al From. Consider this excerpt: "(I)n the 2000 election Gore chose a populist rather than a New Democrat message. As a result, voters viewed him as too liberal and identified him as an advocate of big government. Those perceptions, whether fair or not, hurt him with male voters in general and with key New Economy swing voters in particular."

What does this tell us about the effects of a third-party run on the decisions made by many top Democrats? The Naderites (and prospective 2008 third-party voters) seem to hope for the following reaction: "Our candidate wasn't from the left wing of the party, and as a result those folks deserted us, so we'd better move to the left to win them back." But From's article shows that their reaction is actually the opposite. They write off the left wing ("too liberal") and conclude that they can win by moving to the right.

Incidentally, although I don't support the DLC, From's conclusion makes a lot of sense if your point of view is simply to win elections, and sound governance be damned. The Nader vote in 2004 was less than half a percent of the total. The win-at-any-cost crowd won't make a significant change just to attract a few of those voters. Whom will they target instead? From's answer is that, "because there are many more conservatives than liberals in America, a new progressive majority will also require Democrats to win moderates by a substantial margin." His prescription for doing that is to ditch Gore's "anti-corporate populism", which "turned off key swing voters".

In short, the plan to punish the Democratic Party by denying it votes on the left, and thus moving it to the left, is doomed. The punishment part will often work. Nader did succeed in punishing Democrats in 2000 (although he was much less successful in 2004, after four years of Bush had shown the absurdity of Nader's claim of "no difference" between the major parties). The practical effect of progressives' defection, though, will simply be to strengthen the conservatives within the Democratic Party. Consider this: Hillary is more likely to win the 2008 nomination than she would be if Nader had never run, or had run in the Democratic primaries instead of irresponsibly siphoning off votes in the general election.

As for the rest of your post, I certainly don't claim that anyone owes a vote to any party, and of course I never said so. My view is that people have an obligation to consider the consequences of their actions. When the awesome power of the presidency will be entrusted for four years to either Bush or Gore, or to either Hillary or one of the Republicans, it's nothing less than immoral to indulge a thirst for vengeance or a desire for ideological purity.

As to Nader's effect in 2000, other exit polling data, including that reported on Nader's own site, show that Gore would have become President had Nader not run. Furthermore, it's almost certain that exit polls understate Nader's adverse impact. Many of the Nader voters were very angry at the Democrats, after the exclusion of Nader from the debates and the attempts to keep him off the ballot, and vindictively told pollsters that they would have stayed home or even voted for Bush. Their statements aren't necessarily accurate. Many of them would, in actuality, have gotten past the things they disliked about Gore and recognized what a disaster Bush would be. That would be especially common if Nader hadn't run, so that much of the ill will wouldn't have been generated in the first place.

Nader of course had a legal right to run. I'm just saying that his candidacy was foolish and counterproductive. The argument that Al Gore could have improved his campaign doesn't exonerate Nader from culpability for the result he helped produce.

Finally, as to the "Green-Republican dichotomy" that we'll be discussing "in a few years", how many is a few? What is your optimistic but reasonable estimate of the first year in which the Green Party (or any party other than one of the two now dominant) will elect a President? In the unlikely event that the Greens were to reverse their downward trend and begin to grow, there would be a long period (with Green votes in the 5% to 25% range) when no one could deny that their candidates were spoilers who handed the election to the Republicans. If Green growth continued beyond that, there would be a long period during which Democrats would be the spoilers, with the Republican candidate always winning despite getting a minority of the vote. It would be a lot simpler for all those hypothetical Green voters to help us progressives in our fight to keep the Democratic Party from following From's advice.

[proud2BlibKansan]

78. I have had those exact same thoughts

There are also a growing number of anti-war libertarians. So there very well could be a viable third party anti-war candidate in 08. If the Dems nominate Hillary and the repukes nominate a war monger and if we are still in Iraq, a third party nominee could give the others a real run for their money.

[mopinko]

36. so, the dems need to wake up. welcome to the internet age.

i, for one, am relishing having mike gravel up there, reminding them all about the truth. maybe it will start to sink in on some of them.
some of these dem-o-hawks need to be shown the door. the big difference between then and now is that we can find and support candidates IN THE PRIMARIES to run against the corporate boot lickers.

[Individualist]

38. Also pro-impeachment

Party leadership is taking a big risk, not only by ignoring grassroots voters but by ignoring the fact that Americans don't vote for weakness.

[nichomachus]

39. Screw 2008

Seriously.

It's 15 months away. The voters in 2008 will be motivated by whatever it is the MSM tells them motivates them, and the MSM can do that in about three weeks.

The important thing for the country is to do what needs to be done today. Period.

To be constantly looking to 2008 is self-defeating, which is, of course, what the corporatocracy wants us to do.

What would Martin Luther King accomplished had he held off on acting because of what might happen to him later?

[babylonsister]

40. Good post, and welcome to DU, nichomachus!

:hi: :thumbsup:

[Mandate My Ass]

42. Well said.

And welcome to DU. :hi:

[Marrah_G]

43. Thank you for your concern

We should definitely hold off looking at the 2008 elections, because we know the Repubs are just chilling out for the next year and we really all could use a break.

[Binka]

49. Hey Deary I Think Your Critical Thinking/ Reading Skills Are Asleep

BTW I see in your profile you have children are any of them signing up for the war you and your buddy OMC seem so keen on defending.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. Please Don't Lie Like That. It Is Beyond Shameful. I Have Offered Support For This War Nowhere.

Your false attacks are disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Jed Dilligan]

73. The amazing thing about you

You actually expect people to believe the claims you make about yourself, "I am anti-war, I am the only voice of reason, I have achieved pure objectivity, I never make ad hominem attacks."

Don't you realize we would be idiots if we took any of that at face value?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

74. I'd Say You Are Far More Disingenuous Than I.

I am firmly anti-war. To say otherwise is a sign of utter ignorance and stupidity.

You twist, you distort, you attack. But they are all empty. Unless you can show with any legitimate substance whatsoever that I am not anti-war (which I firmly am), then you're done, exposed, and defeated.

So go back up your baseless smear. I'll be here waiting.

Ready, set, GO!

[Jed Dilligan]

75. The burden of proof is on you.

You are making a claim. I never made a counterclaim. You back it up. I do not want to dig through the stinking, purplish, dense, putrid mass of your posting record.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

76. I'd Say You And Your Baseless Attack Were Just Thoroughly Exposed.

The burden of proof is on me? :rofl:

That's the best you could do in reply? :rofl:

I have firmly stated that I am 100% anti-war. 100 fucking percent. You will not find one post of mine out of the over 14,000 in which I show support for this war. Not a fucking one.

But you chose to distort reality, make things up, issue baseless indefensible attack and were called on it quite clearly.

You couldn't do anything more than respond with "you prove it!". :rofl:

Your baseless attack has been exposed. You have nothing. Your premise has been defeated. You are only replying to me to bait me and to start ridiculous flamewars for no other reason than prodding. But your attacks have no meat and no merit. You can't prove your position because you have no actual supporting evidence in reality in order to do so.

So if you're going to attack someone, you should be able to back it up. You couldn't. You were exposed. Nice try with the deflection (no it wasn't). Nite now! :hi:

[Jed Dilligan]

77. You started this flamewar.

The point of my post, which no number of laughing smileys will moot, was exactly this:

"I have firmly stated that I am 100% anti-war. 100 fucking percent. You will not find one post of mine out of the over 14,000 in which I show support for this war. Not a fucking one."

You present statements like this as evidence and demand that people refute them. It is an odd tic of rhetoric that speaks volumes about the writer's personality.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. No I Didn't. Nice Further Distortion. Guess That's A Habit For Ya Huh?

And in addition bub, you're the one who accused me of not being anti-war. Since I'm a decent human being and a firm Democrat, I take such an accusation and personal smear seriously. If you can't fucking defend your own goddamn attack, then don't issue it to begin with pal. Otherwise your attack is exposed for the bullshit it is.

And who do ya think is buying the whole "you have to prove it!" bullshit? Do you think for a second that any reasonable person would fall for such malarkey? Rhetorically speaking, what if I said you are actually a paid operative of george bush and that you love war and oil. Under your ridiculous premise, that onus would be on YOU to refute? Are you fucking serious?

Dude, you are too goddamn funny. :rofl:

[Jed Dilligan]

80. Show me exactly where I said you were pro-war.

I didn't. I said you expect people to take statements you make about yourself at face value. That's what's laughable.

If you made that statement about me, I would shrug it off. You would have to be pretty stupid to pay me to write what I write on this board, especially if you were for the war.

The amount you are bothered by the very suggestion that you might not be everything you claim to be is the most suspicious thing about you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

81. The Only Person You're Fooling Is Yourself Pal. Ya Got Nuttin. Your Attack Was Exposed. You're Done.

Do you really think people here are so stupid as to not recognize that you were implying I was not anti-war?

Sorry pal, but I have more respect for my fellow DU'ers than that and am more than confident they ain't fallin for the ridiculous distortion. Honestly, I don't believe you truly expect them to fall for such ridiculousness. We are far smarter here then you are giving us credit for through your attempted distortions.

You attacked falsely. You were challenged and exposed. You had nothing. Not a goddamn thing. Now you're trying to run away from your own false attack as if you're foolin anybody. Sorry pal, doesn't quite work that way. :hi:

[Jed Dilligan]

84. I really wasn't, you are so dead-set on being persecuted

that you can't actually read anymore.

All I'm saying is, back it up. BACK IT UP with something, anything! when you make a claim to be one thing or another. Especially when you claim to be more mature and rational than others in a post full of wild and childish attacks.

BTW: I could show you some PM's to indicate that many DUers do not view you as you (apparently) view yourself.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. You Were Exposed. Get Over It.

"All I'm saying is, back it up. BACK IT UP with something, anything! when you make a claim to be one thing or another."

Project much? How short do you think DU'ers memories are? You are the one who asserted I was not anti-war. So YOU fucking back it up pal. But you can't. You can't because you have NO valid substance in which to support your claim. None. Fucking none. Your attack was exposed for the bullshit provocation it was. Get over it.


"Especially when you claim to be more mature and rational than others in a post full of wild and childish attacks."

I am far more rational than many, but I don't expect you to recognize that through a distorted perceptual lens. Furthermore, I'd wager you have no footing whatsoever in which to accuse others of childish attack, when that's all you set out to do in this thread. You issued the attacks, not me. You issued the false personal smears, not me. Again, who on earth do you think you're kidding?


"BTW: I could show you some PM's to indicate that many DUers do not view you as you (apparently) view yourself."

ROFLMAO!!!! Who gives a flying fuck? And talk about your childishness! There is nothing more immature then the high school mentality PM gossip garbage that goes on behind the scenes trying to smear people. You think I care what these children think of me? Do you have any idea how many people are THANKFUL for the way I call out irrational bullshit here? You say many don't view me as I view myself. No shit. Do you think anyone here is immune from such? And I got news for ya pal, there are over 4000 active posters here. You might want to review your definition of 'many'. :rofl:

You got nuttin. You couldn't defend your baseless attack. Now you continue with your childish smears and baiting cause you can't respond to the substance. Your methods are beyond ridiculous and you have given me many laughs tonight with the absurdity. But I'm done with you now. You've offered nothing. You only set out to attack with nonsensical premise and couldn't defend anything. Your comments are hollow. Just simply, completely, hollow.

[Jed Dilligan]

87. Oh gee, you exposed me.

Boo fucking hoo.

I wonder where the chorus of your defenders is right now--maybe shouting down some other greasy troll like myself?

At any rate, you have not shown me where I said you were pro-war. And you have done nothing to answer my actual allegation, which is that the statements you make about yourself--the WAY you make them--will cause any astute person's b.s. detector to go boing boing boing.

For someone who pretends not to care, you spend a lot of time attacking me--one more example of my point.

[Marrah_G]

82. Yes I have children

None of them are old enough to sign up and none of them will if I have anything to do with it. However I do have a brother sitting in the middle of this insanity in Iraq with his wife about to give birth this week. You are seriously fucked up if you think I defend or support this war.

Have a nice fucking day!

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[Binka]

93. Grow Up Sweety. It Is A Pity You Have Children. n/t

[Forkboy]

94. Well I am!

:hi:

[Binka]

95. Hey You You Are An Exception To The Rule

:hi: Isn't this a lovely conversation? The new kids on DU are just so GREAT!:sarcasm:

[politicasista]

67. Good post n/t

[mzmolly]

52. That would appear to be the plan.

:toast: Go Republicans!!!

Start a war that Democrats cant get us out of, and benefit at the polls. Only in America. :D :sarcasm:

[fishnfla]

65. Yes,but thankfully the anti-slavery debate is sewn up

:+ :9 :P :evilgrin:

[Milo_Bloom]

69. DUHHHHHH

Sorry, but I don't understand how this is even a "debateable point". It amazes me how soon people forget 2006 and what it was all about. 2006 wasn't an endorsement of the democratic party positions... it was a rebuke to the GOP... people were desperate to find someone who would stand up to the GOP and put them back in their place and voted for Democrats as the only option.

A lot of those people are now disappointed, as they feel the Democrats have caved in on many issues when they had the option to fight it out. Even with nearly record disapproval ratings, the Democrats (in control of the house and senate) are unable to get bush to compromise.

I remember back in 1992 when the GOP wanted to get their way, they shut down the government. Whether you agreed with them or not, people saw that as a show of strength and that they were willing to stand up for their convictions. The Democrats have not shown that type of dedication to the very issues that brought them into power in 2006 and if they nominate a war enabler like Edwards or Clinton, there is little chance the same people who looked at them as an alternative in 2006, will look at them the same way in 2008.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

86. ordinary voters are confused. One policy to end war please.

Dems. need to find common ground on a timetable for troop withdrawal. They are sending mixed messages.

[Lord Helmet]

88. the only thing that will hurt Democrats is

people with-holding their vote for some imagined lofty principle
that ends up meaning squat if a Republican wins by default

[porphyrian]

91. Horseshit.

They wish there was a real division in the Democratic party. Those narrow-minded cowfuckers have never understood how a widely divergent group can play as a team when they need to, which is why they try to force their homogeneous stupidity on everyone else. Keep trying, assholes, you're about to lose bigger than you ever have.

[nolabels]

92. It seems that many other sides are being ignored here.

The detection of weakness in the occupation has turned on the green light over there. There also maybe more troops over there now but you can bet the moral wasn't what once was.
Then another point is the general public can quite ugly when it feels it needs to.

I kind of hope they keep them beltway tactics up, that big change yet might occur because of it :shrug: