Sitting out the November election? I guess we’ll show us.

[Cyrano]

Yeah, I know the reasons. Obama has “betrayed” us. The Democratic Party is no different from the Republicans. We’re screwed no matter what we do.

I can understand why many people feel this way. And I also understand that letting the Republicans take over even one House of Congress will make our lives infinitely worse. We all know that both parties are the property of big business, but it's really a question of degree as to how bad things can get.

No matter how much you’ve come to despise the cowardice of today’s Dem Party, the Republicans are a threat to our very existence.

But sit out the election if you must. Yeah, things suck right now, but there’s a big difference between that and living in a hell under GOP rule. And as bad as the Bush years were, I think it was just a small hint of what’s to come if the Republicans regain power.

[Bluzmann57]

1. And those who do sit out the election will gripe

In fact, they will likely gripe louder than anybody.

[felinetta]

17. I will not shed a single tear for any Democrat who doesn't vote.

[Auggie]

2. Hell no. I always vote.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. This is why I gave up on getting involved in liberal/progressive organizations.

We can't seem to resist the urge to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Every single damn time. And it's because whenever we do get some measure of success, we start sniping and squabbling among ourselves, bitching about who isn't ideologically pure enough, threatening to take our bag of marbles and go home unless the party does *this* thing *exactly* the way I want it, instead of focusing on the real adversary. And then we get our asses handed to us again.

Seems like the only time we can come together at all is when we're pinned to the mat. And then at least sometimes we can remember who we should be fighting against, and it's not each other.

At least if we get smacked down in November, maybe we can stop trying to torpedo each other for a few months and actually try to unite against the hell the Republicans want to foist on all of us.

I will always vote. I know who the real enemy is.

[Vincardog]

12. Right we have to unite against the hell the Republicans want to foist on all of us. The most

dangerous enemy is the enemy within. Supporting a 'd'emocrat who gives us rePUBLICAN policies is of no benefit to us.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. Pfft.

Guess I'm just an old-fashioned yellow dog (not Blue Dog) Democrat. I operate on the basic presumption that any Democrat is better than any Republican. Yes, there are a few exceptions to this rule, and those few exceptions can be easily identified. But I reject the canard that there's no difference between the parties. Especially now that the Republican party seems to have been taken over by the teabagger lunatic fringe. Even the worst Democrats aren't quite that bad. I deeply dislike, for example, Democrats like Ben Nelson. But if someone like him were running against the likes of Michelle Bachmann, I know who I'd vote for.

[Vincardog]

23. PSfft. Who said "there's no difference between the parties." Oh look it was YOU, not ME. If you do

not want to push to have Democratic Elected officials actually support the Democratic Platform: I just have no answer for you.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. Huh? When did I say that? I've never said or even thought such a thing.

You might have me confused with someone else?

[Vincardog]

29. Funny I copied it out of your post.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. Well, you must have copied wrong, or you didn't read carefully

because my exact words were these: "But I reject the canard that there's no difference between the parties." "Canard" is another word for "lie." So what I said was that I reject the LIE that the parties are the same. In other, other words, I do NOT believe the parties are the same, and anybody who says they are is lying.

I will accept your apology now. Thank you.
'

[Vincardog]

38. I do not accept the canard that repeating YOUR statement places that statement in someone Else's

Mouth. Who said "there's no difference between the parties."?
Democratic Party's "leadership' have adopted TOO MANY GOP Policies.

Not supporting this rightward drift is not the same as wanting the GOP to win.

IT is the exact OPPOSITE of that.

I will accept your apology now. Thank you.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. You have totally misconstrued or misunderstood my remarks

but I'm not going to try to explain them to you or argue with you anymore.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. I take issue with the hyperbolic broad brush you're using

There's plenty of pragmatism on the left, too. I know of NOT ONE PERSON who says, as you describe it, "threatening to take our bag of marbles and go home unless the party does *this* thing *exactly* the way I want it. . . . ." Who I DO know are people who want to see a general direction being followed that isn't to the right. Recall, if you will, the complaints about bipartisanship. I think that's what has people all head up and pissed off. The overreaching across the aisle is what did it.

Then there are people like you who think, somehow, it is a good thing to toss verbal eggs at people who disagree with YOU.

I will be any damned thing that lots more people on the left understand and "get" your position than you do the people on the left.

I'm not arguing with you nor am I angry at you. In many ways, in my response, you're simply a surrogate for the many who say what you're saying. I am in no way a left wing activist of the kind chided by the left and right. I am an old time mainstream liberal who is quite unhappy with the *direction* of the Democratic party. Yes, I am angry (now) about certain issues, but mostly I am just plain fed up with the DIRECTION in which we're being pulled.

Is that clear enough?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. I am basing my comments on many experiences I've actually had

in grassroots progressive politics. Maybe it's a broad brush, but it's what I've seen happen repeatedly. Does it happen all the time, everywhere? Probably not. But are there people who are so rigidly doctrinaire that they'd apparently rather tear their party down than even consider someone else's point of view? Oh, yeah. I'm not taking about bipartisanship; I'm talking about intrapartisanship. I haven't always been happy with the direction the Democratic Party has been going, and I support progressive candidates -- I will not have my progressive creds dissed by anybody -- but I'd rather see a reasonably united party than the usual circular firing squad that leaves everybody dead in a sorry little heap and the Republicans walking off with the goodies.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. I have as little use for the rigid doctrinaire types as you do.

I also am smart enough to know that their numbers are incredibly small. Smaller by far than the teabaggers, as but one example.

I'm not saying anything about your progressive creds. You're quite likely exactly what you say you are and I take you at face value on that point.

My issue is when do we draw a line in the sand? When the Democrats are to the right of the 1950s repubicans? Seriously, when does it end, this constant drift to the right? I also suggest it is NOT representative of the country. Look at the bedrock liberal issues. Where is the majority opposition to those concepts? It is very small. What IS happening is mutual pandering for the sake of power. The One Louder syndrome

Unless, of course, this is all a sham (as I have said in the past), and Ralph Nader (no, I have very little respect for him and his tactics, but I can agree with some of his positions) was right - the parties are two sides of the same coin.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. I can't answer that. Wish I could.

All I can do is keep voting for Democrats and trying to elect better Democrats.

[Bluebear]

4. Don't tase me, bro. DU is not who you have to worry about.

We are politically interested people here. We will be voting. But for the reasons you mention in your post, I'm not sure about the interest of the general public :(

[BellaLuna]

5. Not me

I've voted in every election since I was 18 - not going to stop now.

[MineralMan]

6. Exactly correct, but I'd go a step further.

Just dragging yourself to the polls and voting for the Democrat may not be enough. Instead, to keep the Republicans from regaining control of Congress, we're going to need a big turnout. That's why I'm encouraging those who want progress to do more than just vote, an to support their local Democratic candidates in their GOTV efforts.

[RKP5637]

7. I know although I don't agree with some of the dem stuff today, I would

never sit out an election. It's one thing to work to get better dems in, but it's a far different thing to be passive/aggressive and sit home on ones ass giving the victory to the republicans because one is home pouting. That does none any F'ing good other than the R's.

[jaxx]

8. I take that right to vote very seriously.

Hell yes I'm going to vote.
And for every Democrat on the list.

[scheming daemons]

9. The barbarians are at the gate... and we're aiming our arrows at each other

[T Wolf]

10. I take the position that Americans do not respond except when things get so bad that

they are forced to act for change.

The war has no impact on most people, beyond siphoning trillions of dollars that could be used more constructively. But very few think along those lines. How many people actually think, "You know, if we were not spending so much on war, we could have added several lanes to this highway and I would not be stuck in this traffic"?

They would have to be stuck in a 3-hour back-up every day for a year AND have the media telling them every day that one day in Iraq & Afghanistan would pay for three more lanes in both directions for that to sink in.

As for casualties. No impact at all. Resistance to Vietnam only came about because (1) we children were being sent to die and (2) enough of us came home in bags to actually get our parents to care. Unless and until we start seeing much greater American body counts, the wars will roll along unimpeded.

The same principle applies to economics. Many people are in dire straits with lost homes, jobs, savings, etc. But until millions of us are living on the streets, outside their gated communities, begging for food, the majority will not do what is necessary to bring about change.

The same applies to "social" concerns as well. Most women can still get an abortion, though it may be very difficult because of the draconian laws in some states. Gay Americans are not (in large numbers) being murdered simply because of who they are. So the majority does not really concern itself with these issues because it does not directly affect them personally. Let that change and see how much people are willing to put up with.

The Dems only slow down the slide toward the reich. Enough to ameliorate the extreme affects a bit.

I have full faith that the pukes will not do that. I have complete trust that they will fuck things up so much that enough people will say "Enough" and really do something to turn this country around.

At this point, it is obvious that drastic and significant changes are necessary. They will not result from half-assed (or less) attempts to be "the lesser of two evils."

It's beyond time to go all in. Better to burn out while trying than slip away under a fog of a slow death.

[WilliamPitt]

11. Some people prefer to be in the minority

It's easier when it's someone else's fault.

(facepalm)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. Yes indeed.

[ellenfl]

13. i wouldn't dream of not voting. repubs back in office is 2 scary. eom

[LeftinOH]

14. There are lots of people who think (important) elections are only held every 4 years;

all that stuff in between being "unimportant". I can kind of understand that sentiment- considering that every voting ballot includes (sometimes) one or two candidates or issues that I really care about, and about 67 different judicial candidates for various court levels... boring & confusing to say the least.

[chowder66]

18. I have to say I disagree with one thing

I am tired of the "democrats" cowardice line. Not that anything I say or opine about matters but I just have to state for the record that Republicans have been chipping away at "working for the people" for decades. They got their own party to vote against their best interests and when that cemented itself deeply they ran with it. No longer does the Republican party work for their constituents, they RULE them. That is what they are so desperately trying to hang on to. They want to continue that trend and dismantle the Democrats long enough to keep embedding their RULE. The Democrats (minus the Blue Dogs- which are dangerous to poisoning the democratic well) do NOT do this. They still stand by and believe in Democracy and our founding principles. That, I think, shows their resolve and some balls. It's the citizens that give up their votes and to me that is cowardice - (when things get tough - sit it out). That is not my idea of having balls and instead of taking their responsibility seriously thye blame others for their malaise when they are the only ones in control of their vote.

It's time to drop the Democrats are weak crap....please. By the way....I'm speaking in general Cyrano. No offense to your statement...it's all too commonplace and I'm just tired of it being used by us. We give credence to it every time we use it.

[TheKentuckian]

21. Cowardice is too kind, complicit is much more accurate.

[TheKentuckian]

22. Who's sitting out ever? I'll certainly be voting as always. This lame line is a preemptive defense

for the loss the leadership has worked hard to engineer.

[Liberalynn]

27. I am voting and will continute to vote for Democrats

so I can feel that I have earned the right to bitch at them when they are not living up to their promises.

Until there is a viable, meaning that they actually have a chance at winning, third party with actual liberal ideals that will actually stand up for them, the Dems are all I got. At least they suck at least 65 percent less than the PUKES, and at this point that's all I can hope for.

[joeybee12]

28. You know, i am so tired of this argument...it would be nice if Dems gave a reason to vote FOR them

instead of AGAINST the Repukes.

[activa8tr]

31. Have you checked you local Rep's record lately? Your Senator's record?

For the clear majority of us, our Democratic Reps and Senators are on the right side of the issues, maybe not 100% but better than 80% of the time, I'd be willing to guess.

So, yes, if you look at the loonies running for office in MY state against my Dem Senate candidate, you'd know why I vote Dem.

80% or 90% in line with what I want is pretty damn good in a democracy.

[joeybee12]

33. 80 or 90%? Sell outs of education, GLBT rights, choice, HRC is a joke,

bending over for BP...the list goes on and on.

That said, my Dem rep is pretty good, and then I haev Harry reid....a spineless wimp vs a criminally insane loonie...tough choice there.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

35. That would be very nice.

But the Republicans are so bad that as far as I'm concerned that's a legitimate reason to show up and vote for Democrats. It's not really a choice between the lesser of two evils; it's a choice between mediocre wimpiness and genuine, industrial-strength evil.

[BzaDem]

37. Why do people think they are entitled to choices that are "nice"?

Seriously. Why does ANYONE think that? Life is full of choices that aren't perfect or swell. Is that a valid legitimate excuse not to make them?

Voting is mathematically a choice between two parties to govern. Why does anyone think that one has to LIKE one of the parties in order to vote for them over the other party? Has our civics education gotten that sub-par, that only choices one LIKES are to be made? Ones that are "nice"?

[TheMuse]

30. I won't be sitting it out

But I will most likely have to hold my nose while voting Democrat. The honest truth is exactly what you said, Democrats may be cowards, but god forbid we give the keys to this Republican party. Not only are they the one's that put us in this mess, but the current version has gotten even worse. They have moved so far to the right, that Republicans such as Theodore Roosevelt and Eisenhower would be considered communists.

[lyonn]

32. It would be insanity for Dems not to vote

My votes for Nixon and Reagan were some very stupid votes. The repubs seemed to have a strong handle on the situations at the time, economics, Viet Nam, etc.. The Dems were soft spoken, but, they spoke the truth, not so with Nixon and Reagan. No more voting for the man/woman ideology, I'm sticking to a party. Clinton worked hard to get us out of Reagan's trickle down economy. Never again will I vote repub.

[GeorgeGist]

36. As you've made clear, the smart choice is ...

none of the above.