Cry Baby Democrats: a note from Michael Moore

[Couture]

Re: Why?

Not so. Dean got ~15% support in the party. He never got nominated. He will NOT stand up and hold the banner, challenge those right-wing ideologues. He will not pound his fist, raise his voice, take a stand. Good, bad, or ugly. Not Dean.

Kerry is the nominee. Kerry will take a stand? Right.

Kerry would still vote the same way for Iraq. He's said so. But he would do things "differently." Is this the Dean position you think?

That wasn't my point. Former Dean supporters are working in campaigns all across the country. They are also running for office. Whatever happens this November, Howard Dean has inspired a lot of people.

And it's the Democrats who are playing dirty tricks to keep Nader (and anyone else who might offer a more principled alternative) off the ballot. It's the same argument Bush uses--either with us, or against us. Crap.

Dirty tricks? Like the Republicans aren't actively petitioning to get Nader on the ballot and donating money to his campaign so that he can take away a few Kerry votes?

Lots of sane people might find Bush scary. But why would anyone find Kerry appealing?

For a number of reasons. The number one reason being: How can he possibly fuck things up worse than Bush? Out of control deficit. Overextended military. An assault on the Bill of Rights. Breaking down the wall of church and state. An assault on the environment. An increase in terrorism. A probable return of the draft. Where does it end?

Bush is a radical president. The country really wasn't in terrible shape when Bush got into office. I'm happy with a return to fiscal conservatism and a budget surplus. Let's try to keep a limit on wars to one country at a time. Iraq has given N. Korea and Iran a blank check to develop nuclear weapons. Worse, Bush's ally (Pakistan) has given them the technology. Bin Laden is still on the loose. By any measure, Bush has been a terrible president.

Kerry and the people Kerry brings in, will do a wonderful job.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Bush is not "so popular." He simply represents an ideology that is big in conservative states in the South and the Midwest.
Religion is part of who we are and our God is greatest.
Abortion is repulsive. Death penalty is right and just.
Sex is filthy.
The flag is sacred.
Texas-style shoot-em-up is the right fate for whoever disagrees with us. Or a bombing raid. Or a nuke.
Texas-style laissez-faire is the right way of life. If you're powerful and rich and connected, good for you--you deserve all the spoils you can get. If you're poor or sick or marginalized or down on your luck, tough--your problem, buddy, don't come to me for any help.
Money talks. Social services and the environment and the arts and other such touchy-feely things are for sissies.
Oh, and tax cuts for the rich are the solution to everything.

So long as we allow ourselves the luxury of believing in exaggerated, straw man versions of the opposition's beliefs, we will be unable either to persuade them or to combat them effectively. Perhaps part of the problem here is being able to offer nothing better than the platform "can't you see that these people are idiots?" Only people who already strongly agree with you will be swayed by that line of reasoning. Everyone else, including those who might tend to agree with you on most elements, but perhaps disagree on others, will be put off by this sort of statement.

I go with Johnathan O'Leary on this. After years of imprisonment at hard labor and then exile from his own country, he was still able, on his return, to say, "There never was a cause so bad that good men did not believe it for good reasons." And he was talking about the opposition there. Until we are able to embrace the humanity of those who disagree with us and work sincerely to comprehend their objections, we can accomplish nothing.

Accusing the other side of "dirty tricks," in the current political climate, is of course almost certainly accurate, and almost certainly a boomerang issue. That American politics is now played amidst a welter of emotionalism, distortion, and dubious financial elements is pretty much a commonplace. However, in the long run, one cannot provide a vision for the future based purely on the theory that the other camp is cheating. One must move beyond that.

Hence, I would argue, the value of people like Nader. He permits a viable alternative to the continuing efforts of both parties to reduce the viable alternatives to themselves. When there are only two parties on the ballot, it's tempting simply to smear the other party - to prove that they are worse. The more parties available, the harder that becomes, and the more pressure one faces to prove that one's own ideas are better.

Shanglan

 

[carsonshepherd]

Hence, I would argue, the value of people like Nader. He permits a viable alternative to the continuing efforts of both parties to reduce the viable alternatives to themselves. When there are only two parties on the ballot, it's tempting simply to smear the other party - to prove that they are worse. The more parties available, the harder that becomes, and the more pressure one faces to prove that one's own ideas are better.

Yeah, S, I'd argue for Nader's value till I'm blue in the face, IF he could round up 51% of the electoral vote. But he can't!

Sometimes it isn't about whose ideas are better.

I'm not saying Kerry is the man to lead us into Utopia. But at least he doesn't scare the living hell out of me.

My dog would be a better president than Dubya. But he can't get elected either... so all we can do, is get behind the only viable option.

Okay... that's my rant for the day. Promise

 

[BlackShanglan]

Carson, you know that I adore you and could not possibly argue with you. You are undoubtedly right

Therefore I must characterize as a personal but heartfelt delusion the belief that four more years of GWB is better than twenty more years of a failing two party system. My devout hope is that if, for a third time, we have an election in which the third party candidate's draw is larger than the margin between the two "main" candidates, one of two things will happen. Either we'll get a viable third party (or more), or the two mains will begin to ask themselves what they need to offer other than "the other guys are worse."

I am willing to suffer for that conviction, even to suffer more of what we've had the past four years. That said, I should probably confess that I see very little difference between the main parties at this stage, at least in the "morally neutral" areas. They're all slaves to their donors, and they're all increasingly focused on obscuring meaning and intent as much as humanly possible. I'm willing to suffer quite a lot to be rid of that.

Shanglan

 

[carsonshepherd]

Carson, you know that I adore you and could not possibly argue with you. You are undoubtedly right

You should never argue with me! Baaad horsey! Now where's my riding crop?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Yeah, S, I'd argue for Nader's value till I'm blue in the face, IF he could round up 51% of the electoral vote. But he can't!

Sometimes it isn't about whose ideas are better.

I'm not saying Kerry is the man to lead us into Utopia. But at least he doesn't scare the living hell out of me.

My dog would be a better president than Dubya. But he can't get elected either... so all we can do, is get behind the only viable option.

Okay... that's my rant for the day. Promise

Anyone who says anyone would be better than Bush need only look at Santorum, and a host of like minded (if you give them credit for having a mind) men and you can see that statement is patently false.

It makes nice rhetoric, a catchy slogan, but it is not going to win you an election. Kerry, is just now, within the last few days, atempting to show he is a better choice than Bush. It's about time. The democratic faithful will vote for him, a disaffected few in the middle will vote for him simply because they are aghast at Bush. The majority of independants aren't going to change leaders without some indication they are voting for something better.

You can't win on the slogan "He's done so bad, give me a chance!"

You have to explain exactly how you plan to do better.

Nadar is a thrid party candidate without even a legitimate party behind him, but he is an option for those who find GWB only as odious as John Kerry and not significantly worse. I am going to vote. I am not going to vote for Kerry or Bush. Third parties are out there for people like me who find both the Democrat and Republican candidates too odious to vote for.

-Colly

 

[carsonshepherd]

I am going to vote. I am not going to vote for Kerry or Bush. Third parties are out there for people like me who find both the Democrat and Republican candidates too odious to vote for.

-Colly [/B]

Absolutely right. And if not for the electoral college, I believe third party candidates would have a chance of getting elected. Look at Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota. If not for the electoral college, Dubya would not be in office on a stolen election (and the Supreme Court, but that's another rant.) If not for the electoral college, even I would probably vote Green this election.

People who don't vote cost us all a price we can't afford to pay; because then the vocal minority decides for all of us. No vote, no voice.

 

[davidwatts]

A vote for a third party is never a wasted vote, it's a statement that more people should send, but don't. It says that if these are the best candidates these two parties can present, both this year and in 2000, they are unworthy of support and should be ashamed of themselves.

The only wasted vote is one that isn't cast.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Amen, David. I would also add that although no one is allowed to know *who* you voted for, the question of *whether* you voted is a matter of public record. Areas and dempgraphic groups that don't vote don't get anything - who're they going to vote out of office? It's worth voting even if only to say "what the two main parties are offering disgusts me."

You should never argue with me! Baaad horsey! Now where's my riding crop?

Somewhere over near that owl?

Shanglan

 

[Vincent E]

It's never over for them until the last ballot is shredded.

Republicans love Michael Moore. really. Otherwise we woldn't have made him our mascot.

Does anyone remember that in all of the brew-ha-ha over the 2000 election results in Florida that it was a Demoractic party operative who was driving around greater miami with a ballot machine in the trunk of his car?



Of course the majority of Americans agree with the Dems so much that they handed control of the Senate back to the GOP even after Jeffords jumped ship in Vermont giving Tom Dascle and his cabal control 50-49-1; Daschle is a beauty too. Probably dusting off that resume right now as he is about to be invited back to the private sector by his fellow South Dakaotans. Then there was the whole debacle of being the minority party that lost seats in the House in a mid-term election. That just doesn't happen.

Now, of all the candidates that they could run for president, the Dems have chosen the American Giggilo himself. In 1996 while runnng for re-election against Governor Weld, Kerry broke a campaign pledge to limit spending because his campaign was running out of money in the home stretch. This is the man who wants to control the federal budget. He takes out a million dollar loan against his Beacon Hill home; a home that he would not own if he weren't the boy-toy of the richest woman in the world (almost.)

I am not one to belittle any of John Kerry's legislative accomplishments. It's just that I can't think of any. Then again, he is running for presidnt and he can't seem to either. Twenty years in the Senate and the only thing he seems to have been able to do is get cuckolded by Theresa Heinz Kerry's first husband. She marries John Heinz and takes his name. She marries John Kerry and keeps her old name as if to say "I hold the pocketbook, Johnny boy. Now show my your tits."

But maybe that is a bit too personal.

Anyway, here is a clue to wound-licking Democrats.

Get a message. Perhaps when you talk to the voters you need something better than "George Bush Sucks!" as a campaign message.

How about this, find out who your friends are. Kerry keeps talking about the war on Iraq. On Iraq? If we are waging war on Iraq, why was their interin Prime Minister here in the US to say thank-you.

Oops, I forgot. Please forgive me. He is a puppet. Right?

Yeah. I thought so.

But back to Moore. I am truly looking forward to his big expose to the scandal over at CBS. After all, he is a fan of non-fiction. I amsure that he is as outrageed by the fictional story based on a fictional document that was released by a fictional unimpeachable source. It is only a matter of time.

And I an also sure that Al Franken will be writing the book about the scandal as well. After all, we all know how much Al hates lies and the lying liars who tell lies.

I'll be holding my breath waiting for all of this to happ...

Edited to read: I really hate getting political on this forum, and I don't think I will be doing it again. look how many spelling mistakes I made. Then again, I am from Massachusetts and the Dems run the school system.

 

[Pure]

it's somehow reassuring when the 'other side' proves to be so incoherent and illiterate. But wait! That's our leader: "Mr. Osama, we will take you down, dead or alive." (paraphrasing slightly).

 

[cantdog]

<snipped a little>My devout hope is that if, for a third time, we have an election in which the third party candidate's draw is larger than the margin between the two "main" candidates, one of two things will happen. Either we'll get a viable third party (or more), or the two mains will begin to ask themselves what they need to offer other than "the other guys are worse."

I am willing to suffer for that conviction, even to suffer more of what we've had the past four years. That said, I should probably confess that I see very little difference between the main parties at this stage, at least in the "morally neutral" areas. They're all slaves to their donors, and they're all increasingly focused on obscuring meaning and intent as much as humanly possible. I'm willing to suffer quite a lot to be rid of that.

Shanglan

I had the luxury to do that without a qualm last go-round. My state was already going to go for a particular candidate in any case.

There are loads of decidedly red and decidedly blue states. People in those places should feel free to vote for a Libertarian, a Religious Wacko, or a Green if they like one of those things.

In the case of Maine, we got over 5% Green votes for Nader in 2000, and by state law, that meant we could go to city hall and register as a Green. The state went the way it was going to go anyway, as far as the electoral college is concerned. But the Greens don't have to get huge petitions signed to run a candidate for Register of Deeds any longer.

In my experience, the person who stole the most votes away from Gore that time was Bush. I don't hear the Dems whining that Bush is an egomaniac who just is running for self aggrandisement. I don't hear them arguing that Bush should forbear to run, because he doesn't seem to understand how important the Democratic candidate is to defeat the fundy fascists.

Nader is a genuine American hero, with a lot to say about real issues. As such, he beats the alternatives in the Republocrats hands down.

If Dubya does win, it will only strengthen the left. It already has.

 

[Somme]

Almost...

...useful.

http://www.us-election.org/index.php

 

[Somme]

oh go on.......try the sodding link.......

 

[cantdog]

I did, man. What do you want from me. It's in my bookmarks now.

 

[Couture]

Re: Re: Cry Baby Democrats: a note from Michael Moore

Does anyone remember that in all of the brew-ha-ha over the 2000 election results in Florida that it was a Demoractic party operative who was driving around greater miami with a ballot machine in the trunk of his car?

I would appreciate a link to a verifiable news source regarding this.

This is the man who wants to control the federal budget. He takes out a million dollar loan against his Beacon Hill home;

And how many companies did Bush bankrupt? Oh, he's a smarty, he traded Sammy Sosa.

I am not one to belittle any of John Kerry's legislative accomplishments. It's just that I can't think of any.

Hmmm...quagmire in Iraq. The first president to have a net loss of jobs since Hoover. No Osama Bin Laden. Korea with nukes. Pakistan with nukes. Iran close behind. Russia embraces autocracy. Debt out of control. Individual rights lost to Patriot act.

I would rather a do-nothing president, than one who fucks up everything he has touched.

How about this, find out who your friends are. Kerry keeps talking about the war on Iraq. On Iraq? If we are waging war on Iraq, why was their interin Prime Minister here in the US to say thank-you.

We appointed him. And yes, he is a puppet. We put him there. We keep him safe. He is as much of a puppet as anyone can get. You have no credibility.

But back to Moore. I am truly looking forward to his big expose to the scandal over at CBS. After all, he is a fan of non-fiction. I amsure that he is as outrageed by the fictional story based on a fictional document that was released by a fictional unimpeachable source. It is only a matter of time.

Well, one thing for sure, CBS certainly has a good role model, in a fictional president who started a war based on fiction.

 

[Couture]

If Dubya does win, it will only strengthen the left. It already has.

I'm not one who is saying that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. I think you should vote for whoever it is in your heart to vote for.

Personally, I will be voting for Kerry. You know, maybe you're right and that a Dubya win will strengthen the left. However, there are real lives on the line. I'll admit to protesting the 2000 ticket due to the inclusion of the Republican-Leiberman to the Gore ticket. I thought, it would teach them a lesson and how bad could it be if Bush won? I've since learned how badly things can get in four years. As a result, my personal choice this election is a vote for Kerry/Edwards.

I complain about how the campaign is being run now and then, but it is a good ticket. I believe they will leave the country in better shape four years from now, and that's all I can really ask.

 

[carsonshepherd]

I'm not one who is saying that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. I think you should vote for whoever it is in your heart to vote for.

Personally, I will be voting for Kerry. You know, maybe you're right and that a Dubya win will strengthen the left. However, there are real lives on the line. I'll admit to protesting the 2000 ticket due to the inclusion of the Republican-Leiberman to the Gore ticket. I thought, it would teach them a lesson and how bad could it be if Bush won? I've since learned how badly things can get in four years. As a result, my personal choice this election is a vote for Kerry/Edwards.

I complain about how the campaign is being run now and then, but it is a good ticket. I believe they will leave the country in better shape four years from now, and that's all I can really ask.

Thank you for you a measured and reasonable response. I'm so terrified by the idea of a Bush win, I can't help but start ranting and raving. Things can go straight to horrifying in four short years. We can't convince others how to vote or who to vote for; but we can express our opinions, and remember that the Bill of Rights, that is being taken away from us piece by piece due to the Patriot Act, gives us that right.