Beyond "Better Than Bush"

[Plaid Adder]

OK, people, we need to start doing some different thinking about 2004.

I think we can all agree (bar the lurking Freepers) that the one thing that unites us all is a desire to remove Bush from office as soon as possible. This is as it should be. But I think we are really doing ourselves a disservice if all we ask of our presidential candidates it that they be better than Bush.

First of all, there is the simple fact that since Bush is the worst president ever, the "better than Bush" category includes, really, most of humanity, as well as many branches of the animal kingdom and most inanimate objects. A blind pig would be better than Bush. A dead cat would be better than Bush. Even a ham sandwich would be better than Bush. Hell, *I* would make a better president than Bush has. However, I am not running for president, partly because I know that although I would be an improvement over Bush, I would not actually be a *good* president. It is an enormous, terrifying, complex, and very important job for which I am certainly not qualified either by experience or temperament, and although I doubt my administration would amass such an appalling record of lies, theft, murder, and pillage, I would no doubt cause my own set of very unfortunate and intractable problems.

Yet according to the logic I see a lot of people falling back on here, it would appear that I could generate a lot of support on DU for a Plaidder/Blind Pig ticket--if I were a lot better looking, and male, and possessed some other magical quality that made me 'electable.' In fact, I can predict exactly the kind of discussion we would have in the GD Forum about the Plaidder/Blind Pig ticket:

"OMG! Plaidder endorsed FORD in '76!"
-->"Big deal, she was 7 years old"
-->"But the Repukes will use it against us"
-->"Come on, didn't you endorse Reagan when you were too young to know better?"
-->"Fuck that, she has no political experience and the pig is BLIND, people"
-->"the blind pig is genius it will bring in the barbecue lovers vote and carry the south"
-->"Plaidder is GAY!"
-->"oh for Christ's sake not another one of THOSE threads"
-->"all that plaid is going to look terrible on TV and she really needs to lose weight if she wants to look presidential"
-->"OK, she's a lunatic with no qualifications and I don't like the pig's position on gun control but she's BETTER THAN BUSH!"

But in fact the salient point here is that replacing Bush with me might stop the hemmorhage but it would not cure the patient. That's why it is important, when we think about this election, to look beyond November 2004. Whoever we pick will not just have to be better than Bush. Whoever we pick is going to have to be *really fucking good at this,* because s/he is going to inherit the most fucked-up America that has ever been.

Now I don't know who the person is who can get us out of this. I really don't. That's why I haven't picked a candidate yet. I have some ideas about who it *won't* be, but that's not the point of this post. My point is just this: since we are all going to have to vote for the Democratic nominee, we need to make sure that nominee is the best president we could possibly have. That's not going to happen if we spend all our time groveling before the grail of Electability.

This is not the year 2000. The American electorate knows a lot more about Bush than they did when he was running, and none of it is good. HE is in a tremendously weak position and it is going to weaken as time passes and more American soldiers die and the UN tells us to wallow in our own arrogance and the economy sinks further into the toilet and it becomes clear that $87 billion was just the beginning. We don't have to grasp at the first straw that falls our way. We can afford to take our time and consider and find the candidate who can *actually do the job* once s/he gets it. For once, it's Bush who's sinking into the quicksand, and flailing toward any lifeline he can reach. Let him flail, while we think.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[T Roosevelt]

1. Wow - great rant

Are you sure this is of a quality necessary for GD? ;-)

On edit: and what about the pig being the top of the ticket?

[lapislzi]

2. Did the pig vote for the Iraq war?

...and with a pig on the ticket, you'll lose the Jewish vote...

[Plaid Adder]

4. The pig's position on the Iraq war is unclear

I cite from his most recent press conference:

HELEN THOMAS: "Mr. Pig, is it true that you endorsed the use of military force in Iraq?"
PIG: "snort, grunt, oink oink, snort, scratch, lift leg, piss on podium"

The urination can be read either as an expression of contempt for those who voted for the war, or as an indication that the pig was so worried about being called to account for his endorsement of the military campaign that he wet himself. Either way.

Plaidder/Blind Pig in 2004!

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Cheswick2.0]

5. and the muslim vote too

!

[Plaid Adder]

8. Now, now, you're failing to make the crucial distinction

between a live pig and a dead one.

The pig has very strong feelings about the consumption of his fellow porkers, and indeed on that score he has much in commong with Jewish and Muslim Americans, as well as vegetarians.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Cheswick2.0]

10. ahhh yes, I see that you are correct

Nominating the Pig would actually unite the Muslims and the Jews. It might be better if the Pig is a woman though since we have been voting for male pigs for years.


Obligatory Disclaimer: I am just kidding guys.... about the male pig thing.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. It's also not going to happen if we spend all our time

willfully ignoring the "Grail of Electability". Don't believe me? Then why AREN'T all the progressives here behind Kucinich instead of Dean?

[Plaid Adder]

7. People can be made electable.

I mean for crying out loud they did it with Dubya...almost.

This is the way the right does it: you get the candidate and the agenda together first and then you create support for it. Now, it is true that they have better access to the media and so it's easier for them to do this, but there's no reason we can't do it too in our own smaller way.

To take Kucinich as an example, since you brought him up: his position on choice has already undergone a makeover, and so could his hairstyle, suits, manner of speaking, and various other superficial things that seem to convince people he's unelectable. He's from Ohio, which geographically and electoral collegewise puts him in a better position than Dean, who is from Vermont, a small state in the northeast which we all know everyone else in the country hates anyway. His opposition to the war has been consistent and there's no way to attack him about flipflopping or hypocrisy.

Should he get the nomination, certain compromises could be worked out. We might hear less abotu the Department of Peace, for example, an idea which is alas a little too far forward for most of our brethren and will therefore sound flaky to them, and more about how his trade and labor policies will restore the dying manufacturing sector and bring decent blue-collar jobs back to America. This is just basic political grooming and if you did it right you would come out with a guy who's still Kucinich, but looks a lot more appetizing. After all, as Rove has taught us, the American electorate is pretty easy to fool if you pay enough attention to surface issues.

I'm not trying to endorse Kucinich. I'm just saying that we should not just assume that any of these candidates are unelectable. Even Sharpton could be electable *if* we could energize the enormous segment of the African-American population in this country that has fled the polls in disgust. We gotta think outside the box on this issue as on the others. Cause otherwise we're not going to get out of this box, and as we are discovering, this box is a nasty, stuffy, uncomfortable place to be, plus it's on fire.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[TioDiego]

15. Plaid

That is rub, isn't it? How do you bring home the bacon? Should I vote for the candidate I believe has the best ideology, or vote for the cadidate that has the best shot at beating Bush? Well, we have to beat Bush first. It's nice to have thinkers like you, to help us make that choice.

[Plaid Adder]

17. Why assume that the two things are mutually exclusive?

I am serious about this now.

We have fallen into this trap of just assuming that nobody who seriously challenges the status quo is "electable." I don't think we have to assume that. I think that if we do enough work to redefine not only electability but the electorate itself, we could make progressive politics electable again.

In the past 100 years the most economically progressive president we've had was probably FDR. FDR got elected because Herbert Hoover had presided over the worst economic disaster in American history and the electorate was willing to try something new because what was old was not working for them any more. So somehow a president got elected who was willing and able to try a lot of things that would have basically been recognized as socialism if he hadn't been very careful about the packaging. But he was, and people were desperate, so he put through the Alphabet Soup plans and paid armies of single men to build national parks and subsidized the Federal Theater Project (!!! just imagine trying to make a case for that in today's NEH) and people re-elected him till he died because socialism or not, what he was doing worked.

Well, fortunately this is not the Great Depression...but it's pretty fucking bad. We are reaching the point where, as long as it is packaged properly, the case can be made that we need something else besides capitalism running amok and war without end. This is a tremendous opportunity, and if we just assume that significant change is impossible, which is what we are basically doing when we assume that only the center is electable, we will just end up pissing it away.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[TioDiego]

18. Well Plaid,

I know you’re serious. I have thought about this quite a bit too. I was thinking of a poll to ask, “Who would you pick, if you could appoint, all by yourself without a vote?” The candidate I would pick to appoint is probably not who I would vote for in the primary, and that doesn’t really sit too well. It is tougher than just getting Dennis a new haircut. FDR’s are hard to come by. Who would you pick, Plaid, if you could appoint?

[Plaid Adder]

20. Me and the pig!

I really don't know who I would appoint. That part is true. Of the field of candidates I guess I would say the one who seems most committed to changing things for the better is Kucinich. I am not so far impressed with Dean as far as substance goes (although I am willing to send him as many consolatory fruit baskets as he would like just for shocking the rest of the field out of their catatonic acceptance of Bush's invulnerability). Clark frankly scares the shit out of me, Lieberman I have been disliking since I was in college, and to be able to consider Sharpton seriously I would have to know a lot more about him than I do. All I really remember about him is the Tawana Brawley scandal way back in the 1980s. He came across to me then as kind of an attention-seeking grandstanding wacko; but then again, that was when I was still reading Time magazine and believing what it told me. Gephardt has been either running or in the running for running for the past 12 years and so far has yet to convince me he has either a personality or a platform; but Liza tells me he has always been very strong on labor so perhaps I should pay more attention to him. Edwards I know virtually nothing about, ditto Graham and Moseley-Braun, apart from the bogus scandal that was trumped up against her by her last electoral opponent. As for Kerry, I know he has a war record, and that he voted for the Iraq war, and that's about it. I have heard very little so far about his actual platform.

Who would I appoint? I don't know, how old is Jimmy Carter? But we could only get one term out of him, so he'd need a good VP.

I'm hoping that sometime between now and the primary, I will learn something about one of these people that convinces me that s/he can save this country. But so far, it hasn't happened.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Friar]

22. I think Teddy Roosevelt

was probably the most important economically progressive president but I agree with your post otherwise.

[Plaid Adder]

23. OK, I can see that

Roosevelt & Roosevelt in 2004! Apart from being dead, they're perfect!

Alas,

The Plaid Adder

[LWolf]

30. That is a trap.

And I see people make that assumption as easily as they draw breath; without even thinking about it.

This is a tremendous opportunity to create significant change. If we piss it away, we can't blame republicans for wasting the opportunity.

[Mairead]

11. "why AREN'T all the progressives here behind Kucinich"

In part because many of the 'progressives' here aren't really progressive except in the same way no bigot is a bigot in his own mind,

and in part because, for a lot of people, substance isn't really the most important thing. For them, it's more important to be excited, or popular, or insurgent, or something else. Sort of like the Greens for whom being 'a Green' is more important than reaching the goals that the Greens seek. They vote for the form rather than the substance because, to them, the form is the substance.

[blm]

12. and because Kucinich wasn't bashing their favorite target

the Democrats. Kucinich spoke out against the war and ON issues and didn't disingenuously bash the other candidates to glorify himself.

[gully]

31. You must have missed the debate and the Dean debacle? n/t

[jumptheshadow]

27. I can't let this pass

You can love Dennis Kucinich but still think he's not the one to evict George Bush. We are in an emergency situation, where a small group of radical ideologues have hijacked our government. We must take pragmatic steps to remove these people or we will lose our freedom.

Still, I might just send some money to the Kucinich campaign. No, I don't think he has a snowball's chance to be president. But I do want him to cultivate a national forum for his platform so it can gradually acquire more support among the centrist voters in this country.

[Mairead]

35. If everyone who likes the substance of his policies would send him money

and support, the election landscape would be transformed.

So do please send him as much money as you can, if you like his policies. Because the outcome is in our hands.

[gully]

29. I feel your passion for Dennis but...

M said~"In part because many of the 'progressives' here aren't really progressive except in the same way no bigot is a bigot in his own mind,"

It would appear to me your indicating that if one does not support the candidate you do, he/she is not 'progressive'?

M said~and in part because, for a lot of people, substance isn't really the most important thing. For them, it's more important to be excited, or popular, or insurgent, or something else. Sort of like the Greens for whom being 'a Green' is more important than reaching the goals that the Greens seek. They vote for the form rather than the substance because, to them, the form is the substance.

It would also appear that you feel Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate with 'substance' and that those that support someone else are either, un-educated, not-progressive, or lack substance?

[Mairead]

38. "It would appear to me ..."

I can see how you could interpret it that way, particularly if you don't notice the large number of quite-right-wing posters at DU. I do notice them. I can predict their (lack of) support for Dennis by noting the other positions they take. So I'm coming at it a different way than you interpreted. I first notice that there are right-wingers here, and then I notice that I can predict their response to Dennis with complete accuracy. So far I've not been surprised even once.


'Substance' was probably not the best choice of words, since even SmirkCo and PNAC have substance, though theirs is the kind that should be kept under lock and key. Behind high walls, with armed guards. And an inscription over the front gate in which the word 'prison' figures prominently.

I meant specifically 'desirable substance'. And I do think Dennis's policies assay out to the most and highest-grade desirable substance. When I think about Dennis's policies and compare them with those of other people (excepting Sharpton), there isn't the least doubt in my mind that his are superior when judged on rational grounds.

[gully]

45. desirable substance

You said~"I meant specifically 'desirable substance'. And I do think Dennis's policies assay out to the most and highest-grade desirable substance. When I think about Dennis's policies and compare them with those of other people (excepting Sharpton), there isn't the least doubt in my mind that his are superior when judged on rational grounds."

I honestly feel the same way about my candidate. We all have our passions, and things we feel are 'important.' We all have different political/personal values KWIM? We can agree to disagree, and respect one anothers choices however.

[gully]

33. dup post

x(

[blm]

6. You mean best on actual ISSUES? How novel. ;)

Best environmental policy?

Working knowledge of foreign policy and the cultures of other countries?

Commitment to education, healthcare, rebuilding our infrastructure?

Putting the stop on energy corporations control of policy?

Closing corporate tax loopholes?

[Spentastic]

9. Great post

I'd vote for a Ham Sandwich I'm afraid, no offence to your running mate.


Hmmmmmm.. Ham Sandwich.

[rock]

13. If I may summarize

bush*sucks.

Great post.

[jumptheshadow]

14. Winning the battle, losing the war

Point one: Yes, Bush is vulnerable. With time, hopefully the weight of his grievous sins will register with the electorate. The right-wing is getting increasingly desperate. Every scheme they are concocting has the potential of blowing up in their faces. (Hee hee.)

However, the Republicans also are exponentially more organized than we are. They've raised far more money. And their ethical compasses are broken. They are simply much more capable of dirty tricks than the typical purist Democrat. Don't count Bush out. In fact, don't count any vote out, anywhere.

Point two: We are not just running for the presidency. We are trying to win back the House and the Senate so that our next Democratic president can actually be effective. We have so much repair work to do. The future of our nation is at stake. I don't think I'm overstating that, am I?

One of my frustrations with Democratic activists is that so many of them use short-term strategy. They are aiming to win the battle at the expense of losing the war. They are using scorched earth tactics to prevail in the primary at the risk of gutting the support for the war. And our focus must always -- always -- be on the war.

In order to win the war, we are going to need the support of voters who, for whatever reason, cast their ballot for Bush or were absent altogether from the polls last time. We are going to have to make inroads into geographic territories that didn't go our way in 2000. And we are going to have to score decisive victories. You know the right-wing will fight the marginal wins. It will try its best to deflate any mandate given to a Democratic president, if not to derail the outcome of the election itself.

That brings us to Wesley Clark. Your essay about a general aspiring to the presidency was brilliant. It was just the intelligent kind of discourse I look for on DU. And your points are well-taken. However...

Wesley Clark's run for the presidency strengthens the hand of any Democrat who wins the primary. His endorsement of the Democratic party wins us credibility among Southern voters, male voters and swing state voters. His embrace of the word "liberal" helps blunt the years worth of disgraceful invective aimed at those of us who believe that our politicians should be compassionate as well as strong. The general's coattails will be powerful, for the nominee of our party, and for the countless candidates who will be running in congressional races across the nation. We need him.

And if, let's say, Dean wins, he will require the passionate support of the Clark supporters, the Kucinich supporters, the Kerry supporters, etc., etc. He will need around-the-clock electioneering in minority districts by people like Charlie Rangel, Al Sharpton and Bill Clinton. He will need unwavering support from the very people who are routinely demonized on this board. The Democratic party will have to be very unified and organized if we want to generate the congressional support for our next president. Or else it's win the battle and lose the war...

[Plaid Adder]

16. It seems to me

that so far, the actual candidates are doing pretty well at keeping the scorching of each other to a minimum (not that there isn't some, but the focus is still on tearing Bush a new asshole, which is where it should be, although God knows he already has a lot more asshole in him than a president should). The same cannot be said about the DU boards, but really, in the grand scheme of things, what does that really matter.

They are going to have to distinguish themselves and this will inevitably lead to invidious comparisons, but with any luck they can all play nice long enough to allow everyone to line up behind whoever it is without feeling like they're betraying their boy.

I have always said that every candidate brings something to the race and we shouldn't rush to narrow the field because that will limit the discussion. I suppose I could include Clark in that, now that he's part of the discussion. But what I can't stand is watching everyone trumpeting about how their guy is the only guy, and then if you suggest that maybe he isn't the one the only and the be-all and end-all, you get back this "what, do you want Bush to win?" crap. No, I do not want Bush to win; I am not insane. But I want whoever beats him to be able to get the country out of the hole it's in, and I am not gonna rush to embrace Candidate X just because he's all shiny and telegenic.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[chiburb]

19. PA, it is always a pleasure...

To read your posts. Thank you for this contribution...

[NewYorkerfromMass]

26. "the Republicans are exponentially more organized than we are"

Can't underestimate the weight of this and their obscenely overflowing war chest of $$$$$.
Many good points here.

[gully]

34. So very true!

"The Democratic party will have to be very unified and organized if we want to generate the congressional support for our next president. Or else it's win the battle and lose the war..."

[Friar]

21. wonderful

I couldn't have said it better, as is well known.

[Plaid Adder]

24. Kick because it's not a thread about Clark!

Although I think he is mentioned...

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Mairead]

25. YAB

[ulysses]

28. kick

:kick:

[Tinoire]

32. Excellent Post! We must destroy the HYDRA!

And this is precisely why I will never be on the ABB band-wagon. It's a nice catchy phrase but what is it other than an invitation for us to open wide the gates of Troy and let through whatever horse they send our way?

The problem is not Bush! Bush is a drunken idiot figure-head. Getting rid of Bush without getting rid of the entire apparatus behind him is as futile as cutting of one of the Hydra's 7 heads and having 2 more heads re-appear in its place. I demand a lot more than just that his successor be 'better than Bush'. Better than Bush is not enough. Reducing our task to "anyone but Bush' sets us up for settling for anything. Reagan and Nixon were better than Bush! I will not allow my anger to be manipulated like this.

ABB, Anyone But Bush, sounds more like a DLC slogan to me. Nothing more than a subtle pre-conditioning so that after we've amused ourselves investigating issues and histories, they can over-run the will of the people by convincing us that only their candidates are "electable" (as if electability depends on their money and not on our vote) and getting us to vote for a candidate we don't like simply because he doesn't butcher words like strategy. Is this what we've come to? A point where we would blindly squander our vote and agree to replace the chimp with a hyena?

ABB- subtle conditioning to get you to vote for the candidate they will tell you has the best chance of beating Bush. The boys in power aren't stupid and they will do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING to stay in power to include sending Trojan Horses our way. Let us not be naive in turn and fall for their little ploy.

The HYDRA

In Greek mythology, a huge monster with nine heads. If one were cut off, two would grow in its place.


PPPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTT on ABB! This is our ONE, our BEST opportunity to get a Progressive in office and they know it! The American people are so sick of Bush that the majority would vote for any Progressive we put out there who speaks to their issues and to their needs.

Are the American people sick of Bush? The answer is either a land-slide YES or a land-slide NO. Bush didn't even win the first time? How the hell can he win this time after this debacle? The answer is that he can't and they know it so they're going to do everything possible to convince us that our only chance is to jump on their ABB band-wagon and throw away our vote on the candidate who's the most acceptable to them so that they can retain their power.

What good is ABB if the PNAC apparatus is still in power?

What good is ABB if we endorse an occupation of Iraq?

What good is ABB if we continue on with the plan that started with the destabilization of Yugoslavia, continued through Afghanistan, Iraq and will next go on to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia?

What good is ABB if American workers don't have jobs because of GATT, NAFTA and WTO?

What good is ABB if we don't fix our schools and put our priority on fixing our social problems?

Honestly, what good is ABB if the tax cuts Bush gave his buddies isn't reversed?

What good is ABB when we have Democratic Reps accepting money from the same corporations that empowered Bush and still enabling them?

It's not a damn bit of good- just a pre-conditioning to get us to cast our vote for whatever DLC candidate they catapult to the top of the charts. And I'm sorry, I can't go along with it
------

corarose (1000+ posts) Sat Sep-20-03 07:26 PM
Original message
INTERESTING CHAT I HAD WITH A RUSSIAN LADY TODAY


(REMEMBER GUYS I CAN'T TALK THAT MUCH BECAUSE OF MY TEETH BEING OUT SO I LET HER DO ALMOST ALL OF THE TALKING AND BOY DID SHE TALK)

I was chatting with a Russian Lady at the hair dressers today and she told me that the US is worse then Russia when Stalin was in charge.

She said that our TV & Newspapers are more then propaganda tools and that they are using them to brainwash people into thinking the way that they want them to think.

She said that she wouldn't doubt it if we had concentration camps in the USA for people who aren't conforming to the Right Wing party.

She has been home recently to Russia and she said that we are not getting the news that the rest of the world is getting.

She said that they showed pictures of tons of American Soldiers being torn apart and dead. She also said that we have flattened out most of Iraq and the jokes about a making it a parking lot are not jokes and that they are the truth.

She also mentioned that thousands upon thousands of Iraqis are dead and they don't want us to know this.

She went to London, Paris, Germany and several other countries and people in other countries are getting different information about the Bush Crime Cabal and they know more then we do about 9/11. She said they have been shown proof in other countries that our own government was involved in bringing the bldgs. down.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=210796

---------------

ABB? Designed by the same people who don't want you to vote for the candidate who best represents YOU. Go to http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/who.php?restrict=y, play with the Demographics and see how regardless of location or age, the candidate the majority identify with is Dennis Kucinich- the corporations' biggest nightmare.

Winners of the Presidential Selector Race

45% Congressman Dennis Kucinich, OH - Democrat
14% Bush, George W. - US President
9% Green Party Candidate
9% Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat
6% Libertarian Candidate
6% Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat
2% Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat
2% Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat
2% Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat
2% Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat
1% Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat
0% Jackson, Cong. Jesse Jr., IL - Democrat
0% Bayh, Senator Evan, IN - Democrat
0% Biden, Senator Joe, DE - Democrat
0% Clinton, Senator Hillary Rodham, NY - Democrat
0% Leahy, Patrick Senator, Vermont - Democrat
0% Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat
0% Feingold, Senator Russ, WI - Democrat
0% Daschle, Senate Minority Leader Tom, SD - Democrat
0% Phillips, Howard - Constitution
0% McCain, Senator John, AZ- Republican
0% Buchanan, Patrick J. – Reform/Republican
0% Socialist Candidate
0% Clark, Retired Army General Wesley K "Wes" AR - Democrat
0% Kaptur, Cong. Marcy, OH - Democrat
0% Nader, Ralph - Green Party
0% Feinstein, Senator Dianne, CA - Democrat

http://www.fluxrostrum.com/MindFlux/DennisKucinich/electable-candidates.htm

ABB is a dangerous philosophy. Our goal should instead be give our support to the BEST person and determine electability OURSELVES.

[jumptheshadow]

36. Yikes

You are quoting Russian ladies in hair parlors to back up your arguments?

Your candidate is a good man. But he won't gain much credibility if his proponents cite evidence like that.

[Tinoire]

40. Yes because I'm getting the same information from

from my friends in France and Germany. One of my French friends sent me some videotapes of French news and it was horrible. We are watching 2 VERY different wars in the US and in Europe.

By the way, that wasn't my post. It was a cut and paste job from another DUers post and it matches what I've been told.

We're inhuge trouble if people prefer to believe the news we're getting here.

Do you trust the same people who brought us the stories about "babies being thrown out of incubators" to tell us the truth now? Under Bush of all things?

The most significant statement in that lady's comment was:
our TV & Newspapers are more then propaganda tools and that they are using them to brainwash people into thinking the way that they want them to think.

It's more than true and extremely sad. There is little hope for our country when I see people so easily repeat the talking points they heard on TV. Independent and critical thought are at an all-time low in America. The saddest thing is that people don't even realize it.

[gully]

37. ABB means different things to different people...

Tinoire said~"ABB is a dangerous philosophy. Our goal should instead be give our support to the BEST person and determine electability OURSELVES."

The problem as I see it is: We don't all agree on who that is?! I have accepted that fact.

Thus what ABB means to me is: I will work like hell for Howard Dean as he is my 'top' choice for President. Should Dennis Kucinich win the nomination, (in spite of my reservations) I will work like hell to see to it he beats Bush.

In other words... In the primary, vote your heart, in the election vote your head~Molly Ivins.

ABB is about solidarity in the end, it's not about being complacent.

Does that make sense?

BTW, I went to selectsmart.com and they said...the most frequent winner of the presidential selector race was Howard Dean ;) Had to toss that in.

[Mairead]

39. "the most frequent winner was Howard Dean"

I didn't see that. But when I just now took that survey, I did get Dean as my first choice, and Dennis second. But unless he does something to totally change my opinion of him, I won't vote for Dean. So I think something might be broken.

[gully]

41. Ironically, I got Dennis first, and Dean second...

I have more issues I look at then were represented on the selectsmart choice spectrum however...
;)

I stand corrected, Dean is not the most 'frequent' winner...

edited to add* "While not the most frequent "winner of the presidential selector race" (see below), Howard Dean has generated the most interest among visitors to SelectSmart.com, based on an analysis of visits to the candidates' biographical sketches and positions pages.

I misunderstood the opening paragraph. As I said though, there were about 15 issues highlited, it's impossible to get beyond entertainment with that quiz anyhow... :crazy:

[Tinoire]

42. Look at that chart again

Look at that chart again ;) It says

"SelectSmart.com Visitors Interested In Dean

While not the most frequent "winner of the presidential selector race" (see below), Howard Dean has generated the most interest among visitors to SelectSmart.com, based on an analysis of visits to the candidates' biographical sketches and positions pages.

Then go on to the charts. The overall results as well as the results for all the demographics I checked had Kucinich as the winner. If you go to Select Smart's forum you'll see that several people have already taken the Select Smart staff to task for mis-representing the picture. Select Smart's response is that they clearly specified that for Dean it was interest whereas for Kucinich it was people who matched with him.

I pasted the results for you in my initial post but you can go through the various states yourself and check. Dean, his supporters, and the media are doing one helluva job of putting him in the front-runner's place but the results on Select Smart and several other polls are not bearing that out.

---

Other than that, I agree with you. Support the candidate you MOST like and want in the primaries. That's what they're there for.

My point about ABB being there to condition us into accepting whatever final choice they'll give us remains. It's up to us not to be complacent but we do need to be aware of how machiavellic and manipulative the people in power will be.

[gully]

43. Cross posted with you Tiniore. I added that info to my post in

the mean time...

Thanks !

You said~"My point about ABB being there to condition us into accepting whatever final choice they'll give us remains. It's up to us not to be complacent but we do need to be aware of how machiavellic and manipulative the people in power will be."

Your right the choice is OURS to make. Ultimately the voters should/do have the power to choose. The sad thing is how few people realize how much it matters. And, how many people don't have a voice because they don't use it.

Also, I can only hope we have an honest election this time. Thankfully people are being pro-active.

~Peace

[Tinoire]

44. We're on the same team

I agree with you about how few people realize how much our vote matters! It matters immensely!

The honest election bit though... is one I'm still scared about. Very scared. I'm requesting an absentee ballot so that there will be a paper trail of my vote. Don't want it going down some programmer's dark hole!

Scary times... !

Peace

[gully]

46. Scary times indeed...

I never thought about absentee ballots as an alternative.
Thanks for mentioning that.


:thumbsup: