Dumbest Democratic move of 2004

[Padraig18]

Vote, or nominate your own.

[russian33]

1. I voted for 'McCain for VP', but...

...confirming Negroponte as an ambassador to Iraq is up there too...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Nominating another DLC backed candidate for prez.

One that is buying into the "move to the right" mantra and abandoning the left...again.

[Tina H]

3. I choose your option. n/t

[Birthmark]

5. I agree.

However, I back Kerry 100% and will do everything in my power to help him get elected.

The DLC is a problem for another day, the day *after* Election Day.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. The DLC is best attacked now.

But, I live in a "safe" state so I'll make my vote count by voting Green. If I lived in a battleground state, I might buy a super barfbag, vote for Senator Whitebread, and avoid mirrors for a few years.

[Birthmark]

11. Hey, we had the primaries to take on the DLC

The DLC won. I have no choice but to support their candidate. I live in FL and I sure as hell don't want this election to end up in court again.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Sounds like lose/lose.

If you vote for Kerry and he loses, you lose. If you vote for Kerry and he wins, the DLC can trumpet that the "move to the center" is what provided the victory.

Isn't it swell living in a one party country?

[Birthmark]

16. I think that you are missing something.

The DLC already won when Kerry became the nominee. That fight is over for now. My side lost. Now, do I whine, pick up my marbles, and go home to pout; or do I accept it with as much grace as I can muster and help them win the bigger game, getting Bush out of the WH? I suggest that the latter is the proper course. It is for me, anyway.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. You have my sympathy.

As I said, I live in a "safe" state so I won't "have to" vote for Kerry and the DLC. I can vote for the my anti-war senator and congressman (both dems) and Green for prez. If it's close in '08 the Dems will know that they will have to move left to get my vote.

The bonus being that, for me, it's a win/win. If Kerry wins, we're rid of the Texan. If Kerry loses, the DLC takes the rap for moving to the right.

And, I'll be able to sleep well.

[kymar57]

130. Total agreement BM

One step at a time

[Paradise]

107. the total popular vote will be counted, and touted, as well.

so, hope you think about it :think: before you vote. just my opinion, and, i want to give john every single chance (no matter how slim in particular states) to win. i have a feeling we may be surprised by the results in all states (aside from the black boxes). :hi:

[kiahzero]

92. Interesting how many people hate democracy

whenever it doesn't work the way they want.

:cry: My candidate didn't win! :cry:

One of the consistently most liberal members of the Senate, and that's not far enough to the left.

:eyes:

[Cheswick2.0]

95. love it or leave it?

come on, it's not democracy we hate. It is the dirty tricks and the corporate complicity, plus the total lack of real democratic values that we hate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. One of the consistantly pro-war Democrat senators.

Apparantly, in your lexicon, "most liberal" is defined as pro-war.

"My candidate" has yet to be decided. I'll be voting Green for Prez this time around and the party has yet to decide on a candidate.

[Doomsayer13]

101. consistently

that would mean that he would've voted for 87 billion, but he didn't. It would mean that he would've wanted Rumsfeld to stay, but he called for his resignation.

But life is easier when things are black and white, right?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. Consistantly.

Kerry is also calling for more troops in Iraq. He's also telling us that we should give Bush "some space" to subjugate Iraq even more.

But, life is easier when you go along with the war rather than opposing it, right?

[Doomsayer13]

104. I'm unaware of the "some space" comment

but it's a misnomer. Opposing the war is all fine and dandy, but Kerry is faced with a tough task of actually trying to find a solution to the quagmire. I think it'd be too easy for me to dawn on my peace sign and demand the troops out of Iraq and leave the place for a three way civil war. If we want the best solution for all Iraqi's, we're going to have to explore alternative options. Withdrawing should be the last resort.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

106. Alternative options.

"If we want the best solution for all Iraqi's, we're going to have to explore alternative options."

Yeah, right. Seems like I heard something like that before. Nixon called it "Peace with Honor", claiming a bloodbath would ensue in Vietnam if we just brought the troops home. "Peace with Honor" cost several hundred thousand (if not more - considering the carnage in Cambodia) lives before we finally did bring the troops home.

What possible good is the occupation doing now? All one has to do is look at the news to see that the situation is detiorating daily. The occupation is contributing to the likelihood of civil war, not diminishing it.

Kerry has not offered a realistic plan for ending it. He calls for more troops and the involvement of NATO. A nice safe pose because NATO isn't about to hug the Iraq tarbaby.

He talks about getting the UN involved, but offers no explanation of how to do so because the answer would be handing over the political and military control to the UN.

Would Kerry be "better" than Bush? A mentally challenged rock would be better than Bush. But, letting Kerry off the hook, and allowing him to sing the "I'm not really a liberal" song and avoid the issue is not going to stop the war or force him to move left to get our votes.

[kiahzero]

111. Yes

The world of politics began and ended with the Iraq War.

:eyes:

Obviously not the first Iraq War though, since Kerry opposed that one. But you neglect that fact, because it doesn't jive with your "Kerry is a warmonger" lie.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

112. Lie?

Remind me. How did Kerry vote on the IWR? What does Kerry intend to realisitically do to end the occupation of Iraq? Please spare me the "bring in Nato" (they won't come in), and "more UN involvement" platitudes that are meaningless. Note: In case you didn't notice, the UN won't come in unless we give up control of the politics and military.

So, tell me where the "lie" is.

[kiahzero]

114. Your lie is that Kerry is consistently pro-war

Kerry did vote for the IWR, but that's hardly pro-war. Voting for IWR was the best of bad options - the Republicans had the votes to get whatever they wanted through Congress, including authorization to invade any country the President deemed necessary to find weapons of mass destruction. By agreeing to cast his vote for the IWR, Kerry (among others) gained the ability to influence what the legislation said.

If you reflexively scream "NO!" to all of the opposition's attempts to negotiate, you lose the ability to influence the outcome.

What does Kerry intend to realistically do to end the occupation of Iraq?

Currently, Kerry plans to send in more troops to attempt to restore some form of government, and then pull out. If conditions continue to deteriorate, his plan will almost certainly change.

You see, saying "Fuck you guys, I'm going home" would result in one of two outcomes:
1) Iraq suffers an intense civil war, and ends up being a failed state, with no real government to speak of.
2) Iraq suffers a civil war of less severity, and a military overlord is able to install himself into power.

Neither of those outcomes are beneficial to the Iraqi people or to the security interests of the United States.

Maybe I'm just too moral when it comes to foreign policy, but I tend to think that when a country destroys the existing government of another sovereign nation, the invading country has a moral obligation to do everything in its power to help the invaded country set up a new government.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

118. Ah, yes, the bloodbath scenario..again.

Apparantly, the Iraqi people are not so frightened about the coming civil war(s) that you foresee. 80% want the troops out.

"Currently, Kerry plans to send in more troops to attempt to restore some form of government, and then pull out."

This is the same reasoning that Nixon used to send more troops into Vietnam and initiated the "secret war" in Cambodia (resulting in over 1 million deaths). He called "Peace with Honor".

"the invading country has a moral obligation to do everything in its power to help the invaded country set up a new government."

Since when has this country based it's foreign policy on morality?

"Kerry did vote for the IWR, but that's hardly pro-war. Voting for IWR was the best of bad options"

23 other senators thought otherwise and voted against Bush and his war. If Kerry thought whimpering "Yes" "to the opposition's attempt to negotiate" would influence BushCorp's decision he is incredibly naive. Kerry was sacrificing ethics and playing politics. And, continues to do so.

BTW. The troops "restoring order" managed to knock off another 40 civilians attending a wedding today. But, of course, it's all for a "moral" cause.

Kerry was wrong (and, I think, cowardly) to support Bush's war. He is wrong to continue to support the occupation and subjugation of Iraq.

His views on Iraq are a helluva lot more in line with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld than Kucinich or Nader or mine.

[kiahzero]

119. This would only be Vietnam if we were still fighting Saddam

If we had defeated North Vietnam, and then proceeded to fight an insurgency while we tried to establish a new government, then the analogy to Vietnam would be valid.

Since when has this country based it's foreign policy on morality?

So you agree that it is immoral to say "fuck you guys, I'm going home," and yet continue to espouse that path? Interesting... I thought that having a morality-free foreign policy was one of the traditional attacks on conservatives.

23 other senators thought otherwise and voted against Bush and his war. If Kerry thought whimpering "Yes" "to the opposition's attempt to negotiate" would influence BushCorp's decision he is incredibly naive. Kerry was sacrificing ethics and playing politics. And, continues to do so.

Go back and reread my post. The influence was not on 'BushCorp,' but rather on the outcome of the resolution. And if you look at the resolution, you'll see that it does in fact limit the scope of operations to Iraq, as opposed to allowing Bush to invade the entire Middle East if he so chose.

BTW. The troops "restoring order" managed to knock off another 40 civilians attending a wedding today. But, of course, it's all for a "moral" cause.

You might want to learn the difference between implementation and abstraction. Bush's implementaton of restoring government to Iraq is flawed. That does not mean that the abstraction of restoring government to Iraq is flawed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

121. Spinning dizzily.

Oh well, because we didn't "defeat North Vietnam" the ensuing slaughter doesn't count. What do you think LBJ/Nixon were trying to do, lose?

No, I don't say that it is "immoral" to pull out. In fact, I believe that it's the only moral course left to us.

"The influence was not on 'BushCorp,' but rather on the outcome of the resolution. And if you look at the resolution, you'll see that it does in fact limit the scope of operations to Iraq, as opposed to allowing Bush to invade the entire Middle East if he so chose."

Well, it certainly has worked hasn't it? Do you really believe that that resolution is curbing Bush in the least? The fact is that BushCorp's predictions of happy Iraqis dancing in the street, throwing flowers at the "liberators", and naming their kids Dubya, was a bit off. There's not enough men and materiel to even "restore order" to Baghdad, let alone take on another country.

"You might want to learn the difference between implementation and abstraction. Bush's implementaton of restoring government to Iraq is flawed. That does not mean that the abstraction of restoring government to Iraq is flawed."

Ah, well, that IS comforting. I'm sure the families of the dead and maimed Iraqis will welcome the necessity of sacrificing because of some minor flaws in the abstraction of "restoring government". Just a bit of "collateral damage" on the path to imposing a government on them.

How about this as an alternative. Kerry announces that, as president, he will go to the UN and ask them to take over complete political and military control (including control of US troops)of Iraq until democratic elections can be safely held. It's novel idea, but maybe the Iraqis would like to decide what kind of government they want, even if it's one we don't like.

Hell, if he did that, I'd happily support him, and vote for him without a qualm.

[kiahzero]

123. No, you're putting words in my mouth

Oh well, because we didn't "defeat North Vietnam" the ensuing slaughter doesn't count. What do you think LBJ/Nixon were trying to do, lose?

It's not that the ensuing slaughter doesn't 'count.' It's that the situation is vastly different. There was a government left in existence when we pulled out of Vietnam. Not so if we were to pull out of Iraq tommorow.

Well, it certainly has worked hasn't it? Do you really believe that that resolution is curbing Bush in the least? The fact is that BushCorp's predictions of happy Iraqis dancing in the street, throwing flowers at the "liberators", and naming their kids Dubya, was a bit off. There's not enough men and materiel to even "restore order" to Baghdad, let alone take on another country.

Given the fact that we haven't moved on to Syria and Iran by now, yes, I would say that it worked.

Ah, well, that IS comforting. I'm sure the families of the dead and maimed Iraqis will welcome the necessity of sacrificing because of some minor flaws in the abstraction of "restoring government". Just a bit of "collateral damage" on the path to imposing a government on them.

Do you enjoy putting words in the mouths of others? If not, why do you do it so much?

My point is that, just because Bush and his deputies are completely incompetent at running a reconstruction does not mean that the entire principle behind reconstruction is flawed.

If your logic were correct, I could demonstrate that math doesn't work by incorrectly adding 2+2 to make 5.

How about this as an alternative. Kerry announces that, as president, he will go to the UN and ask them to take over complete political and military control (including control of US troops)of Iraq until democratic elections can be safely held. It's novel idea, but maybe the Iraqis would like to decide what kind of government they want, even if it's one we don't like.

Hell, if he did that, I'd happily support him, and vote for him without a qualm.

It'd also never happen, due to opposition here and in the UN. What you could do is make it a NATO operation, which would still be de facto be under the command of an American, but would be politically and militarilly an international operation.

I'm not suggesting that the Iraqis shouldn't be able to decide what kind of government they want. In fact, I'd like to see all Iraqis get to have a say, not just the group with the most guns.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

125. OK. Enough with the sarcasm.

In my estimation, Kerry has to present a clear, uneaquivical alternative to the use of the military in Iraq. So far, he has been hedging his bets in hopes of being all things to all people.

In my opinion, he should come out and state that he will pursue a purely diplomatic course of action through the UN with the aim of providing the Iraqis with a democratically elected government of their choice.

That Bush and his fellow goons are incompetant at "restoring a government" was foreseen by most of us before the first shot was fired. As we try to "restore order" through the use of naked force the situation only gets worse. Nor, do I believe that "restoring order" is their purpose. Their idea is to impose a friendly government that will supply us with oil, and create some sort of fantasy of a quiet mid-east that won't threaten Israel.

The problem, for me, is that while the politicians argue, pose, and scheme as to what will sell the electorate, people are dying. You may say that that's the only alternative. That the political animal must be fed by prevarication and polls. I don't buy it. And, even if true, I don't have to like it or approve of it.

The invasion of Iraq was a crime. The occupation is a crime. Keeping silent about it, because "our" candidate isn't as bad as the criminals, is giving tacit approval to the crime.

I want Kerry to win. But, to get my vote he's going to have to make a stand against the immorality of what was done in our name.

And, you can relax about my not voting for Kerry. I live in a "safe" state. I am hoping that if enough people vote to the left, the party will finally come to it's senses and come after our votes rather than chasing votes they aren't likely to get anyway.

I apologize for the sarcasm in the previous posts.

[kiahzero]

126. Fair enough

In my estimation, Kerry has to present a clear, uneaquivical alternative to the use of the military in Iraq. So far, he has been hedging his bets in hopes of being all things to all people.

In my opinion, he should come out and state that he will pursue a purely diplomatic course of action through the UN with the aim of providing the Iraqis with a democratically elected government of their choice.

Without the military, that won't happen. Power vacuums favor the person with the most guns.

That Bush and his fellow goons are incompetant at "restoring a government" was foreseen by most of us before the first shot was fired. As we try to "restore order" through the use of naked force the situation only gets worse. Nor, do I believe that "restoring order" is their purpose. Their idea is to impose a friendly government that will supply us with oil, and create some sort of fantasy of a quiet mid-east that won't threaten Israel.

While I agree that the Bush Administration wants to install a US puppet government, that doesn't mean that they're not trying to restore order - they're just doing it in a much more authoritarian manner than either of us are comfortable with.

The invasion of Iraq was a crime. The occupation is a crime. Keeping silent about it, because "our" candidate isn't as bad as the criminals, is giving tacit approval to the crime.

While the invasion of Iraq was almost certainly suspect ethically, that does not make it criminal. It's questionable whether or not it violated international law. The occupation is certainly not criminal, and I don't even think that it is unethical. Specific things done during the occupation are unethical and morally wrong, but that doesn't mean the idea of occupying Iraq after the invasion is fundamentally unethical.

About the sarcasm: Don't worry about it. I've been known to be far too bitter in my posts for the context, so for me to condemn your sarcasm would be a touch hypocritical.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

127. Thanks for the discourse.

Both civil and not so. Time for lunch and Tacitus who bemoans those durn Germans, Gauls, Parthians, Jews, etc, who keep rebelling against the Pax Romana.

"Power vacuums favor the guns." The trouble is that we have most of them and are using them the same way the Romans used their pilums in a vain attempt to impose their version of civilization on the rest of the world.

Later.

[Nicholas_J]

120. Kerry is well connected with the U.N

And the British government. He has been a close personal friend with the person who will lead the British Labour Party if Blair is forced to step down, and Britain has a big say in what NATO does. So the statement that NATO will not come has no basis is political reality. They will not come if Bush is re-elected, but they wil come if Kerry makes it worth the E.E.C.'s while. More U.N. involvement is not a platitute, where Kerry has stated that he will ask for and attend a Meeting of the General Assemble, and Security council withing 3 weeks to find out what powers the U.N. wants in Iraq in order to take part.

Kerry met with All of the Ambassadors to the Security Council PRIOR to the writing and passing of the Iraq Resolution which is erroneouosly called the Iraq War Resolution, as this act does not use the word War in it anywhere withing the authorizations area of the act. Kerry got everything that the Security Council Members wanted inserted into the act.

The sections requiring that all diplomatic efforts be exhausted, or that the U.N. be found to be totally unwilling to act were the sections requested by the U.N. Security Council itself. And it was Kerry who got the Bush administration to accept ANY bowing to the U.N., as prior to the resolution, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were firm in their assertions that they did not need to go to the U.N. at all. Nor require inspections, or any other U.N. resolution.

Front loaded primaries were a great idea. I would have made it contingent that no one be allowed to run on the democratic ticket before Gore made his decision to not run, and only start the campaign seasoon afer that decision was made.

Anyone who chose to run before this should have been not given party suppport, and have to run as an independent.

[Paradise]

108. exactly! n/t

[CharlesGroce]

4. Well selecting John Kerry as the nominee,

of course

[vi5]

6. Yeah, that whole picking the guy with the most votes thing....

...as we've seen, it's waaaaaay overrated. Stupidity at it's finest.

[no name no slogan]

He didn't have the MOST-- only a plurality

When before Edwards and Dean left, Kerry never finished above 40%. 40% does NOT make a majority, unless you're on the SCOTUS. There were still at least 60% of the primary electorate who wanted somebody else.

The DLC deliberately engineered the primaries to have the outcome we got. They purposefully front-end loaded them so they'd get their nominee by March.

So, instead of getting a candidate who's willing to forcefully take on the Shrub, we get Walter Mondale: portrayed as a raving liberal by the media, but more interested in running against the majority of his party than running against the Republican.

It didn't work for Fritz-- let's hope it works for Kerry.

[Dookus]

83. Nonsense...

first of all, the DLC has no say in how primaries are run. The DNC does.

Second, the frontloading was not designed to favor a specific candidate. Dean could just as easily have benefitted from it. There's nothing about a schedule of primary dates that inherently favors one candidate over another.

Dean peaked early. That's the whole truth of the matter. It happens to almost every politician at some point.

[kiahzero]

93. Following that logic, no one should be the nominee

At least 95% of the primary electorate wanted someone other than Kucinich, in most states.

[no name no slogan]

113. Not quite sure what you're saying here.

At least 95% of the primary electorate wanted someone other than Kucinich, in most states.

Who said anything about Kucinich? Not me. I'm quite aware of how he has done in the primaries and caucuses to date. Nor do I dispute the fact that 95% (although that figure seems a little high) of the voters did not vote for Kucinich.

All I said was that John Kerry got a PLURALITY of the votes in the contested primaries. Which is true.

What that means is, at the time of each contested primary, John Kerry was not the choice of the MAJORITY of primary voters. This is also true.

Nor did I ever say that the nominee SHOULD win a majority of the delegates. The nominee should be the person who can get the most support from the party delegates-- be they his OR his opponents.

Yes, Kerry will be the nominee. But if we were to depend solely on Kerry's primary supporters to win this fall, we'd be in trouble.

[kiahzero]

115. It's called a counterexample.

I chose Kucinich for two reasons - he's still running, as far as I know, and he is apparently your candidate.

All I said was that John Kerry got a PLURALITY of the votes in the contested primaries. Which is true.

What that means is, at the time of each contested primary, John Kerry was not the choice of the MAJORITY of primary voters. This is also true.

The point is that no one was the choice of the MAJORITY of primary voters. It's a specious point - it has no relevance to anything.

But if we were to depend solely on Kerry's primary supporters to win this fall, we'd be in trouble.

We'd be in more trouble if we were to depend solely on anyone else's primary supporters.

[Doomsayer13]

102. perhaps you should relook your words

plurality = most votes, as in the person with the most votes win, as in Kerry got the most votes in nearly every state and he won.

Second of all, the DLC is a caucus group and think tank made of some congresspeople and some other moderate Democrats. They have no say in how Democratic primaries are run. The reason why it was front loaded was becuase they didn't want whoever our nominee was to get Dolified - as in while our candidates are busy duking it out, Bush and his 200 million dollars could easily massacre whoever seemed to be on top of the fray. Clinton did it to Dole in 96 and Dems weren't about to let Rove get the upper hand on us.

It was a strategy thing, not some sort of mass conspiricy to keep the left out of the primaries.

[no name no slogan]

110. I said DLC (not DNC) and meant DLC

The DLC effectively controls the DNC, and has since 1992. THAT was why I said the DLC and not DNC.

And second, it may not have been a "conspiracy", but the primaries were deliberately set up to favor candidates who could amass the biggest war chest in the quickest amout of time. Don't believe me? Then who were the top three primary winners this year? What were their rankings in overall fundraising and/or access to money? I'm fairly certain they are 1, 2, and 3.

The whole system at all levels is skewed toward who can raise and spend the most money. Why do you think Ross Perot was a serious challenger in 1992, while Nader was little more than a spoiler in 2000? MONEY!!!!

Ross Perot could afford to buy 1-hour infomercials on prime time TV, while Nader (or any other 3rd party challengers) could not. Perot could spend massive amounts of his personal fortune to get his message out, while other non-billionaire 3rd party candidates could not. And THAT's why he finished in double digits in 1992.

Same goes for the primary process: Dean was able to raise amazing amounts of money, and his message got through. Edwards raised more money in Q1 2002 than anyone, and his message got through. Kerry was able to borrow from his personal fortune to fund his campaign through a tight spot before Iowa. And THAT's how the primaries were decided.

As much lip service as Democrats pay to "campaign finance reform", we really don't do much to encourage it within our own party. That's why almost every national-level elected official is a millionaire.

If we truly cared about political campaign financing, we'd start practicing it within our own party. But of course, the millionaires who steer the ship certainly would NOT approve of that.

[JI7]

29. he was elected by the people not selected

he was elected by the people in those states.

[spooky3]

32. If Dem. insiders did the picking, Lieberman would be our nominee.

Although voters were influenced by many factors, they chose the nominee.

[sandnsea]

7. Hypocritical whining???

Because if somebody else's candidate would have won, the front loaded primaries would have been seen as a great idea. Somebody's candidate was calling for Party Unity clear back in December, it seems to me.

[wyldwolf]

9. I was just thinking the same thing

[Padraig18]

12. Was tha addressed to me?

:wtf:

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

10. The Dean-Osama ad

personally insulting to the antiwar movement. It wasn't just an attack on the good doctor. It was a smear of everyyone who didn't toe the Daschle-Leiberman line by capitulating to Bush at every turn.

piling on Dean and trying to preserve the entrenched power of the McAullife system alienated a lot of potential young activists who now will either not vote or vote for Nader.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. "alienated a lot of potential young activists..."

Quite a few of us old activists too who will be voting Green rather than pablum.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

18. right

i'm not exactly young these days, either
i'm just sharing what i've heard from kids around town

[Dookus]

19. So basically you contend

that Dean was destroyed by a single television ad.

Good thing we found out early how fragile he was. I suspect Bush would've run an ad or two against him.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

30. i didn't say that at all

my point is that when dlc-backed candidates ran the ad (and smeared dean in other ways for his antiwar views), it showed what complete and utter contempt mcaulliffe and his toadies have for real progressive change. that pissed a lot of people off.

like him or not, dean represented a chance to change the party's direction and the powers-that-be decided we needed to go GOP-lite yet again. ---hence the mccain for v-p nonsense

[Dookus]

36. I don't understand

how a DLC moderate Democrat from the Northeast would change the party significantly more than a DLC Liberal from the Northeast.

Dean's a moderate. Dean was in the DLC. The only thing that separated him from the pack was his anger, which attracted many people, but repelled more.

Blaming a single television ad for his defeat shows a real lack of understanding of campaigns. Of course the people running against him campaigned against him. Any time your own candidate is skewered, it hurts. I was a Clark guy, and I was pissed when Dean called him a Republican. But I got over it, and the Dean people should do the same.

[sangh0]

97. You just don't get it

Dean was going to fight media consolidation, even though he couldn't even fight off a commercial

[jpgray]

14. People are increasingly ignorant about the front-loaded primaries

Gore and Kerry more or less wrapped the nominations at about the same time, in early March. The only difference in 2004, if I recall, was that more states had a chance to vote.

[no name no slogan]

133. Bad analogy: Gore was a sitting VP with little competition, Kerry was not

The nomination was Gore's to lose in 2000. His only competition was Bradley, and Gore was the sitting VP to a very popular incumbent president.

2004, by comparison, is much more like 1988 than 2000. There was a large field of competitors, ranging the gamut from fairly conservative to fairly liberal. The nomination winner was the supposed "northeastern liberal" who was much more centrist than the right wing claimed (Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004), who had either the most money or access to the most money, and was favored by the "establishment"-type party insiders.

In 1988, the nomination was not sewn up until late April or early May. There was still some semblance of a race after Super Tuesday-- unlike this year.

[Dookus]

20. Neither...

first off, the McCain thing is just a lot of talking. The Democratic party is not pushing it.

Second, the "front-loaded" primary thing is just an excuse for why Dean didn't win. He wouldn't have won under any scenario after Iowa.

[CTLawGuy]

21. Nominating Kerry

NT

[Dookus]

22. damn voters

[CTLawGuy]

28. damn media and damn DLC

the voters were ready to go with Dean until they bought the DLC propaganda bullshit about electability.


Oh well, when Kerry loses, the suicide rate in Iowa will go up.

[Dookus]

31. nonsense

the voters cast their votes, and they did so overwhelmingly for Kerry.

You believe that because Dean was leading in a previous poll, that he was robbed? Bullshit. Everybody knew when the caucus day was. Dean was unable to win on that day.

And what you call "propaganda bullshit" is campaigning. If Dean couldn't beat Kerry and Edwards, despite focusing all his time and money in one place, what possible hope did he have against Bush? And "electability" is rather important when choosing a candidate, btw.

You know, Bush would've run ads against him, too.

The fact is the voters in Iowa caucuses are intelligent and well-informed. They made a decision you disagreed with, but it's silly to consider them easily-fooled idiots.

[JI7]

35. people just wanted a more liberal candidate

and that's why kerry ended up winning. :)

[Dookus]

37. Exactly...

well-said.

[CTLawGuy]

41. yeah,

I hear all those liberals clamoring for a 5% corporate tax cut :eyes:

[JI7]

43. liberals work at corporations

[CTLawGuy]

47. wow thanks for the tip

I guess we are the corporation-friendly party now :eyes:

no wonder we want McCain for VP...

[JI7]

51. since when are liberals anti corporation ?

it's not like kerry is hiding records as howard dean and dick cheney are doing. kerry supports openness in government so people can hold him and others accountable .

[CTLawGuy]

55. wow,

someone get this poster a political science textbook....




I apologize for the above comment...

I suppose I can go look through every letter sent to Kerry through out his career as senator and Lt. Governor?

[JI7]

66. Kerry hasn't taken any steps to prevent the release of his public records

as dean has.

[CTLawGuy]

73. what did Dean do to prevent release?

he handed all of them to a judge to decide which ones should be opened and which ones should not.

[Dookus]

77. that is not true

he actively arranged to have them sealed, and he can un-seal them tomorrow if he so wishes.

[CTLawGuy]

79. that is what all governors do...

to protect confidential correspondence. It is common practice.

[Dookus]

84. the fact is

not everything sealed was personal correspondence. That's a straw man. Official papers regarding official activities were sealed, and that doesn't sit well with me no matter who does it. What makes it worse is his admission that it was done for political reasons.

I have been consistent for well over 20 years on this point: elected officials work for US and their work product belongs to US.

[greatauntoftriplets]

52. I want my employer to get a 5 percent tax cut....

...when they are taking away my benefits and giving me shit raises? No thank you.

[CTLawGuy]

56. hello friend

:-)

[JI7]

60. Kerry supports other things also

having to do with minimum wage, and benefits for employees. things aren't as simple as some think. just as kerry's support for environmental regulations does not mean he is anti jobs as republicans try to make it. kerry can give tax breaks to companies which create jobs and products which help prevent harm to the environment such as automobiles with higher cafe standards and alternative energy sources.

[greatauntoftriplets]

67. Will he stop my employer from taking away benefits ...

...and giving us shit raises? While the big execs get huge annual bonuses and raises?

I do not work for minimum wage, the company runs lean and mean (i.e., not interested in creating jobs and is privately held), and do not create products that harm to the environment like automobiles.

The rich get richer and the middle class gets poor.

[Dookus]

69. I'm with you on this, Greataunt

but the problem is that the government has little say over such things. And that's, overall, probably a good thing. The employees, customers and shareholders need to be better educated and better organized.

[JI7]

70. Kerry is not president

i can't be sure what he will be able to do once he gets into office. i know it wont be easy especially if the republicans control congress. he has a lot of plans as i mentioned on the environment. but to get many things passed he will need congressional support and if it's controlled by republicans it may take compromise.

[greatauntoftriplets]

76. I work in marketing.

Compromise. Yes.

[CTLawGuy]

40. ok

Doofus,
electability is a buzzword that means nothing. Bob Dole was "electable" too I bet.

I would like to know why the media was not furiously ripping into Kerry, or any other candidate the way it did Dean?

What if Dean had said the "f-word" in a magazine interview, like Kerry actually did? The media would call him crazy. When Kerry does, not a word is said.

And why didn't the DLC spend its time bashing "the most liberal candidate in a decade"?

And was it a coincidence that The Scream featured prominently on David Letterman, run by CBS, which is a huge Kerry donor?


All this combined to freighten enough Iowa voters who liked Dean when the election was about issues, into thinking that for some reason, Dean couldnt win.

And then after Iowa, pack mentality sets in and tons of voters defect to be with the "winner"

[MontecitoDem]

42. Gee, I think the "scream" happened AFTER Dean

tanked in Iowa?

Calling somebody doofus really supports your point too.

[JI7]

44. Dean's scream took place after his loss in Iowa

[CTLawGuy]

75. my bad..

you're right.

[Dookus]

45. First..

it's "Dookus", but you knew that.

Second, "electability" is more than a buzzword. It's a factor that weighs in the decision people make. People felt, as evidenced in the polls, that Dean was a weaker candidate against Bush than Kerry was.

Third, the media *DID* try to trump up the f-word thing. It didn't matter much. How can you say "not a word was said"? You heard about it, I heard about it, all thanks to the media.

Dean got softball treatment for months, then when he was the frontrunner, got some attention, not all positive. The same is now true of Kerry. That's the way it works.

Fourth, the scream got prominent play because it was an extraordinary thing. Read the threads here from that very night - you'll see a lot of people commenting on it BEFORE it was ever replayed. When I saw it, I knew it was Dean's "Dukakis-in-a-tank" moment, and that he'd never recover from it. It was news. It was interesting. It was funny. It was, in fact, extraordinary. That's why it got play.

Fifth, you're still playing the "people are sheeple" card, which is stupid on a number of levels: Iowa and New Hampshire primary/caucus voters are among the most well-informed, attentive voters out there. They made their decision, and you just disagree with it. Insulting them doesn't change that.

As to pack mentality, you use that term only because "the pack" went against your wishes. If they'd gone the other way, to Dean, I doubt you'd be decrying the "pack mentality". You'd be congratulating the voters on their wisdom.

Nobody "defected" from Dean. The fact is, the votes are cast on a given day, well-advertised in advance. Nobody is committed until they cast their vote. "Defect" implies some sort of betrayal.

[CTLawGuy]

50. I guess by your logic Kerry has no supporters

"Nobody "defected" from Dean. The fact is, the votes are cast on a given day, well-advertised in advance. Nobody is committed until they cast their vote. "Defect" implies some sort of betrayal."

ever heard of Polls? you use them all the time.


"Fifth, you're still playing the "people are sheeple" card, which is stupid on a number of levels: Iowa and New Hampshire primary/caucus voters are among the most well-informed, attentive voters out there. "

you just say that because they picked your candidate.

"Third, the media *DID* try to trump up the f-word thing. It didn't matter much. How can you say "not a word was said"? You heard about it, I heard about it, all thanks to the media."

yeah right. Imagine if Dean had done the same thing...

[Dookus]

54. LOL...

I never claimed anybody defected. I made a point that your sense of betrayal is misplaced.

They did not pick my candidate. My candidate was Wes Clark.

I can imagine what would've happened if Dean said fuck - probably the same as when Kerry said it. A politician swearing just doesn't have the oomph it once had.

Boy, if only there were a website for bitter, disgruntled Dean people to sit around and bitch... oh wait... I know of one.

[CTLawGuy]

58. if Dean had said f*ck

the media would have recommended he be sent to the Bronx Zoo...

[Dookus]

62. I doubt it

but it's hard to argue about things that didn't happen.

The fact is, Dean got tons of positive press, along with negative. All the candidates did. One shouldn't run for President with the expectation that the media will print nothing but glowing things. Anybody who thinks so is unqualified to be the nominee.

[kiahzero]

94. I wish Clark got the coverage Dean did

Two weeks where he was the on the cover of both Time and Newsweek, in mostly positive stories.

[no name no slogan]

124. Hey, I worked for Dukakis in 1988 because he was "electable"

instead of supporting a candidate who best represented my views, I chose to go with the Duke because he was "electable". After all, who wouldn't want to vote for a mushy-positioned, northeastern liberal who had almost no ability to energize the population, but a ton of money and "respectable" backers?

Ah, but again I digress.....

[MontecitoDem]

34. Wrong

Electability was an important issue to most folks without any need for propaganda.

Personally, I sleep better knowing Dean is NOT our nominee. 2 reasons:

1. With the situation in IRAQ he couldn't capitalize on it because it only highlights his inexperience. (Vermont!)

2. The way he blew his money marginalizes his argument (which is a great one) of "fiscal responsibility."

I LOVE Dean supporters, but I'm not wild about Dean. He's brought great energy to bear on the party - and that will be a great legacy, imo.

[CTLawGuy]

46. laughable

1. And Kerry CAN capitalize on the war? He voted for the damn thing for goodness sakes! He will never convey his "well, i wasnt REALLY voting for any actual war.." bullshit to any voter. Not in a 30-second soundbite world. I really wish we had Dean now, since the Iraq favorables have tanked into the 30s.
Dean had the same experience that Clinton had, that Reagan had (Reagan was elected during the cold war, when soviet missles were pointed at all our cities), and that Carter had. What is Kerry's experience, he went to vietnam?, he sat on a committee? He was fooled by bogus intelligence into voting for a bogus and disastrous war, the same evidence Dean and a billion people WEREN'T fooled by?

2. That is a lame argument. Running a campaign is not the same as running a state by any stretch of the imagination. I could come back and say that Kerry isnt fiscally responsible because he had to take a loan out on his house to stay alive in the primary! Running a campaign involves taking big risks with money to get a big return. Dean balanced budgets every year for 10 years, through two Bush recessions. Kerry has never balanced a budget in his life.
Kerry has no experience in those matters. I think that experience matters more to voters than foreign policy, considering the ratio of governors to senators who are elected president.

[MontecitoDem]

48. You seriously see no problem

with how Dean wasted the money we all gave him???

Wow. There's some folks that need to do some reflection here about what happened. Blaming Dean's loss on the DLC and other nefarious forces in incredibly lame.

[MontecitoDem]

49. What's laughable is

how rude you are to other people.

[CTLawGuy]

53. wow, I'M rude????

well I'm sorry. I forgot that Kerry supporters never bashed my candidate on this board for 6 straight months :crazy:, and that now anyone who suggests any sort of criticism of Kerry is tarred as a traitor who secretly supports Bush.

[Dookus]

57. well...

calling me "doofus" wasn't the pinnacle of politeness. Ms. Manners told me so.

on edit: And as for incessant candidate bashing, try wearing a Clark supporter's shoes. The Deaniacs were outrageously mean and deceptive about him.

[CTLawGuy]

61. I am sorry I called you doofus

I was going to blame it on a typo...


just know that if you bait me, I will respond, as i did in this case.

[Dookus]

65. How did I bait you?

I'm discussing politics. Why take it personally?

Apology accepted and appreciated. Thanks.

[CTLawGuy]

72. when you said

"damn voters"


I don't like that we nominated Kerry. No secret. I am going to vote for him, but I don't like him. I interpreted your above statement as an attack on my political judgement.


I am extremely sore about how our entire party has behaved the past 4 years, from voting for the Patriot Act, to voting for the tax cuts, to failing to prevent the war (but rather acquiescing in it). I see a kerry victory as validation of all the actions of the democrats these past four years. Which means MORE IWR's will be supported by democrats, more Patriot Acts will pass, and the DLC's centrist, "don't oppose the right wing" strategy will be validated, as well as the DLC itself.
However, a Kerry victory will put Bush out of office, which is slightly better than the negatives, in my eyes, hence my vote.

my behavior is a reflection of this frustration.

[Dookus]

82. I understand

and I think one of the biggest divisions we have on this board, and in fact, on the left altogether, is not one of policy, but of tactics.

I oppose all those things you stated. But I also understand that in a republican form of government (note the small-r in "republican"), progress is incremental, not sweeping.

Make ME the supreme ruler and I'll fix a lot of these things, much to your liking. But alas it doesn't work that way.

We move forward slowly, from the middle. In the big picture, that's a good thing, but on any given day, month or year, it can be terribly frustrating.

I've seen nobody here on DU who supported the war. But I understand that Kerry's vote for the resolution was NOT a vote for war. Do I wish he'd voted against it? Yes. I bet he does, too, these days. But in the end, it had NO effect whatsoever on the eventual outcome. Same as the Patriot Act, which even Paul Wellstone voted for.

The fact is, candidates who agree with me on every issue could not get elected to office. So I have to support people who LEAN my way, who CAN get elected to office.

It's not terribly satisfying, but if you look at the panorama of history, it's the best way. If MY perfect candidate can't get elected, it means the Freepers' perfect candidate can't, either. It's an ongoing tussle, but in the long term, progressivism wins.

[CTLawGuy]

86. this is not about incremental change

this is about making half an effort to stop the right wing from going wild.

the repubs have never been moderate since before Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was able to take Repub base-friendly positions and sell them to the swing voters, that is how to win! the repubs are radical as fuck, but still manage to stay in power. Its becuase the people hear only the RW message, so they believe it. The dems don't interpret it as a need to provide their own message, but as a need to temper their message to kowtow to the right wing policy.

Essentially

RW prmoulgates a policy - Propaganda machine sells it to voters - voters like it because they only hear positive arguments - democrats dont provide their arguments against, because they think the voters like the policy and providing their side would make them unelectable.


Do you think that if the democrats in power vocally opposed the war,and actually sent that message out, that the war would have had the same level of support in Oct. 2002 that it did in reality? I think if the swing voters hear our arguments, they would take them into consideration. if they only hear RW arguments, then of course they are going to seem very conservative.

A democracy should be about at least 2 parties selling their messages to the voters, actually competing with each other.

[Dookus]

87. It may be hard to believe

but the republicans in power are NOT the most extreme of the bunch. Go to FreeRepublic, where they consider Trent Lott a wimpy moderate and see what I mean.

I agree that the country, and the center itself, has moved too far to the right. The question is how to bring it back.

The funny part is that so many people pinned their hopes on Howard Dean to do it, when in fact he's NOT a leftist. Not even close. He's a self-described centrist. On a purely policy-based scale, most leftists would never support him. But he was ANGRY about Bush, and that appealed to a lot of people. I, too, am angry about Bush, but I know that anger doesn't win elections. If it did, Dean would be the nominee today.

We have a long-term liberal candidate now. Is he perfect? Hell no. But there's not a single Senator in the history of republic who has a voting record either of us agree with all the time. But he's a liberal who's right on choice, the environment, civil rights, the economy, and a host of other issues. He's decidedly to the left of Bill Clinton, Al Gore and yes, Howard Dean.

[CTLawGuy]

89. why would they consider Lott a moderate?

the conservatives got their:

war,
multiple tax cuts,
Partial birth abortion ban,
RW judges (only a few, but better than none)

and any important issue they didn't get passed, they can rest assured their party is fighting for, inclduing:

school vouchers,
repealed overtime rules
social security "Privatization"



Finally,
I know that Dean is not a liberal. I am not looking for perfection. I know you people use that meme to discredit people who criticize kerry, and it's lame. But Dean is (1) not associated with the disgrace that was the Washington dems ca. 2001-2004 (2) willing to stand up for what he believes in without regard for what the RW and the "swing voters" think. (3) willing to reengage the people in the political process.

[MontecitoDem]

63. Absolutely right!

Dookus, I think you and I should ignore Darboy - bad arguments and bad manners.

[Dookus]

68. I've never put anybody on ignore

and I never will.

I understand the emotions that we tie in with our politics - this ain't my first time at the dance. I'm sure if Darboy and I met in person, we'd get along well.

[MontecitoDem]

71. You're right...

But I am going off now to read to my kids. Feel bad I even got into this Dean debate - totally unintended.

[CTLawGuy]

74. I am certain we would get along well...

I get along with all kinds of people I disagree with. I just have strong opinions, and I'm blunt, much like Dean himself ;)

[Dookus]

78. as am I

I'll buy you a beer if we ever meet, ok?

[CTLawGuy]

80. mmm beer

sounds like fun. we should make sure to talk about Bush though. As long as you are not a Yankees fan it should be fine. that's just too much.

[Dookus]

85. I think you'd be surprised

to find how little we disagree on.

I just posted a long-winded argument here saying that we probably agree on the same end results we want - it's just how to get there that divides us.

[MontecitoDem]

59. guess what darboy

I didn't support Kerry until he locked up the nomination. Gave money to more than one primary candidate, including Dean.

Sorry, but you are rude, you make silly assumptions, and I'd rather go be with my kids than carry on this conversation with you.

Adios.

[CTLawGuy]

64. goodbye!

have fun with the kids!

[Radical Activist]

38. Hey, lets nominate someone who voted for a war everyone hates!

Brilliant! Very electable!

[salonghorn70]

23. "Yearrrggggg"

I assume you mean Dean's "Speech." History will put this right up there as one of the biggest political blunders in Presidential politics.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

24. History will remember Dean

about as much as it remembers Morris Udall.

The Dems haven't made a truly serious mistake in 2004 yet. Granted, we've shot ourselves in the head so many times in the past that all of us over 40 are just waiting, but...

[Exgeneral]

25. That might be true if Dean's people had just melted away

But they haven't and they are not going to. The more apropos comparison would be to Reaganites after the 68 run that Nixon won.

This is a movement, not your same old same old.

[Dookus]

26. Reagan didn't really

run in '68. He made a tentative run AFTER the Republican convention.

His first serious run was in '76.

[salonghorn70]

27. Udall

Hey, Lefty Pragmatist, I hope you aren't knocking Udall. I was a Udall delegate to the Texas state Democratic Convention in 1976. :)

[Lefty Pragmatist]

132. Udall

> Hey, Lefty Pragmatist, I hope you aren't knocking Udall. I was a Udall delegate to the Texas state Democratic Convention in 1976

Nope, I love Morris Udall, that's why I used him. I might have cast my first ever Presidential vote for him -- and in 1980! -- but I was a couple months short of age.

No offense to Dean, either. The point is it wasn't a movement, it was a cult of personality. People were attracted to Dean's honesty and genuineness. Dean was Ross Perot with somewhat better teeth. Yeah, there was a solid core of ideological supporters of Dean's positions, but hell there's a solid core to *every* primary candidate's support. B-1 Bob Dornan still has 5,000 absolutely rock solid ideological supporters.

[Nazgul35]

134. "The point is it wasn't a movement, it was a cult of personality."

Well thank you very much.....

I just love it when someone comes on here and makes dumb ass sweeping statements...which is about every other post...

Tone it down a bit and don't try so hard to piss people off.....it just may be those same "cult of personality" Dean supporters who give Kerry and Dem controlled Congress! I certainly don't see much in the way of down ticket coordination from the Kerry campaign happening...

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

33. how many times do we have to point out...

that his mic was isolated in the media replays of it? if you had been in the room with him that night, he wouldn't have sounded unusual. just a guy talking over over a loud room. but when the media cuts that out, he looks hoarse and "insane" for no apparent reason

just because fox plays something butchered and out-of-context 400 times doesn't make it an accurate depiction of reality

[Dookus]

39. an excuse...

pointing it out won't change the fact that millions of Americans saw and heard the scream on television.

Go back and read the threads from that night. Before it was ever repeated on television, there were hundreds of posts, most of which saying that it was a horrible blunder.

I said within minutes of it that we'd be seeing it hundreds of times because it WAS in fact extraordinary.

[Paradise]

109. as you so rightly say, it was NOT a 'scream',

it was a rallying cheer for his faithful, hardworking supporters!

it's what the media made out of it, that hurt him!

[Doosh]

128. history will remember Dean

as the little fire breathing doctor who kicked the democrats in the ass at a time when they needed it the most. He got us together, he got us motivated.

[DrFunkenstein]

81. Bitching About Their Candidate For Not Leading By A Big Enough Margin

Numbskulls and naysayers.

[dryan]

88. Terry McCaulliffe (spelling)

I know the thread said "2004" but I would like to go back to 2002. I like Terry McCaulliffe but in 2002 he made a statement that the party's number one goal was to get rid of Jeb Bush as governor of Florida. I live in Florida and I think jeb is the worst governor we've ever had but from a practical point of view this goal put a tremendous strain on the national party's coffers.

[jonnyblitz]

90. the McCain thing...

you have no idea paddy.. :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[in_cog_ni_to]

91. For the poll I voted for the front loaded primary, BUT

the DUMBEST Democratic move of 2004 was not electing Wes Clark to be our candidate.

[DaveSZ]

96. None of the above

Choosing to have their convention in Boston is about the worst idea they could have come up with.

Thankfully, the Repubs also choose a horrible (for them) location for their convention!

:)

[DaveSZ]

98. P.S>

Kerry has a more liberal record than Dean.

:)

[Doomsayer13]

100. you know, I find it funny

how many people on this forum hold the average voter in contempt. Kerry is democratically chosen but this is somehow becuase the corporate media has brainwashed the masses once again. It's really a pity that some here don't see people as intelligent enough to vote in their own elections, and is perhaps indicative as to why their candidates never win.

[monroncrief]

117. Hmmmm...

Being new here and having read just a small # of posts, I don't quite see contempt and I personally do not feel that people aren't, "intelligent enough to vote in their own elections", but when you've got tens of thousands of people scrubbed from voter lists, an abysmal black (democratic) spoilage percentage and ballots that would stymie a freakin' MENSA member, it is brutally obvious that the reason that,"their candidates never win" is that the deck is stacked and will be even more so in '04 with DIEBOLD certs in Ohio and Florida and HAVA scrubbing names nationwide...or do you think that the 90% INACCURACY of Florida's "scrub list" was just okey-dokey"?

[Cocoa]

105. that circular firing squad thing they keep doing

actually it's only a small faction that does this.

[monroncrief]

116. Allowing HAVA to pass, costing MILLIONS of Dem Votes AGAIN in '04!

Have YOU been "scrubbed"?

[MAlibdem]

122. Front loaded primaries were great!

Though they may not have resulted in "your" guy winning, they allowed Kerry to come out unbruised and ready to collect tons of money before the real fight (July to November) begins.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

129. Dem. legislatures changing ballot rules for Bush

so that he could hold the GOP convention late in conjunction w/ the 9-11 anniversary

[genius]

131. Playing nicey-nice with Bush and Daschle's deal on the nominees.

The man should be impeached. The Dems keep supporting him.

[AnnitaR]

135. This one is surely a contender here:

Clark skipping the Iowa caucuses.

I hate to say it because I do love the man... but if he had went to Iowa he would have more than likely been our nominee.

Damn it still sucks thinking about it after all these months.

[moondust]

136. Yeah.

The Iowa caucuses USUALLY don't mean that much, are USUALLY just the first step in a long process of elimination. You can't blame Clark for thinking he could skip them and still have a chance. New Hampshire often goes for somebody else, etc. This time it was different probably because Bush* is so bad and unity is paramount. Whatever, it is regrettable.