What if we win and nothing changes?

[terryg11]

Personally I would be a little surprised if the new democratic president doesn't try to make some changes for the better but what if?

they make no real efforts to disengage us from Iraq or just turn the country over to Haliburton, Bechtel and others?

they give education the same lip service that Bush did and leave it as is?

Continue to sacrifice publc lands for fossil fuel development?

like I said before, I'm pretty sure the democratic choices we currently have won't do that based on what they are saying now but a lot can happen once they enter the white house, there's a lot more pressure from all sides and money is a big persuader. Will we here at DU and others like us blindly support the new president like people over at FR and other similar places support Bush?

[Booberdawg]

1. Puhleeeze!

Let's not try to fix something that isn't even broken.

[terryg11]

10. not broken??

I wish I had your optimism on the state of politics in this country

[Booberdawg]

18. The question was:

"What if nothing changes"

Let's worry about getting a Democrat in the White House before we create problems about what may or may not change afterwards.

[terryg11]

21. I agree

but still had to pose the hypothetical.

[Ellen Forradalom]

2. Seems unlikely on both counts.

Liberals have no herd instinct. Furthermore, the unfettered Bush boosterism at FR is an illusion: it's rigidly enforced by RimJob.

A Democratic president cannot possibly be worse than Bush, because s/he does have to answer to Democratic constituencies.

Liz

[terryg11]

12. those same constituencies barely give 'em a passing grade

according to a poll in today's papers. Washington Post LA Times both ran it and had the dems only getting a favorable vote from 46% of their base. REpublican had a barely better 48%

[Desertrose]

3. Not if we choose wisely...

Dennis Kucinich is the most polar opposite Bush*

As far as I can tell he is the only one running who is not owned by the corporations.....

There will be some major changes when Kucinich takes office....you'd know he'd tell it like it is...that alone is a major change!!!

Peace
DR

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. Kucinich would make a great president

no doubt about it

[FlashHarry]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's like saying, 'I wonder if 1930s Germany would have been different if Ghandi were in power instead of Hitler.'

C'mon! There is no Dem who could even come close to the evil of the Bush regime----and that includes Lieberman!

[terryg11]

13. maybe not as evil

but what about ineffectual? deciding not to undo any of bush's damage? would that be ok?

[ewagner]

4. Coalitions

I think you overlooked one obvious fact.

With nine (and possibly ten) candidates vieing for the nomination, no one can win without building a coalition with the others. Therefore most, if not all of each candidates pet issues will be addressed by the newly elected Democratic President.

Also, because the coalitions which have been built will need to be maintained, there is little if any chance that the Dem pres will abandon the party platforms.

Also, we'd bloody well better hold his feet to the fire.

[terryg11]

8. hold their feet to the fire

like we did on voting for the tax cut, supporting Bush's march to war, supporting Bush's empty education bill, how they are really getting behind gay marriage. yeah, they really seem to listen well


obviously not all of these statements pertain to all the candidates

[ewagner]

23. You raise a good point

First let me asseret that an elected Democratic President would be far more susceptable to preessure from the party than our congressmen/women seem to be. Congressional reps seem to get reelected no matter what.

But the good point you raise is that WE should practice our own version of QUALITY CONTROL. If we have an elected official who goes off the deep end or suddenly becomes a DINO, or runs over a pedestrian while DWI, we should have the gumption to replace him or her ourselves instead of letting Repubs replace them with their brand.

What do you think?

[terryg11]

25. so why does Bush pose such a problem?

he LOST THE GENERAL ELECTION meaning he actually had fewer voters' votes than Gore did nationallay not to mention that some of the states he did win were very close, so he should be somewhat timid and controllable don't you think? But he's not and most everyone here acts like he's not. If dems really don't like wht he's doing then why can't we stop him?

[mandyky]

29. Two reasons

One is Bush and his secrecy, the other is Dem leadership, like Terry McAulliffe who managed to give the GOP both houses of Congress in the 02 midterms.

[ewagner]

32. third reason

The reason *bush isn't paying attention to voters is because he "owns" the 9/11 issue. Middle-of-the road voters are heavily in support of *bush because they desperately want "clarity" on the issues. *bush's fundamental, simplistic view of the post 9/11 world gives him more support than he deserves. Hence, even though he has no mandate from the election, he holds a mandate in public opinion.

[terryg11]

34. hatefully true

although I wonder if their september convention scenario won't bite them in the ass. if they try to use 911 for their political gains they should be roasted and some people I've talked to (yep, more anecdotes from me, sorry) seeem to be doubting Bush more and more.

[terryg11]

33. so the voters like his secrecy?

also, why do we still listen to the likes of McAuliffe if all he did was give away what little power we had? what's the sense in that?

[ewagner]

40. secrecy

...is for our own good.....don't you listen to Rush?

[leftofthedial]

5. worry about getting rid of Bush first

then we'll worry about the politics of incumbency

[xJlM]

6. Not likely

Just look at the division here on DU, between the different candidates we have to choose from. I don't think you'll see any kind of "groupthink" from those left of center, simply because it's not in the nature of the way we think. Although I can appreciate the sentiment behind "Anyone but Bush 2004", there are simply some candidates (namely Lieberman) who will never get a good word out of me. And I'm not even that talkative...

[Caution]

7. I'd move.

If the country continues to move int he direction it has taken in the last 20 years (basically since Reagan took office), I will move. I've done a fair amount of research into other countries, their immigration policies, job market, cost of living, health care, educational system etc and if things don't change and there isn't a backlash against the big business control of the country, the scapegoating of liberals (the propaganda is remarkably similar to the propaganda targeted at the Jews in 1930's germany (everything bad that happens is the fault of liberals, they are traitors, they are hoarding your money in the form of taxes and welfare, etc etc). Civil Liberties are being eroded more and more every day, the people in power subscribe to the teaching of Leo Strauss, a man who believed in a "ruling elite" who shoudl do whatever is required to retain power and who should keep the people in the dark about the function of government. It's a scary time and it gets scarier every day. I have no fear whasoever of terrorism. chances of getting into a fatal car accident are SUBSTANTIALLY greater than being involved in a terrorist attack. We were told that these terrorists hated our freedom. So what did our leaders do? Rather than actually address the policies that have made us so hated and attempt to counter the anti-american propaganda, they decided to hand the terrorists victory after victory by taking away out freedoms. Things need to change soon for me or I'm going to move. I won't renounce my citizenship and I will continue to work for change in the US but I wont stay here. And I have a very deep love for my country. I carry a copy of the constitution with me, and I truly believe in the ideals this country was founded upon. Unfortunately those ideals have been corrupted by a small group who have convinced a large portion of our population that they are "patriots"

[trogdor]

9. Then we deserve whatever happens after that.

NEXT TOPIC.

[JVS]

11. That is why we must try to find out who will change things and nominate

that person.

If nothing changes I won't reelect

[ILeft]

15. A Dem would not appoint Ashcroft, Rummy, Wolfie, Norton...

...and the list goes on and on. It's the Iran-Contra/Reagan-Bush era psychos that drive the Bush Regime's policies. A Dem President couldn't find trash like that in the pool of possible Dem appointees if he wanted to.

Just think about all the good people a Democrat in the WH would have to choose from for top posts. I think things would change for the better. Just give me a pissed off Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, or even the maybe Dem Wesley Clark in a top post...

[terryg11]

16. I agree and honestly expect something like that

but every once in a while a little voice just says "what if"?

This election is going to be huge for a lot of reasons. I'm very curious to see how a dem does as president. will they talk the talk but not walk it afraid of making their big money contributors mad??

[Abe Linkman]

20. Think Clinton

No matter who wins the presidential election, he will be far more influenced by corporate interests than anything else. Kucinnich can't get the nomination, so that leaves only corporate funded candidates.

At best, we might get another Clinton. Aside from all the prestige by association (economy was great etc.); no one can point to anything Clinton accomplished that could be considered even moderately progressive.

btw - I'm one who holds Clinton accountable for inflicting grave damage on all Democrats, because of how he conducted himself, because of his character flaws, and because he played "Wag the Dog" too often.

[roughsatori]

17. I have never known Democrats to be slavish followers

That is our strength and weakness: the bickering we are always indulging in over the fine points of everything.

My Grand Mother use to say: Will cross that bridge IF we get to it."

[terryg11]

19. I have

not as bad or far reaching as republican zombies but still disturbing

[roughsatori]

22. Could you please give me some historical evidence?

I can not think of any moments of this. I may not be thinking clearly but I can not think of an example of the Democratic Party being slavishly followed.

It would be easier to frame if examples of Democratic lemming behavior start after the party finally began promoting civil rights.

[terryg11]

24. sorry

wasn't thinking of any huge movement of dems following "slavishly" just thinking about people I've met or know who will swear by anything democrat no matter what it is.

although passage of the Patriot Act is a good example of the democratic party acting rather slavishly. scard to vote no, doing what they were told no questions asked, even WEllstone did this.

[roughsatori]

26. We are the Democratic Party

How interesting your examples are anecdotal. And then you give an example of the Democratic Leadership voting in "slavishly" in favor of a Republican monstrosity. You debunked your thesis with your example.

[terryg11]

27. I had a thesis going?

while yes they were anecdotal examples but hardly a thesis

[roughsatori]

31. I was referring to your original post as the "thesis"

Not your anecdotal evidence.

Sorry, I got carried away. I am editing another person's essay prior to its publication at the same time I am typing here at DU. If you see me lambasting posters for improper use of the subjunctive case, or splitting their infinitives, it is a flaw that is known to me. And is a slip, since I am fond of the comma splice and run-on-sentence in my own posts.

[terryg11]

35. no feelings hurt here

although I don't think my examples debunked my original post on nothing changing even with a dem president. I think it slightly supported it by showing how the dems haven't been fighting the republicns on some key issues.

[samsingh]

28. did things improve with Clinton?

sure they did!

[MadHound]

30. I think that this is a high probablity, but then again I'm a cynic

However judging by Clinton's lip service(and that's all it was) to traditional Democratic issues, the DLC's openly corporate leanings, and the entire voting populaces' apathy, lowered expectations, and right wing leanings I think it is a distinct possiblity.

Clinton has set the tone for Dem presidents for years to come. Appease your base by paying lip service to the core social issues, while appeasing the corporate masters with disastorous treaties and legislation that benefit only the wealthy. Remember, it was under Clinton that the disparity between the rich and poor became the largest in the modern world, and beat the old mark first set in the Gilded Age one hundred+ years ago(this was also a time when legislators, both Democratic and Republican were under the collective thumb of their corporate masters).

Meanwhile the DLC makes sure that it gets to pull the strings on whomever is the Dem nominee since they control the large corporate cash flow that is needed to get elected these days. By controlling the money they thereby insure that the corporations' interests are what is looked after before and sometimes to the exclusion of all other issues.

While there are candidates that are old style Dems, they are quickly losing influence within the party. The only presidential candidate who is an old style liberal/progressive is Dennis Kucinich, but honestly he is not even going to have a chance. The DLC has effectively marginilized him, thus insuring that the only real voice for change is not heard.

Of the rest there isn't a one of them that isn't corrupted by corporate and DLC cash(even Dean, in spite of being targeted by the DLC, is a corporate lackey). The rest of the candidates are all into the DLC for money and backing, thus insuring that they will do the DLC dance whenever needed.

Like I said, I'm a cynic. But after watching Clinton become the best Republican President he could be, after watching time and again the Dems back off from a fight, after watching Clinton, Gore and others cave in to their corporate masters' wishes, I don't think that anybody who is honest with themselves could be any more optimistic.

[terryg11]

38. ouch..

stinging words yet much truth to them. I know it's not the original subject of this thread but how do you plan to vote when you feel that way?

[MadHound]

39. Thanks for the compliment, I wish we didn't have to make such observations

As far as who I'll vote for, well in the primaries I'll vote for Kucinich. If he fails, as I suspect he will(unfortunetly), then I'll have a decision to make. Most likely it will either be Dean or Kerry as the nominee, with a Democratic Party platform that is heavily influenced by the DLC. If such is the case then I will be voting Green. Which is unfortunate, for I've given money, time and votes to every major Dem candidate for the past thirty years. Lately it has been an exercise in voting for the lesser of two evils, and quite frankly I simply can't stand to do that anymore, evil is evil and shouldn't be supported no matter what the alternatives are.

The Greens have a very progressive platform and the advantage of not taking a single bit of corporate cash. I also suspect that the Greens might be on an upswing as more and more disillusioned Dems like myself go their way. Face it, progressives and liberals have been left out to dry in modern political discourse. The 'Pugs villify them as Satan's children, and the Dems just want to ignore them like ugly stepchildren in the attic(even though at one point in the recent past they were considered the base of the party and essential to winning).

The Democrats have become very adept at the old southern trick of packaging conservatives and turning them out as Democrats, a trick that served them well with Clinton and to a lesser extent Carter. But I think this trick will ultimetly be their downfall as more and more people flee the party to go where they are more appreciated. Will I be throwing my vote away? No, my vote, time and money will be put to good use helping to build a party that isn't beholden to corporate interests. Will I have(or take) any blame if Bush gets elected? No, for a number of reasons, including the Dems driving away another core supporter. Will I regret my actions in two years? No, I would regret it more if I didn't take them.

[AWD]

36. My office door...

...will always be open. Come down to Washington and hold my feet to the fire if you have to.

Just get me elected, and you will have at least one more faithful progreesive on the House floor.

Think of the bills that Dennis Kucinich and I can propose. House Minority leader Tom DelLay will have fits.

Get me elected, and you will not have to worry about a lack of change.

[terryg11]

37. sounds good

but I would be satisfied with a president that at least fought for the right thing even if it was a tough road. Some of the changes many here would like to see will be fought most fiercely by republicans and some large corporations (think Hillary's health care plan) so a truly progressive president will have a tough road