To ABB, Or Not To ABB... That Is The Question !!!

[WillyT]

Yeah, I'm miffed, frustrated, and disappointed in the recent turn of Dean's fortunes, but that's not what this post is about.

This is about a possible 'trend' appearing on the horizon. It's about one of the oft repeated memes that Dean's momentum ended with the capture of Saddam Hussein. Not with his saying we weren't safer mind you, but with the capture, which took the anti-war vote somewhat off the table. According to the CW.

And it's not about the rise in fortunes of two of the candidates who voted for the IWR. Although if played wrong, it could become that.

And I can't yet fathom how Joe Lieberman gets anywhere with any of this, but...

If we are about to turn away from the war, and the lies that preceeded it. If we are to obfuscate the 9\11 invesitigation as 'not a proper time' for this sort of thing during an election year. If we indeed are about to turn into the 'mainstream Democrats' that couldn't find their backsides with both hands in 2002, then...

My ABBness is definitely on the bubble!

And I hate that possibility.

:grr:

And I hope I'm wrong about this particular fear I have.

[sweetheart]

1. you mean the dillemma to vote green or not?

Note that for much of the european world, those letters are associated with this huge engineering company like bechtel.

The trademark ABB (http://www.abb.se/ )is in this context "anyone but bush".

[Endangered Specie]

2. If you ever doubt your ABB sentiment...

Watch the SOTU on cspan.org... that should do the trick.

We may be nemesis and nuisances... But the Enemy Royale is Bush.

[Melodybe]

3. I agree with you, I was thinking the same thing yesterday

We can not let our democratic candidates put the kid gloves back on. They have to expose this POS resident for all his lies. They will say that Dean didn't do well because he was angry or b/c we caught Saddam Hussien. I think the lousey PR people in Dean's camp are to blame and I think that, honestly, plenty of those Iowans turned up b/c they were pissed about the Dean tapes.

Please write to your candidates now and tell them this is going to be a fight, we have to be tough on these bastards. We have to beat them back into their caves.

BTW Both Kerry and Edwards need to start using the line, "Like you, I was lied to by this administration and we can not let them get away with that!"

They have to stay on so tough on them that there is absolutely now way that any one can deny us our votes again!

[WillyT]

8. Exactly !!! --- Bush Already Previewed His Opening Salvo In The SOTUS...

when he used the phrase, "Those who opposed the liberation of Iraq..."

And the Dem side stood up and clapped en masse at that one!

He's already framing anybody who was opposed to the war, as being opposed both to freedom and the Iraqi people.

We cannot let statements like that go unanswered. Time for the Dems to use their heads, and take off the gloves!!!

:grr:

[IndianaGreen]

4. Watch Bush's SOTUS speech and you will know the answer

I would vote for Kerry in the Fall, knowing full well that a Kerry nomination will drag this party to a major defeat. That's when the split in the party will take place. No one can blame us for Kerry's defeat. No one can say that we voted for Nader, or Green, or sat on our asses. We voted for a Bonesman that we knew could not carry a state outside the Northeast. The only ones to get blamed for the Kerry debacle will be the DLC, and they should be purged from the party outright!

[Adjoran]

5. Who has "turned away from the war"??

Remember: in the end, the candidates do not decide what the issues are. They decide which issues they will try to push, but any politician knows that if your issues aren't gaining traction, you have to emphasize those issues the public demands. Or you just lose.

When the public is more concerned about jobs and economic security and health care, which are traditionally good issues for Democrats, why try to force the debate back to the war?

At one time the CW was that the war issue was a killer for Democrats. That's no longer true. By the fall, it may become the key issue for us.

But if you say only the war issue matters, you are saying health care doesn't matter, civil liberties don't matter, appointing SCOTUS justices doesn't matter, job issues don't matter . . . on down the line. That's a hell of a lot to give up because the one issue you personally care most about isn't at the very top of every campaign.

If you really want to effect broad changes, we first must win. Our nominee isn't there to educate the public. He is there to win the election. Once we win, we have more flexibility. From the outside, we cede control of ALL the issues to the repubs.

[WillyT]

6. No, The War Is Not The Only Issue I Care About...

and maybe not even the 'main' issue.

Actually, the main issue is that we knew BushCo was lying when they prodded and lied their way to war. We knew that the inspectors were doing just fine in Iraq. We knew that the SOTUS last year was filled with hyperbolic lies intended to inflame the masses, and cow the Dems after 9\11. We know that's why the Patriot Act was passed with Dem support. We know that Wilson's wife was 'outed' as an attack on Wilson, and as a warning to anyone else who might dare to 'correct' the record of our 'dear leader'. We know of the lies and intimidation that keeps this cabal at 60% approval in the polls.

We just want our candidates to find a cogent, reasonably stated, but stingingly forthright way to TEACH the rest of the American people what most of us already know.

It doesn't have to be a lecture, and you don't have to hector anyone. But you DO have to make sure your 'pupils' learn. This is pass\fail, and this time, we can't afford a failing grade.

No???

:shrug:

[frank frankly]

7. yes and yes

I want to hear it every fucking time they are on TV.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. ABB for me. Whether an anti-war Dem or Green.

We do have an alternative to voting for the war or those that support it.

[library_max]

10. That's not ABB.

Voting Green will help Bush into office, just like it did the first time.

[library_max]

11. Ask yourself this.

If your candidate is nominated, you'll expect the party to unite behind him, right? You'll expect the people who supported other candidates to put aside their differences and disappointments and focus on putting a Democrat in the White House and ousting Bush-the-unelected, worst-president-ever. Obviously, since they supported others in the primaries, there will be things they don't like about your candidates, differences on issues and programs and past actions. But you'll expect them to support him and vote for him anyway, right? Because otherwise, how could you possibly hope to win in the general election?

Got it? Okay, now go thou and do likewise. You can't expect to get what you're not willing to give.

[WillyT]

12. I Agree L_M !!! - That's The Way It's Supposed To Work !!!

But my fear here, is not so much candidate based, as it is party based. The truly anti-war war candidates are being, or already have been, marginalized to a great extent. I'm sensing a 'backing-off' by the party regulars, and I absolutely hope I'm wrong about that.

It's still early, and Kerry and Clark are still swingin away at Shrubs national security credentials, but the other night when Chimp said, "Some opposed the liberation of the Iraqi people..."

The Dems couldn't get on there feet fast enough to show the country that they were with the pRez the whole time. They were on TV after all.

Just sent a shiver or two up my spine, and made me wonder if our party really has the courage to really take this patriotic fraud down.

If not, ABB, becomes just so much futility.

:shrug:

[library_max]

13. "The truly anti-war war candidates are being . . . marginalized . . ."

Marginalized by who? Do you mean that primary voters and caucusers aren't voting for them? Whose fault is that?

Almost every candidate has come out against the invasion of Iraq and the lies Bush told to accomplish it. So I suppose by "truly anti-war" candidates, you mean Sharpton and Kucinich, the two who opposed it from the very beginning. And the problem there is that, on other issues, both of them are somewhat outside the mainstream and unlikely to pose a serious challenge to Bush in the general election.

If you disagree, fine, support and vote for one of them. Who is "marginalizing" you? You seem to suggest that somehow it is unfair if the majority of Democrats who vote in the primaries don't agree with your opinions.

[WillyT]

19. Ok... The Anti-War First Responders... Is That Better, LOL ???

I was refering to how the media, and many Dems it seems, appear to be cooling to the notion of taking Bush on directly for his illegal war. This is not just an anti-war stance, this is a stance in defense of what used to be our country. WE DON'T STRIKE FIRST!!!

And we DEFINITELY don't send people's sons and daughters to die for a liar and a thief.

If we are gonna play footsie with the truth when it comes to war, then I don't even know my own country, or countrymen anylonger.

There's a big black piece of polished marble granite over in D.C. It was the first attemp to warn of the costs of war, rather than glorify them. I thought we learned something a while back. Apparently not.

:nuke:

[library_max]

21. But who is "playing footsie with the truth," other than Bush?

I'm really trying to understand what you're upset over - what you want that you don't think you're getting. Every one of the candidates except Lieberman has come out against the invasion, and Lieberman has no chance.

[HFishbine]

14. As Dean says

Patriots put country ahead of party.

If one thinks that this country will be worse off with an "opposition" party lead by Bush apologists, then you must consider the possible long term benefits of rejecting the notion of ABB.

[library_max]

15. Bush apologists!!!!! Where??!!!!!

Which of the Democratic candidates is a Bush apologist? Or are we just making stuff up now?

[HFishbine]

25. When candidates

stand by their support of Bush policies, however they may try to articulate a nuanced distinction, I consider them Bush apologists.

[library_max]

27. Then you might as well call them pickled herring

for all the relationship it has with the truth.

[Walt Starr]

16. I've already dumped ABB

How about SBB (Somebody Besides Bush)?

[RetroLounge]

17. I may just stay home and not vote

Because whatever DLC Pro-IWR candidate wins he's just gonna get pummelled, and then all the anti-Deans on this board will just blame Dean anyhow.

[library_max]

18. "Whatever DLC Pro-IWR candidate wins he's just gonna get pummelled"

How do you figure? The IWR is only a big problem among dems (and I'm tempted to say, just among dems on DU). It's not going to hurt a Democratic nominee in the general election. What, is Bush going to say that invading Iraq was a noble act but the IWR vote stank to high heaven? The logic here is not our earth logic.

[DoNotRefill]

20. I'll remind you of the ABC folks in 1996....

they got their asses handed to them. It's not enough to just say "I hate who is in office now!" You need a positive message. I just wish we could learn from the Republican's fuckups instead of having to make the same mistake ourselves.

[library_max]

23. ABB isn't a campaign platform.

It's shorthand for asking DUers to support the Democratic nominee in the general election, whoever it turns out to be (of the candidates who are actually running).

[DoNotRefill]

24. It wasn't a campaign platform in '96, either.

yet people heard about it and associated it negatively with the eventual Republican candidate.

[John_H]

22. To let chimp pick the supreme court or not--that is one question

To have John Ashcroft as AG, to have.....get it?

[IndianaGreen]

26. How about ABB with revenge?

If the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate a prowar, pro-PATRIOT Act, Skull & Bones cult member, I will be ABB and vote for him, BUT as Kerry loses the popular and the electoral vote to Bush, I will be thinking about the sort of revenge we must exact from Al From & Co.