The NBD people are just as foolish as the ABDs are......

[Wetzelbill]

Childish. Condescending.

Anybody who throws a hissy fit and doesn't vote for a Democratic nominee against Bush just because there candidate didn't get the nomination is only aiding the enemy.

You are either with us or against us.

We are good they are evil.

Plus, if you were all really into taking the high road on the war issue you'd vote for Kucinich or Sharpton. No flip flopping or ambiguity on the war from those two from Day One.

I much prefer Kucinich to all the other candidates, but I'm not going to act like a selfish baby if Edwards or Kerry gets the nomination. I'd also be proud to vote for Dean or Clark too. No candidate is perfect, but they are all pretty good. Pretending there is some honor by taking a "My Guy or Nobody Else" attitude is madness.

Getting Bush out of office is a team effort. Beyond that major social change is incremental. The hit or miss thing just won't cut it.

[Walt Starr]

1. Niiiiiice

So tell me, who gets to decide who I should be voting for since I apparently don't have that right any more?

[rumguy]

2. You have the right to act Selfish - yes you do, but

that doesn't make it right.

[Walt Starr]

5. Guilt doesn't work on me either

My vote is sacred, I won't just hand it over to somebody I do not, cannot, and will not believe in.

[rumguy]

7. It's not guilt, it's reality Walt

For millions it is reality we are talking about here.

Don't just pack up your toys and go home.

There are bigger issue here, and you know it.

And Dean's positions aren't that great either buddy.

[Walt Starr]

11. You fear Bush

After three years of licing under him, you can;t scare me with theBush bogeyman any more.

Either give me a Democratic candidate I can believe in ansd support or I will take my vote elsewhere. That's how representative democratic republics work.

[rumguy]

17. I care about this country, that is all Walt

[Walt Starr]

20. so do I and that is precisely why I am NBD

It is because I care about this country, and more importantly, the long term future of this country.

[emulatorloo]

25. Patriot Act II - Ashcroft unbridled

[Walt Starr]

29. After hearing Kerry I'm convinced there would be

a Patriot V act.

[rumguy]

47. flat out wrong

[virtualobserver]

67. the problem is that Kerry abdicated his responsibility twice...

with IWR and with the Patriot Act.

Russ Feingold voted no on both, and if he was running for President, I would be proud to vote for him.

Russ proved that it was possible to show courage on those two votes.

[emulatorloo]

84. NO you are misrepresenting Kerry on the Patriot Act

Ending the Era of John Ashcroft
Remarks by Senator John Kerry
December  01,  2003
Iowa State University

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1201.html

[ozone_man]

97. Why did Vermont senators Leahy and Jeffords vote no

to both the IWR and the Patriot Act? They voted just as I would have and as most Vermonters would have, and I think most at DU would have. So, how is it that spineless Kerry could not make the correct choices? My guess is that he was looking out for himself as most Washington politicians do. For cying out loud even Ted Kennedy voted the right way.

I really demand more from politicians like Kerry and Edwards. Sorry, but there is only one candidate out there who qualifies and the other (Kucinich) soiled his reputation by trading places with one of the spineless.

[library_max]

98. The only No vote on the Patriot Act was Feingold./nt

[youngred]

89. bullshit

but way to take things out of context.

[Snivi Yllom]

100. Patriot Act II

Will Kerry vote for that one too?

[kiahzero]

24. We're the evil Anti-Dean bogeymen!

We want to repress you, and take away your Power (tm)!

Relax... we just want to keep Bush from destroying our environment, invading more countries, selling more of the country to his rich buddies, and creating a Christian state.

If finding a candidate "you can believe in" is more important to you than preventing that, good luck.

[Walt Starr]

30. I've found one I can believe in

and only one.

[kiahzero]

40. How is attempting to hold the rest of us hostage

accomplishing anything?

You don't see too many other people saying "Vote for my guy, or I'll screw the party and the country in November by not voting"

It's not a very noble position to take... it's roughly akin to "Play my way, or I'll take my marbles and go home."

How about you work for your guy, we'll work for ours, and we all work for the guy that wins the Democratic nomination?

Oh wait... that wouldn't be selfish.

[Walt Starr]

41. Maybe yall shoulda thought of that

oh, about NINE MONTHS AGO.

[RetroLounge]

72. You don't see too many other people ?

Here's another.

Too late now. The way other's supporters have behaved?

Screw them, I'll votw for whomever I want, and if that's nobody, then deal with it.

[youngred]

88. Boogeyman?

He seems like a pretty real threat to me

Perhaps you'd like to ask the Iraqis how much of a "boogeyman" he is
Perhaps you'd like to ask the Afghans how much of a "boogeyman" he is
Perhaps you'd like to ask the GIs who are in Iraq indefinitely without armour how much of a "boogeyman" he is
Perhaps you'd like to ask the working poor who didn't get a tax cut how much of a "boogeyman" he is
Perhaps you'd like to ask the families of the September 11th victims how much of a "boogeyman" he is

[OhioStateProgressive]

75. if there truly was a bigger issue, Kucinich would be leading(nt)

[Rainbowreflect]

10. But you will, in all truth, hand it to bush.

If you don't vote for the dem candidate in the GE you are handing your vote to bush.
If that is your choice so be it, but at least be honest about what you are doing.

[Walt Starr]

13. If that's what it takes to get the Democratic Party to realize how badly

the party has been run into the ground, so be it. Better four more years of Bush than one more year of a pink tutu Democratic Party.

[Wetzelbill]

19. by supporting a conservative democrat?

Not sure how that brings great honor to the party.

I like Dean, love his fire and passion, but he barely qualifies as a Democrat.

[Walt Starr]

21. Thanks, we're done

No more need to beat this dead horse.

[Wetzelbill]

32. yeah, no need to, he fully admits it himself

straight up calls himself a fiscal conservative. Lots of pro-big business ties too. Much like Clinton, but Dean is less liberal than Bill was.

[RetroLounge]

73. calls himself a fiscal conservative?

Duh. Just discovering that that's what we need?

[library_max]

76. Then what's your beef with the DLC?

What's the DLC about except trying to inject fiscal conservatism into Democratic politics?

[Rainbowreflect]

22. If that is how you really believe, I feel sorry for you.

After what bush has done to this country in four years. How much more damage he can/and will do in four years when he cannot run again.

[emulatorloo]

23. Supreme Court n/t

[Walt Starr]

26. Too bad

That was an issue in 2000 and you see what we got.

If what it takes to wake up the Democratic Party is to have a hostile SCOTUS, so be it.

[emulatorloo]

31. Yes, see what it got us -- GWB.

No Thanks. . .I'll vote for Dean, I'll vote for Clark, I'll vote for Kerry, I'll vote for Edwards, I'll vote for any dem but Bush. I'll reform the party as I go, but the most important thing is to get rid of that man.

ON edit; clean up title

[youngred]

87. You get to decide

That's what the primaries are for. And in November you get to decide again, but for what is best for you, me and everyone else you generally ought to back the candidate nominated. Not even 4 years of Lieberman would be as bad as 4 more of Bush

[HuckleB]

3. This Dean supporter generally agrees.

I do find the us of the two Bushisms a bit distasteful and off-putting.

However, I find the ABD and NBD camps to be incredilby selfish. It appears that they are succumbing the fundamentalist notion of purity, and putting that form of selfishness ahead of a vote that would improve the lives of their fellow citizens.

[JVS]

4. "You are either with us or against us. "

Sounds familiar!

[Wetzelbill]

6. I can't resist satire :)

especially when I'm making fun of the narrow mindedness of certain convictions.

[Walt Starr]

8. Hand over your vote with no questions asked if you like

My vote is too important for that crap.

[HuckleB]

12. Nobody's handing over their vote without asking questions.

Sorry, but that's a disingenuous statement. If we hadn't asked questions, we wouldn't realize that any of the four likely Dem candidates would make a great and positive difference in the lives of the citizens of this country. Do I agree more with some of them than others? Yes. Does that mean I am going to allow our country to continue on its current path simply because the better path isn't as good as I would like it to be? No. That doesn't make any sense.

[Walt Starr]

16. I've been asking questions

I don;'t like most of the answers, so better we have four more years of Bush than one more year of pink tutu dems.

[HuckleB]

28. I don't believe that you have asked questions.

That statement is based on pure emotion, without any sense of the bottom line differences and positive changes that every one of the four Dem frontrunners offer. It's time to back away from petty emotion and take a real look at the consequences of four more years of Bush and very real differences the Dem candidates offer.

[Walt Starr]

33. I've weighed the candidates

All but one are too lacking in character, leadership, and other qualities for them to deserve my vote.

My vote is better than to accept that. No longer do I check a name simply because it has the (D) after it. I've done that for more than two decades and things have only gotten worse.,

The Democratic PArty decided to go a third way, so I'm going a fourth way.

[HuckleB]

37. So you say.

Too many of your statements speak otherwise. And, as I have already said, to follow the road of petty fundamentalism is to turn your back on your fellow citizens. Bush is the worst president in most of our lifetimes. The differences are far too stark to go down the perceived road of purity this time around.

[youngred]

91. self-righteours rhrtoric

comes across so bravely.

I agree with you, but you're making a HUGE mistake in your absolutism

[Wetzelbill]

27. please, I know plenty about all the candidates

you're just being hard headed. I've read your posts and replies for months now. You're stubborn about everything. Not necessarily a bad thing, I admire your conviction, but you won't budge about anything whether you are wrong or right.

[library_max]

43. Hey Wetzebill et al!

Have you ever had a "conversation" with a conversation simulator? They pick out bits of what you said to parrot back at you and otherwise repeat default statements, no matter what you say. Read this string - it looks remarkably like a bunch of people trying to argue politics with a conversation simulator.

[youngred]

90. yadda yadda yadda, same old line

You keep saying how Dean is someone you want to vote FOR, but all you telling us is what you're voting AGAINST (pink tutu dems...right, we got that)

So what are you voting FOR? besides another four years of the worst president in history?

[kiahzero]

9. The Mind of an NB<insert candidate>'er

If you suggest that perhaps voting for the Democratic nominee in November is in their best interest:

"Waah! Waah! My vote is my own! Help, I'm being repressed!"

Making a pragmatic argument is not being repressed, or disenfranchisement. It's making a pragmatic argument.

If you want to indirectly assist the Republicans winning in November, don't vote. But don't lie to yourself. Those of you who refuse to vote for the nominee, because the majority of Democrats that voted didn't like your candidate, make it harder to change things for the better.

Basically, don't complain if Bush wins. It'll be partly your fault.

[HFishbine]

34. Is anybody but Lieberman

that different from anybody but Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, or Clark?

[youngred]

92. Yes

Lieberman has no shot of being the nominee or of beating bush. The other three do

[John_H]

14. The two positions couldn't be more different.

Very few ABD people say they won't vote for Dean if he wins the nomination. They just think that he is unelectable and therefore hope anyone else wins the primary

NBD people ALL say they're staying home in November if Dean doesn't win. That's why they are called NOBODY but Dean.

ABD Dean people will try to defeat Bush in November. NBD people intend to help him by denying the dem candidate a vote.

In my view, those positions couldn't be more different morally, patriotically, and rationally.

[Wetzelbill]

38. valid points

I believe the ABD folks are being counterproductive by hammering on a good candidate. Some people get pretty ugly about Dean, I just cannot advocate that and consider it morally low.

[John_H]

77. I agree--the attacks on Dean's family are abhorrent and should stop

now.

[youngred]

93. that is most certainly true

it shouldn't be ABAnybody, except ABBush

[mitchum]

39. You are a very wise man, John

ABB

[Anaxamander]

15. ABB, ABD, NBD...

FYI, I'm LMMFAO @ this POTUS. WTF, elect a new CIC in this POS ASAP.

[progressiverealist]

18. anybody has the right to vote for whomever they want...

but in my opinion, those who maintain that only Dean/Clark/Kerry/Edwards/ whomever will get their vote and everyone else be damned are- forgive me if this offends- a bit misguided. I think under *normal* circumstances it can be effective to vote for a candidate who doesn't have a realistic shot at winning in order to make a point or shake up the status quo, but these are not normal times.

Four more years of Bush/Cheney will cause so much permanent, irreparable harm to the environment, international relations, education of a generation- the list goes on- that we must, if it becomes necessary, hold our noses and vote for a candidate we may not even like. Sure, consider principals. Consider the undeniable virtue and honor in being true to yourself and your beliefs. And then ask the question: is this worth four more years of Bush/Cheney and all it will mean.

At the end of this election season, I sincerely hope anybody who is now "Dean or Green," "Nobody but Dean" or some other related stripe will consider:

(1) if Dean is not the nominee of the Democratic Party, there is NO WAY, NO SCENARIO under which he wins the general election and

(2) what will the neocons do with four more years?

[indigo32]

35. Well I don't know if I'd put it quite the way you did

but I agree with the sentiment. The top 4 are all light years better than * (no offense meant to anyone else running... it's just that it's not going to be anyone but one of the top 4).

[bhunt70]

36. What I dont understand is how someone can take their vote elsewhere

Seriously, If Dean is the only one who speaks to you on priciple then you certainly wont find a third party candidate who is closer to Dean than an actual Democratic candidate.

Principle seems to get thrown around a lot when its not really principle or the issue, it's more stubborness. Like the original poster stated, if anti war vote (example)is the litmus test, then vote kucinich(example).

Anyone who will only vote for Dean under the threat of taking their vote to a third party candidate if he doesn't get the nod, hopefully has a suitable third party candidate, 'cause I don't see one who is a carbon copy of Dean.

[Walt Starr]

42. It's simple, really

I considered doing it in both '84 and '88, but ended up checking the name with the (D) after it in those elections anyway.

You cast no vote, you write in your candidate's name, or you vote for a third party candidate.

Pretty simple to take your vote elsewhere. I've never done it before in my life, but that plan hasn't worked out at all.

[HuckleB]

44. And this plan serves what purpose?

What end will come of it? Who will be served by it?

[Walt Starr]

46. Possibly, it will have absolutely no effect at all

Possibly, enough people will take this course for the Democratic Party to lose yet again and finally realize they need to take off the pink tutus and actually fight.

[HuckleB]

49. The fundamentalist dream.

Sorry, that segment of the vote won't even come close to what it did last time. It's time to learn from the lessons of the past. No candidate is perfect, but change can be made by working hard. Your stance is equivalent to giving up. To a learned helplessness. It's a surrender that affects more people than just you.

[Walt Starr]

51. If that were true

voter turnout would be around 95%.

[HuckleB]

52. Your response makes no sense. It doesn't follow my post.

Are you just trying to change the subject?

[Walt Starr]

54. No

n/t

[HuckleB]

57. Hmm. Looks like no means yes in your world.

No surprise there.

[Walt Starr]

58. Again, no

n/t

[HuckleB]

60. Smile.

Whatever you say. Will you give me one more "No!"? Come on! You can do it! It's built into every fundamentalist adolescent mindset. Is it not?

[beaconess]

78. I think you will find that most (though not all) of the people who feel

this way are new to the political process and simply don't understand it.

[Walt Starr]

114. Broad Brush

I've been involved in politics for more than two decades, having been a candidate for office twice.

79. My response

As long as points keep getting repeated, I'm going to be stubborn also.
I posted this earlier, elsewhere and you didn't respond, so I'm doing it again.

I just don't get this.
I'm coming from a place where I'm for Dean, I worked for the McGovern campaign, I voted for Nader in '96.
The Democratic party the past decade seems to me to have moved to the right in general, but there is no way I'm going to leave the ballot blank, write-in Dean's name or vote third party this time around.
Sometimes politics is the art of compromise, sometimes it's standing your ground; it seems to me that this year is not the time for this standing of ground. The stakes are too high.
Isn't that evident?
Well, if Bush becomes president for the next 4 years, maybe it will create some kind of revolution

--- from the I Ching on Revolution --

"Political revolutions are extremely grave matters. They should be undertaken only under stress of direst necessity, when there is no other way out"

Are these one of those times? If so, then vote Democratic only if Dean gets the nomination.

Otherwise, be pragmatic and vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. I'm going to be pragmatic.

[youngred]

94. in 84 and 88 how noble!

when the dem stood no chance. Now the dem DOES stand a chance and you want to throw it away. Impeccable logic

[library_max]

45. The question we all have to ask ourselves.

If our candidate is the nominee, we will expect the party to unite behind him, right? This means people who preferred other candidates, who had some policy and personal reasons to object to our candidate, would nevertheless put their differences aside and support our guy. Otherwise, what chance could he possibly have in the general election?

So if you expect other candidates' supporters to unite behind your guy if he gets nominated, how can you justify not doing likewise if one of the others is nominated? How can you expect to receive what you won't give?

[Walt Starr]

48. I don't expect that

after what I've seen from other Democrats related ot Dean.

Edited to add: If I ever actually were able to log into DU and find for an entire 24 hour period there were no attack Dean threads, I would seriously reconsider my position. I would only do this so long as Dean remains a viable candidate. Should he drop out before I see this, I will stick by NBD to the end.

That should tell you how likely I am to reconsider my position

[library_max]

56. Tell ya what.

Find me an entire 24 hour period when there are no attack Kerry threads, or an entire 24 hour period when there are no attack Clark threads, and I'll concede that you have a point. The existence of the attack threads just means that Dean is (still is) a serious candidate with a good chance of winning.

[Walt Starr]

59. Tell you what

Show me the fifty Kerry giving the toke sign threads and we'll call it even.

[library_max]

70. My own stupid fault.

Here I am, trying to talk to the AI. Nobody to blame but my own stupid self.

[AndyTiedye]

74. NBD/2004 == Nader/2000 == Bush "Wins" Again

[bowens43]

112. No. I expect people to what they believe is right.

I expect that most people will vote for the nominee no matter how vile he may be. But I also expect there to be people who say enough is enough, I will not debase myself by voting for so-and-so simply because he has a (D) next to his name on the ballot.

If too much importance is placed on winning and not enough on ideology winning becomes no better then losing.

[library_max]

119. Hey, I remember you!

You gave that same speech, just before voting for Nader in Florida!

[Printer70]

50. Worse than losing to Bush is both parties become like Bush

If we compromise our principles and nominate someone like Clark who represents militarism and corporatism (as a lobbyist for corporations profiting from the military-industrial complex), the parties will be indistiguishable. We will lose the battle by forcing the progressives to stay home. More importantly, we will have lost the war by merging the Democrat party into the Republican party. That will be a very sad day.

[bowens43]

113. Exactly.

It seems that winning has become more important then ideology. If this is the case, then win or lose, we lose. I would rather lose with integrity then win with someone who doesn't represent what I believe to be our parties ideals.

[Democrats unite]

53. Wetzelbill your wasting your breath here

I offered an olive branch this morning with mostly good posts, some well what can I say. I have posted nothing but postive threads since then & I will continue to do so.

Some people just arn't worth discussing with, several posts in this thread are a perfect example.

Go in peace my friend from this vitrol thread & may the force be with the Democrats!

[Walt Starr]

55. Yep, knock Dean down, kick him brutally, nearly destroy the campaign

and then offer peace.

That's some peace there.

[HuckleB]

62. I'm a Dean supporter.

That's politics. It's not pretty. Even he would tell you that.

It's time to get over it, and move on. Dean is not out of it, by a long shot.

[Walt Starr]

65. Yep, and NBD is politics too

and those who have been knocking down Dean better learn, some of us have found a fourth way.

[HuckleB]

68. Yeah, dropping out.

The consequences be damned. You'll feel GOOD! What a grand "way."

[youngred]

95. wow that's one powerful poster

to have nearly destroyed Dean's campaign from posting on an internet site.

Dean beat Dean in Iowa, no one else

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. I think most of them will come to their senses before November.

[HuckleB]

64. Well, we can hope, anyway.

[KaraokeKarlton]

63. Sorry, but I'm a registered Independent and am not a slave to

any party loyalty. I vote for who I like, regardless of what party they happen to belong to. If Dean is the Democratic nominee, I'll be voting for him because I like him. Dean would bring my vote to the Democratic party, that's for certain. Most of the other candidates, I would never vote for because I either can't stand some of their positions or don't feel comfortable with their ability to run the country. I have 100% faith in Howard Dean because he was a damned GREAT governor in my state for almost 12 years. You should never try to play guilt with swing voters because it will have the opposite of the desired affect. I talked to a guy at work today that said he wants Dean to be the nominee. He's a swing voting hunter. He said if the Democrats don't nominate Dean, he's voting for Bush. Oh, he lives in NH, too. He likes Dean because of his record of balancing the budget and being neutral and fair on guns.

[HuckleB]

66. Thanks for the drama.

Very fundamentalist. Anyway, I do hope that you aren't slave enough to such fundamentalism that you don't forget to think about the effects that four more years of Bush will have upon millions of your fellow citizens, both in the U.S. and across the globe.

[virtualobserver]

69. If fundamental change does not occur now, We are in deep trouble.

The Washington Dems are in agreement with Bush on too many issues.

Kerry's position isn't that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq, just that Bush "fucked it up". Kerry is wrong....Bush attempted to do something in Iraq that was impossible. We should not have invaded.

[emulatorloo]

81. No that is a misrepresentation of Kerry's position

His position was get the inspectors in, go to the UN to enforce resolutions, invade as a last resort. All predicated on Bush's cooked intelligence that said Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons.

[HuckleB]

83. They disagree with Bush on far too many issue to ignore...

the type of fundamental change that would occur with one of the four Dem frontrunners in office as opposed to four more years of Bush.

[HFishbine]

80. Who's the ideologue?

The guy tells us he's an independent and that the dems have a candidate who will bring his vote to the party, should he be the nominee, and he's called a fundementalist for not supporting the party? That's backasswards. It's the "party before principle" people who are fundementalists.

[HuckleB]

82. You are arguing with a phantom.

This isn't just about a party. This is about who is currently in power. It's about folks who know and understand the damage done by Bush but refusing to work to improve the situation by voting for someone who is less than perfect. Sorry, but you are pushing an argument based on your definitions, not mine. Your post argues against something that isn't even in my post!

[KaraokeKarlton]

102. drama? as if.

I am telling you that I am NOT a Democrat. I am one of those coveted swing voters both party supposedly tries hard to reach out to and win over to get us to vote for their candidate. I'm telling you that Howard Dean is successful in doing what the Democrats have been trying for years to do. Yet many here are too stubborn to listen simply because they don't like what I am saying. Too bad, I speak the truth. Democrats don't have to listen to us if they don't want to, but if they don't appeal to us they won't get our vote, either. Democrats need to stop thinking that they are appealing to swing voters by trying to play it safe and move further right. It's not where you land on the political map that attracts swing voters, it's honesty, common sense and a willingness to listen to us and address the things we care about.

I will be voting for Dean in the general election. If he isn't the nominee, I will be writing his name in.

For all who cry about the need for unity to beat Bush...I tell you this...if you want unity, support Howard Dean for the nomination, then you won't have to worry about losing our votes.

[HuckleB]

104. Yeah, drama.

Your convenient description of yourself gives you an excuse to make yourself feel better. The reality is that if you are a Dean believer, you must understand how destructive the Bush presidency has been, and how destructive four more years of it would be. Considering that Dean will vote for the Dem nominee because that nominee will be miles and miles closer to Dean's policy approaches, it makes no sense for you, regardless of political party affiliation to dismiss that candidate. And, yes, your rhetoric reaks of drama.

By the way, I am, and always have been, a registered independent.

[library_max]

107. Okay, there's my answer.

" . . . if you want unity, support Howard Dean for the nomination,"

You do want what you're not willing to give. For all your claims of independence and principle, at the end of the day you're perfectly willing to hold a gun to the head of the election and demand your own way. Just for the record, that's not a principled stand.

[library_max]

71. You've never answered this question, and I'd like an answer, please.

For Dean to win in the general election, the party will have to unite behind him, including people who supported other candidates in the primaries. There's no point in Dean running unless he expects that kind of treatment if and when he receives the nomination.

So how come reciprocity isn't fair play? How can you expect to receive what you won't give? Before you answer, consider that Dean may very well still win the nomination, and some people may base their behavior on a "do as you're done by" ethic.

[KaraokeKarlton]

103. I'm not the one who keeps starting these foolish loyalty threads

I'm not the one trying to guilt others into doing something I want them to do. I really don't care what other people choose to do with their vote. It's none of my business. If their candidate isn't nominated and they feel the same way I do and they want to write in the guy they support, I say "all the more power to them."

My vote belongs to me and me alone, just as yours belongs to you and I have no right to expect or demand that you use your vote how I see fit. No one has any right to tell anyone else what to do with their vote. It's anti-democratic.

[HuckleB]

105. Yet you respond to them.

Thus, the question remains valid. If you are truly so staunch in your independence, why respond to such threads at Democratic Underground?

[library_max]

106. Where does this get you? Where does it get Dean?

Nobody's trying to take your vote away from you. But you do understand that an election is about combining votes, right? It's about who gets the most votes in each state. So although voting is a matter of personal and individual conscience, the outcome of the election is an aggregate and not individual matter.

That being the case, how is Dean going to win if the party doesn't unite behind him? And what's the point of supporting Dean unless you want him to win? Write-ins mean nothing and you know it - you might as well write in your own name, or "Donald Duck."

Why even post on a political board if "what other people choose to do with their vote" is none of your business? What are you trying to accomplish if not to influence other people's vote? I'm sure you won some Dean converts with your powerful story on that thread you started a couple days ago. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's what we're all here for.

It's not a question of coercion. I'm asking you, not telling you - doesn't there come a point when the good of the country is more important than hurt feelings?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. My impression is that the NBD people

are not numerically significant enough to affect the outcome of the election.

I'll vote for whomever the nominee is, although with varying degrees of enthusiasm, depending on who it is. I think most DUers and most Democrats feel that way.

If the NBD types want to play, "Nominate Dean or we'll hold our breath until we turn blue," that's their problem.

(

[dreissig]

121. Numerical Significance

Hubert Humphrey will never die so long as political forecasters continue to say, Fuck 'em, there aren't enough of them to make a difference.

The 1968 Democrats wrote off the antiwar Left. Daley's cops beat the shit out of demonstrators on national television, and the party refused to accommodate us. Fuck 'em! Humphrey was surprised at the bitterness directed at him personally. Having been such a sweet liberal all his life, he couldn't believe it.

Want to avoid another 1968? Don't nominate a war monger.

[youngred]

86. Nobody But My Candidate and Anybody But Your Candidate people

are indeed the biggest ally of Bush right now. Thank you for posting this, hope the flames aren't too bad....talking sense amongst the deaf

[bowens43]

110. So you're saying

'damn your principles , win at any cost'? I have no use for a party that has no moral direction. Anyone who puts party loyalty above principle is doing a disservice to our party. I refuse to allow my fear of 4 more years of bush to tarnish my integrity. There are worse things then 4 more years of bush and allowing our party to become the party of mediocrity is one them.

[youngred]

115. all this shit is just the same Green v Dem fight that has been going on

at DU since its inception. I'm not saying damn your principles at all and neither am I putting party loyalty above principle. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn are ABB...do you think THEY give a flying fuck what happens to the Democrats? NO they think they dems are corporatist stooges, but are willing to give them their votes to assure a greater disaster doesn't come about. The Green party is REFUSING to run a candidate in this election because they see that Bush is a bigger threat. You remember the Greens right? the one's who said the parties are the same and vowed to bring down the Democrats. I'm a fucking Socialist for crissake, you really think I like the way the Democrats have been going? You think I give a fuck about their system?

NO, There are NOT worse things than another 4 years of Bush. Guaranteed 2 more wars with hundreds of Americans and thousands of others dying. Guaranteed further deficit spending which me and my children, and my grandchildren and my grandchildren's children will have to pay off. More unemployment and loss of jobs. A worsening of relations with the ENTIRE world. A constitutional amendment against Gay marriage. No Child Left Behind and Vouchers becoming the law of the land. The PATRIOT ACT II. A conservative Supreme court that will overturn Roe v. Wade.

No, I say there are not worse things than another 4 years of Bush, and any Democrat, even Lieberman, is better than Bush.

[library_max]

116. This just in.

"My way or the highway" is not a principle. Nor is it a moral direction or a sign of integrity. The choice between NBD and "allowing our party to become the party of mediocrity" is a false choice.

[goodhue]

96. very well put

And I couldn't agree more. I think a lot of this will die down once folks get past the shock of things not going according to script. Why they thought things would go according to script is beyond me. They never do. And the folks on TV don't know what the hell they are talking about.

[Snivi Yllom]

99. ok I'm foolish

But I'm still supporting Dean.

GOT IT?

[library_max]

101. Go ahead and support Dean.

Who's stopping you? Who's asking you to stop? The point of the thread is not to make a premature decision not to support or vote for the nominee in the general election unless that nominee is Dean. You don't have to be NBD to support Dean. Got it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

108. Selfish? Kerry and Edwards ambitions were more important than lives.

And, you accuse us who refuse to vote for them selfish?

[library_max]

109. In the Bizarro World,

where Kerry and Edwards' votes caused the IWR to pass and where Bush couldn't have invaded without it and where Bush had to invade once it passed, that would be a good point. In the real world, where IWR would have passed anyway and where the actual decision to invade was Bush's and Bush's alone, it's nonsense.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

111. In the "real" world 23 senators voted against it. Unlike those 2 cowards.

They OK'd the invasion with their "practical politics" vote. If you can stomach that, vote for them. I won't.

[library_max]

120. In the "real" world, 25 senators can't defeat a bill.

[dreissig]

123. Practical Politics

In the realm of practical politics it doesn't make sense to nominate a candidate who gets a percentage of your people so hopping mad that they'll refuse to vote for him even if it means losing the election. That's what the party did in 1968, and seems willing to do again in 2004.

There's no way I'm going to vote for Kerry, I couldn't live with myself afterwards. The fact that I didn't vote for Humphrey has never troubled me. Looking back I'm glad I didn't.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

124. Absolutely.

The supporters of Kerry and Edwards are living in a dream world of "getting the center" by abandoning the left. Humphrey did, and lost (I voted Peace & Freedom in '68). Gore did and lost.

[library_max]

126. Gore won. D'ja miss the memo or something?

And I'm not talking about the national popular vote, which counts for squat. I'm talking about the Florida popular vote, which means he won the electoral vote and therefore the election. Surely you've heard about this.

Everybody who goes after the center doesn't win, but everybody who runs to the base (left or right)loses in presidential elections. There is not one historic exception, at least since World War II. Stevenson, Goldwater, McGovern, and Mondale are positive examples of the rule in action.

[library_max]

125. There's some logic. There's some "practical politics."

If the majority of Democrats won't do what you want and nominate the candidate you want, you're going to take your ball and go home and it's all their fault! This is one of those "Games People Play;" it's called "Look What You Made Me Do."

[bhunt70]

117. I posted this in the other thread...

and it's probably not worth reposting but indulge me :)


Why NBD or ABD for that matter, is a dangerous position.

The simple principle of divide and conquer.

If you have the chance to win again your "enemy", then you take that chance. If you worry about the infighting in your camp before winning the battle then you are doing your enemies work. If you don't get behind the nominee they you are really just fighting on two fronts.

Nominate someone who will win, have a concerted effort to make that person win in the GE against your common "enemy" in this case GWB. Once having accomplished the main goal, then hash out your differences and make changes to the system.

You have to get in the door first. Once you get your foot in the door is the time for party introspection. If you have a chance to win the GE, you don't go tinkering with the process. If you have a portion of the people trying to make their point because their horse doesn't win, then what change has really happened?

[FrankBooth]

118. Wetzelbill

You are 100% correct. And I also believe that when liberals cast their votes in November, 98% of them will be ABB.

[Walt Starr]

122. READ THIS THREAD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=173767