February 17, 2004

• Well, he has power still--he's brought in and energized a lot of people...I'm going to Edwards if Dean drops out before I vote on Super Tuesday (i don't like Kerry at all), but i worry that many of Dean's supporters will stay home on election day.
• Amber--- I doubt the Dean faithful will stay home, but I'm saddened you are giving it away to that whelp Edwards. I look at him and all I see is that guy Stinson from "The Dead Zone" (played by Martin Sheen, by the way-- must be some kinda record.) I'm a third-generation Dem, and until Dean started losing I was ashamed I'd voted for Nader last time. (Relax, I'm in Maryland, Gore was a lock, it was a cri de couer...) Now I KNOW I could never let that Botox-Beltwayer Kerry have my vote. Not even to help "our Party". THERE IS NO "OUR PARTY" anymore. It left out the back door when we were too scared to shout down "W" on Permanent War and The "Patriot' Act. Gephardt and Kerry and all those other Senators who DID NOTHING the past three years, they let it die by a thousand cuts, and I'm not such an ass as to go Green or certainly NEVER Libertarian, but I'm OUT. You want me back? Behave like Democrats! Humphrey in '04, brother, all the way to the booth.
• Remember, Dean still has more delegates than Edwards. They've both won exactly ONE state.
• Sorry - I'm just out of the loop, what state has Dean won?
• Dizzy, i agree with you, but Bush has got to go, one way or another--Edwards to me, is the next best choice if Dean drops out (which he will). Of course, if it ends up being Kerry, i'll hold my nose and vote for him in Nov.
• Yep. Kerry is probably my least favorite out of the bunch, plus given that he, pataki and bush are all part of the same secret society--one of many issues he will not discuss--his congressional record is a long miserable trek of cowtowing and compromise. He is cut from the same cloth as the bluebloods he criticizes; and yet, he is now the running favorite for the nomination. Dean tried to take the democratic party and was eaten alive the "liberal press". Since the right-wing pundits announced they were scared of Kerry and called him "electable" the left has mystifyingly jumped on the bandwagon, just as they backed away from Dean when Karl Rove and the national review proclaimed him as being easily beatable. Why on earth someone would take their opponents word at face value -- Karl Rove's no less -- continues to mystify me. I am not a democrat and likely never will be (and dont you dare think me a republican), but I am with amberglow: the administration we have now has got to go.
• Hm... initially I was terrified that this primary was going to drag on and on and would end in a huge cat fight with everybody calling everybody names. Having watched the Wisconsin debate, though, I see something perhaps a little more sneaky going on: the longer this drags out, the more the Democrats get the attention. They can hold debates, knowing Kerry will probably be the nominee, and get free air time to criticize Bush. Intended or not, it's a nice outcome. And I hope we can stop griping about Kerry... if he's elected president, he will be very very different from Bush, ESPECIALLY environmentally (I don't know if anybody cares about that any more...). He's going to try to overturn our energy policy, and I can't imagine anything more important right nwo.
• tmb: if he had shown that backbone at any point in his senatorial career, I'd have more faith in Kerry, but i don't see it. (anyone who wins in Nov. will spend most of his time cleaning up all the messes Bush left anyway--there'll be no money for anything good to happen.)
• Dean won the state of insanity.
• Why would it be an ass to go Green? Is it based on the fact that it is the Greens and what they stand for, or is it that it is a third party? I'm in Republican stronghold Indiana, and no matter who I vote for Indiana will go to the Republican candidate. So the way I see it, voting for a third party is better than not voting at all. To nme chosing what ammounts to C) None of the Above is better than not chosing anything.
• jcc-- I retract and apologize for the anti-Green statement. I lumped the Greens with the Libertarians, and that was a mistake. I'm not anti-third party per se, I just find it hard to leave the traditional two-party system because tradition is comforting; being a Democrat, no matter how disenchanted, gave me the illusion of being in the game and sharing some of the power. So when I got my feet wet by voting for Nader, I should have stressed (and it should be obvious) that I am shopping around for (greener) pastures. I know too little about the Greens, but I've got their website booked for reading in the next couple of days--are there any seminal Green manifestoes I should know about? As far as the Libertarians-- Please don't flame me, guys, but I like my gov't inspected milk, my safe N.T.S.B. roadways, and my rigorous FDA approval protocols, and you guys ain't gonna change my mind about that. Government CAN be a solution.
• As a libertarian, I accept your apology, Diz....
• After having a little bit of revolution-type hope and enthusiasm, I'm back where I started: curled into a fetal position chanting "Anyone but Bush! Anyone but Bush! Please little baby jebus! Anyone but Bush!"
• ...the mossy, hulking form of Pat Robertson rises from its long sleep in the swamp, as if responding to a call from California....
• That was just mean!! :)~
• Dean hasn't won a state. Edwards won South Carolina and Clark won Oklahoma. It's looking like he's going to throw a hissy fit and not endorse Kerry. Word is Nadar won run again. So 4 more years of Bush. Actually, I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet. If Dean does have his hissy fit then DNC needs to (to quote The Godfather) give him an offer he can't refuse. As for Nadar, what else is he running for besides ego and his hatred for the Democratic Party. I think he wants Bush to win again. Those are the only two reasons I can think of.
• I stand corrected. Dean drops out.
• Except he didn't.
• *Nadar won run*?
• I stand corrected again.
• Sullivan; You realy think Nader wants four more years of Bush? I think this Courageous Patriot, well aware of his Quixotian history and too smart to roll over, relishes the chance for a public forum to Speak some Truth. Nader said back in 02 that there was no fundamental difference between the GOP and the Dems anymore(except for money distribution policy, i.e. taxation), and boy oh boy was that right on the money! Why would Kerry, a less-than-stellar senator, be any better than what is there now?
• Wow Dizzy. Talk about loaded questions. So loaded in fact that it's hard to come up with anything other than, "If you have to ask that question, there's not much I can say."
• OK. Diz, perhaps that was a rhetorical question, but it sure as hell didn't feel like one. So I'll (somewhat reluctantly) try to give you just one of the many possible answers: It's because there's a difference between someone who's less-than-stellar, and a leader who is actively, determinedly, ferociously divisive and dangerous. I cannot vote in your election, but the result of it will affect my life and moreover my country almost as much as one of our own elections - especially with our current government slavishly following Bush's every step. With a second Bush term, my government will continue to ignore pressing domestic needs because of the havoc being wraught on the international stage. With a second Bush term, further wedges will be driven between my country and its European partners, to our great loss. With a second Bush term, I and my loved ones will be in greater danger of dying in a terrorist attack, because our country becomes a target alongside yours. I understand you're pissed off with the party you grew up with and who have abandoned so much of what you believe in - I feel exactly the same about Labour, and it hurts. But please, please, please don't make that old mistake of thinking that 'they're all the same', because they're NOT. It's not just America that needs Bush out of the Whitehouse, it's a very large percentage of the world's population. We can't do anything about that. You can.
• Clarification: previous post reads a lot more aggressive than it was intended to be (which was not at all). Sorry. Also probably doesn't tell you anything you don't know, but hey...
• Dang, Flashboy, You should be a motivational speaker, because you certainly got me revved up-- I can save the Universe just by closing my eyes, pinching my nose, and thinking of England! My thesis: it is slowly dawning on me to choose to OPT OUT of the prevailing power structure. Not voting at all is a personal sin in my book. but voting for someone OTHER than the biggies seems the very act of Modern American-Style Democracy. I seek to vote my conscience, and Kerry rubs me wrong, just as my Man Dean rubbed others wrong, too. On reflection, of course Kerry or just about anybody would be better than Bush and his circle. Kimberly; such rhetoric was ill'tempered, benreath us all, and your gentle response was right on target, so mea culpa there.
• Oh, and Flashboy( and Kim, et al...)-- Sorries never needed--I'm starved for this kind of talk and honored anyone will play with me.
• ...in fact, it sounds like you'll be doing pretty much exactly what I'll be doing come our next election - seriously thinking about voting for a smaller party (we at least have THREE mainstream options here... small mercies, and all that), both as a protest against the deep lameness of the Dems/Labour, and because that smaller party genuinely has policies that more accurately reflect what we believe. But with the awareness that if things are running horribly close, we may well have to come back into the fold, because we know the opposition's so much worse. If I reacted all soapboxy, it's just that it's the first occasion (this time round) that I've read someone from the left saying something remotely akin to "they're all the same", and it scared me a little. Not just for the personal reasons I mentioned, which no doubt seemed to top it the melodramatist a little too strongly, but out of fear for what the current administration's doing to the world as a whole. I just really don't want to live another four years in Dubya's world. But ultimately, of course, if you don't vote as your conscience dictates, then what's the point of this whole democracy thang? Sure as heck-fire isn't my place to lecture you on something so important. And on your main point, you're bang on - the Democrats *have* to start behaving like Democrats again. This isn't the time for just looking like a wimpy copy of the real thing.
• This an interesting tidbit of information on Nadar. It turns out there were other surveys addressing this very question, but Nader doesn
• "tmb: if he had shown that backbone at any point in his senatorial career, I'd have more faith in Kerry, but i don't see it." Because he voted for the war in Iraq? Or because he voted for the "PATRIOT" act? Look, you have to understand where he was when he made those decisions. I will liken it to your voting for whoever the democratic nominee is: he knew he was going to run for president, and he saw what happened to congressmen/senators who voted against the iraq war in 91 (dis-elected!), so he voted for it. I'm sure it was a very very hard choice for him, and yes, ultimately he did it I think for public relations. As for the PATRIOT act, everybody voted for that... at the time, I was a little supportive of it, too. I'm sorry we didn't take more time to think about it. But no backbone? The guy's been leading the filibustering for the past four years! Regarding ANWR, abortion rights, extreme judges... he's been fighting harder than people give him credit for. This whole "Kerry has no backbone" is an easy thing to throw around, but I think ultimately it makes as much sense as "Gore is a big liar."
• tmb48--point taken. seems like a much more thorough review of his votes are in order, not just the 'sensational ' ones. Sullivan-- that is twice you said Nader 'wants Bush to win...' Please explain this assertion.
• Look at the comments he made in the 2000 election and from what I linked in this thread. He wants to see Bush win because he is blinded by ego and his hatred for the Democratic Party. He went after Gore suppoters and said it would be good for the Dems to loose, so it would teach them a lesson. He wants to see Bush win to smack the Dems around. He knows he doesn't have a chance in hell to win and the press won't cover him. Matt Welch was one of the few reporters (for Working For Change) to cover him daily. So this isn't about getting his message heard. He wants to take down the Democratic Party.
• Sullivan; I just read every word of Welch's piece. WHERE does he quote Nader as saying he "hates the Democratic party"? I didn't see it. I like to pop psychologize as much as the next guy, but where does he say "He wants Bush to win?" I didn't see that, either. What I DID see, was that "Reason" the website is run by the "Reason Foundation", whose goals are, among others, to "apply and promote Libertarian principles". I honestly don't know why these Libertarians are so pissed at ol' Ralph, and they may very well be justified for all I know, but make sure you separate ASSERTION from FACT. (and please, can we at leastagree to spell his name correctly--N-A-D-E-R...?)
• So it looks like Dean did drop out after all. At least, his campaign was "suspended" at least. Whatever that means.
• "Nadar" - the uncanny ability to spot an environmentalist from at least fifty yards away... :-)
• I didn't get the impression that Nader was particularly interested in the environment (i.e. It wasn't necessarily a central consideration for what he was trying to do). I think that the Green party was convienant. (Also, I just want you all to be clear that *at least* Dean's campaign was suspended. Don't forget the *at least* point. It's vital.)
• Must. Research. Bad. Puns. Better. You're right, of course - was just casting around of a succinct description of Nader, couldn't think of one, so I settled on one that seemed vaguely accurate from my recollection of 2000... (at least)
• My bad on spelling Nader's name. I don't see how Nader, if he runs again, is a) doing this for the greater good of the country b) feels he has the chance in hell of winning. For the record: Matt Welch of Reason Online voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. From my understanding, he is on the left. I'm listed on "The Lefty Directory" with him. I have no idea why I'm listed on that site. As all monkeys are aware, I am a die hard conservative.
• I voted for Nader in 2000 because I wanted a third party to get some money. I wouldn't have done it if I weren't in California where the state was defintely going to Gore. There's no way I'd do it in this election, but I think that's a moot point because I doubt he's going to run.
• Looks like Dean is a sore loser. Dean knows how to give only one kind of speech, a victory speech, and that's what he delivered. You have "really worked hard to change this country and change this party," he told his assembled supporters. "And guess what? You have succeeded." It was a victory for a movement, not a campaign. "You have already written the platform of the Democratic Party for this election," Dean said. "A year ago, the Democrats were falling all over each other to vote for the war in Iraq. They sure don't talk like that now." Dean also claimed credit for getting the Democrats to stand up to "reckless budget deficits," "huge tax cuts," and "the president's education policies, which leave every child behind." But the change in the Democratic Party, Dean declared, would be illusory if he and his supporters did not continue to challenge the Democratic establishment. "We together have only begun our work," he said. In what sounded like a shot at John Kerry, he continued: "The transformation that we have wrought is a transformation of convenience, not of conviction, and we have to fight, and fight, and fight until it becomes a transformation of conviction." That is not the way to talk if he wants his party to win the White House.
• I think we can BOTH agree that Howard Dean is not going to the White House, and I'm sure you're not surprised that I found that speech you quoted elegant, eloquent, and honest. What he said , what he's been saying, that so resonated with me, is that we Democrats used to look,taste and feel substantially different than the GOP. We were the workers, the progressives, the masses, the little guy and the middle guy, the shopkeeper and the shopsweeper, the kind and bold and risk-taker that protected us from the BIG GUYS. Then we started to merge into the BIG GUYS (please don't blame Bill-- look to JFK[!} for politcal contemporary cross-dressing, as it were, but that is for another time...) and that is why Nader popped up and made sense to me. Yes, we seem to agree that Bush MUST go--Tell me who do you like? I promise, as your loyal opposition, to shut up and listen.
• Maybe this should be a curious george (or maybe I should just look it up using the magic of google), but, the GOP? Whats that stand for?
• Grand Old Party.
• Grand Old Party. Folklore has it named thus by Thomas Nast, noted cartoonist and polemiscist in 1875, although this is often disputed.
• Cheers, Pez and Dizzy.
• The Wallstreet Journal calls Howard Dean "the most consequential loser since Barry Goldwater."