Would you still vote for Kerry if he picked McCain...

[skypilot]

Poll question: Would you still vote for Kerry if he picked McCain...

...as his running mate?

[library_max]

1. But he's not going to.

McCain has said no many times.

[jobycom]

5. "No" doesn't mean no in politics.

It means "Not yet."

[derby378]

103. Excellent point

I mean, just look at the * administration's "No" policy...

[fryguy]

2. I'd vote for Kerry if his running mate were a zucchini placed onto a stick

[Oddman]

14. LOL!!!!

My sentiments too!

[Serenity-NOW]

47. Hey! I like zucchini on a stick, it's goooood! Safer than pretzels. eom

[MISSDem]

49. fryguy, I was going to say, yes, even if he picks Chuckles the clown

but a zucchini works for me too.

[fryguy]

63. especially when its grilled and drizzled with a little olive oil....

yum yum

[WoodrowFan]

69. Is quayle availaable?

so long as we're talking veggies on a stick (insert Reagan joke here)

[jobycom]

3. I wouldn't like it, but I won't vote for Bush, so yes.

[drumwolf]

4. HELL YES

If McCain was the PRESIDENTIAL nominee challenging Bush, I'd vote for McCain over Bush.

McCain would be very far from my ideal candidate, Prez or VP, but Bush has been just that awful that I'd still vote for Kerry/McCain (or even McCain) over Bush in a heartbeat.

[radwriter0555]

6. Yes, Kerry is a good man & I trust him to make the right decision

unimpeded by PNAC freaks.

[ibegurpard]

7. Nope

I'd find a third party and campaign against him.

[billybob537]

8. NOT GONNA HAPPEN

[lancdem]

13. Yep

It isn't going to happen. But if it did, you're damn right I would. I'm sorry, but Bush just has to go, and Kerry's VP choice will not affect my vote one way or the other.

[IrateCitizen]

9. I'd vote for him if he picked Clifford the Big Red Dog...

But he isn't going to pick Clifford, nor is he going to pick McCain.

[Pithlet]

10. Yes

I wouldn't like it, but it's not going to happen. But, even if it did, I'd hold my nose tight with a steel clamp and vote for Kerry.

[Cyrano]

11. Not much choice

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. No other option. If Bush wins, it could very well be the last election we'd ever see in this country.

[GreatScott]

25. With that kind of decision-making- the

two one party system will never be broken.

[library_max]

62. Well, the two party system never has been broken.

So maybe "that kind of decision-making" is just practical, real-world decision-making.

[Kazak]

12. Yes, but he ain't gonna...

Probably gonna be Gep, I'm afraid.

[RoyGBiv]

15. I'd vote for him...

Because I believe Bush is just that dangerous. I wouldn't enjoy it. I would then truly be choosing between the lesser of two evils. It'd probably be the most difficult vote I ever placed in my life, but I'd do it.

Immediately afterward, I would begin taking seriously the idea of a true coalition of interests separate from and including major parts of the two major parties. The only reason I wouldn't do it beforehand is that it's too late for such a movement to do much good, and I'm not sure if after another four years of BushCo we'd have enough of a country left for it to matter.

If Kerry were to choose McCain, it would make me reconsider the foundation of my political ideals.

[UTUSN]

16. Sure Wish "McCAIN-VP" Would Meme Itself Out

So the answer is, "Duh, yes," but having a Repuke on a Dem ticket is an invitation for some wingnut wingnut to commit assassination so they could install a Repuke.

[napi21]

20. Secret Service is very good at their job!

I figure if Shrub is still alive, they're pretty good and could protect anybody! You figure they kept Clinton alive too!

With the number of people who hate those 2 guys on both sides of the asile, I don't think you need to worry about any assinations.

[jrthin]

17. If I wanted a rethug in office, I'd

vote for the current rethug. I hate McCain.

[redqueen]

18. NO!

I mean I probably would, but I'm sure not going to reinforce that HORRIBLY STUPID IDEA -- ANYWHERE!

[bicentennial_baby]

19. Nope

I'll be staying home if that happens.

[demosincebirth]

21. Yes, I have not choice

[Jane Austin]

22. Yes, but I sure hate the McCain meme.

Hell, I'd vote for Kerry if he picked one of the miniature donkeys braying at the farm next door!

[Zero Gravitas]

23. ANYONE But Bush*

[GreenArrow]

24. no, absolutely not

But it won't happen.

Best way to prove Ralph Nader right.

[beyurslf]

26. Yes. McCain as VP is better than Cheney as VP.

And Kerry as Pres is WAYYYYYYYYY better than Bush.

[Zorra]

31. And if some insane freeper shoots Kerry a right winger becomes president.

[library_max]

59. A) McCain is not a right winger.

He is a Republican and a conservative on many issues. There is a difference.

B) McCain would be a light-years improvement over George W. Bush.

[Zorra]

72. I don't know what you consider a right winger, but have you

checked out John McCain's voting record? Here is one example:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0061103

McCain has an ACU lifetime voting record of 84% which makes him more conservative than any Democrat in the Senate. He supported tax cuts, supported a ban on partial birth abortion and supported the appointment of judicial nominees by President Bush.

There is a reason why conservatives like Lindsey Graham and Bill Kristol were strong supporters of John McCain in the Republican nomination campaign of 2000. They knew McCain was honestly conservative on most issues.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0404/0404veepstakes2.htm

In my view, as a lifetime yellowdog Democrat, someone being a republican and a conservative is a sure sign that I do not want them in positions of government. I view John McCain as extremely right wing. He may or may not be a totalitarian fascist like Bu$h and his ilk, but then again, I have learned from experience to never trust what republicans say. I judge them by what they do and what they have done, not on what they say. Remember, Bu$h ran as a "compassionate conservative".

[library_max]

95. Yeah, but Bush is a liar and McCain isn't.

It's silly to say that everyone to the right of Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller is a right winger, unless you just want to use that term as a synonym for conservative. Wingers are extremists. In Congress, the line starts somewhere in the vicinity of Tom DeLay and moves rightward from there.

If you were to spend some time in Texas or another hardcore red state and meet some actual right wingers, you'd see the difference soon enough.

[Bandit]

99. . Yeah, but Bush is a liar and McCain isn't.

Maybe you could tell us McCain's position on the Confederate Flag then. He has given a different position depending on where he was campaigning. All Politicians LIE even our Hero Senator Kerry.

[library_max]

101. The Confederate flag? Come on!

The Confederate flag is neither a federal issue (unless you want to count the First Amendment right to display it) nor an Arizona state issue. So what difference does it make what McCain's stand on it is or isn't?

Having a complicated position isn't the same as lying. Don't buy the Republican line to the contrary.

[Bandit]

104. It is a matter of principle and he changed his story often

It isn't about allowing it to be flown or not. It is about why? Why would any leader advocate for a position that would offend such a large portion of Americans? And then change that position at least three seperate times depending on where he was. It is about truth. If he feels one way about something he should stick to his convictions no matter where he is. He did not do that and that shows me he is not a man of conviction. He is also a LIAR as he said one thing in one state and quite another in another state.

[LeahMira]

27. I'd be really disappointed.

I don't think it's going to happen, though, and I sincerely hope that Kerry is not considering it.

[FlemingsGhost]

28. The DLC really has liberals by the short-hairs...

if many are willing to embrace McCain in order to defeat Bush.

It won't happen, but it shows just how diseased the Party has become. FDR must be rolling in his grave...

(on edit: typo)

[Pithlet]

76. No

I thinkthe party needs a huge fix, to say the least, but I think these responses are due to how horrible Bush is. Staying home does nothing but help give Bush another four years, and I don't think this country can afford that. The DLC has nothing to do with my decision, although it's a moot point really. It isn't going to happen.

[BiggJawn]

29. oh, grumble...

Yes, and I'd vote for Kerry if he sprouted horns and jizzin' Dancing Bears started dancing out his ass, too.

Doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

In the meantime, a fat bald little gnome with the initals Karl Rove sits in his office going "Damn, I never knew that rumour would get that much traction!"

[Tinoire]

30. Nope. No way in hell. It will be hard enough to vote for Kerry

Add McCain to the equation and PPI can KMA.

[bicentennial_baby]

32. Exactly

KMA indeed...

Hi Cass! :hi:

[Tinoire]

48. Hi

:hi:

The corporate merger of the two parties shall soon be complete with PNAC & PPI running the entire show.

Here's McCain telling everyone LOUD & CLEAR that he supports Bush and supports Bush's agenda. You would think that would be CLEAR enough but noooooo. Maybe he should write it out in crayon for everyone :shrug:

John McCain for VP... That certainly puts a more truthful spin on "ABB".

The circus is turning into a freak-show!

[hunter]

33. I'd rather have McCain as a "caretaker" president like Ford.

This would work:

Bush fires Cheney, appoints McCain, Cheney is prosecuted, Bush resigns, McCain doesn't run.

That's my fantasy...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Nope. But, I'm not voting for Kerry anyway.

His latest statements about Iraq, plus his previous vote in support of Bush's war, have convinced me that the only way to wrest the party from the DLC is to vote for real liberals in the party or not.

I'll be voting Democrat in November for my anti-war senator and congressman, but Green/Nader/not for Prez.

[library_max]

60. So you'd rather have Bush, then?

Because Green/Nader/not isn't going to get elected. You're ceding your vote to someone more conservative than yourself. How is that helping?

[WoodrowFan]

68. because he'd feel better

like every other Nadar voter he's decided making himself feel good is worth thousands and thousands more dead Iraqis and Americans, cause the world revolves around his feelings damit!

[BiggJawn]

67. When did Ralph "Go Green" again?

Living in the past, friend. The only reason Ralph wa sa Green in '00 was because they were the only party who'd have him.

Nader is about as much a Green as I am a PNACer.

One bright point in this, though...Because of folks who plan to vote like you, we will probably have at least another 4 years to bitch about "president" Bush....

[osaMABUSh]

75. good luck with that - we don't have another 4 years to burn

[GiovanniC]

35. I'd Vote a Kerry/Lucifer Ticket Over Bush/Anyone

n/t

[Poiuyt]

36. I think Lucifer is heading up the Republican ticket

[GiovanniC]

39. No, But He's Their Political Strategist

[Media_Lies_Daily]

37. Please stop this nonsense. It is getting very old.

[skypilot]

40. It's not nonsense.

It's simply a question. I'd heard about the McCain as running mate thing and I was just curious as to how people would vote if such a thing turned out to be true.

[Pastiche423]

38. When did this site

become the UNDemocraticUnderground?

Un-fucking-real!

[skypilot]

41. I don't understand your question?

*

[Tinoire]

43. That's directed at the results of the poll not at you

The "Republicans are A-ok" movement is recent to DU and quite disgusting.

[skypilot]

44. Oh. Yeah, that's the reason I posted this poll.

I know it's not scientific or anything but I just had to see how the numbers would play out.

[library_max]

57. Which Republicans do you mean?

When this election is over, there are still going to be Democrats and Republicans, and they're still going to have to work together. If (when) Kerry wins, he'll still have to work with the Republicans. Even if we win both houses as well (unlikely), we'll still have to work with the minority Republicans if we want to get anything done. That's the way democracy works. That's what keeps it from being simply the tyranny of the majority. Because there's no moral or philosophical system that justifies 50.1% of the population (or the voters or however you want to define it) absolutely dictating to the other 49.9%.

This is first and foremost what is so wrong about Bush and his cronies. After they stole the 2000 election, they decided to turn their backs on democracy and pretend that they were put in office to rule rather than govern. They have overlooked no opportunity to run roughshod over the minority party. If we get in office and act the same way toward the Republicans that the Bush administration and Tom DeLay, etc. have acted toward us, we'll be making things worse, not better, in the long run. Because if the basic social contract of democracy is breached (all significant factions maintaining a basic respect for the values and prerogatives of all the other factions), what incentive does the minority have to obey the decisions of the majority?

We need to distinguish between the Bush administration and its cronies and grownup Republicans like McCain who are capable of speaking and hearing the truth, even if we don't agree with them about much of anything. Hyperpartisanship will kill democracy if it goes on long enough, regardless of which party is in power at any particular moment.

[Tinoire]

66. What kind of truth is McCain capable of speaking and hearing?

I heard this 3 years ago here at DU when people were defending Powell & 4 years ago when DLCers were foaming at the mouth for Powell on a Dem ticket because he was such an "honorable man", such a "well-spoken" man. How many times are we going to go through this? With very few exceptions, the Republicans are rotten apples. You can't lie with the dogs and not get fleas; why would we want to bring more fleas into our house? What difference is there between Bush and McCain? McCain speaks a little better?

Working with them is one thing. Getting infiltrated and infested is quite another.

You talk about how democracy works & that what keeps it from being simply the tyranny of the majority. That is immediately where we part ways. We do not have a democracy in this country- we have a duocracy which is nothing but a lose/lose scenario for the American people and which ensures the tyranny of the minority over the majority. All this talk of merging thankfully only makes it more apparent.

Scheunemann, McCain, William Kristol, David Brown, "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq"... it's all so sickening.

"The singer may change, but the song remains the same."


===

My mention to the "Republicans are A-ok" movement has to do with our recent influx at DU of apologists for this war whose only difference with Bush seems to be his personality and not his agenda.

[library_max]

70. For one thing,

McCain has corrected the record about Kerry's military service not once but several times. Here's another McCainism: "You can't fly in on an aircraft carrier and declare victory and have the deaths continue. You can't do that." He's criticized Bush on taxes and global warming too.

We do have democracy in this country. It may look like a duocracy from 'way out here on the left where you and I are standing, but it isn't. We're ahead of the rest of the country, and there's nothing we can do about it except wait for them to catch up. And maybe give them a little nudge now and then, but if we push too hard we'll just get backlash.

It's frustrating to be progressive because most people aren't. They don't have the brains or the objectivity. Rarely do progressives see all, or even really any, of the progress they want to see in their own lifetimes, but it does inch along eventually. Only took 200 years to abolish slavery, for example.

But when we look to third parties or philosopher kings to make us happy, we just remove ourselves from the process. And it's probably a good thing, too. Robespierre was an instructive example of what happens when an uncompromising idealist get his hands on the reins of power.

[Tinoire]

71. True points but not enough

I'm afraid I'm going to go to my death unwilling to bend. Blame it on the French blood in me- we don't believe in giving them even an inch because when we do, we know how much they take.
I just can't compromise anymore. For 20 years I thought we could but for 20 years, my party has lurched so to the right that I barely recognize it. I have the lasting shame of knowing that it was a Democratic adminstration that brought us a war in Yugoslavia, continued bloody interventions in Latin America, WTO, NAFTA, GATT, Welfare Reform, FTAA... Is this how we gradually lurch to the Left? At this rate, not only will it never happen in my life-time but it will never happen until the day we are so hungry, so tired of being abused, that we march on Washington and SEIZE back our country.

200 years to abolish slavery... Don't you agree that was 200 years too many? And we never really abolished it because we never compensated the slaves in any way... We simply transformed it into a new kind of economic slavery. Haiti successfully abolished slavery only to later be rethrust into it by the same people here who dragged their feet for 200 years until they needed to crush and dominate the South.

You are so optimistic. I truthfully envy you.

[library_max]

96. Well, it helps to look back farther than ten or twenty years.

Slavery was truly hellish as practiced in these United States. I don't suppose I have to explain that to you in detail. It doesn't compare to "wage slavery." In fact, "wage slavery" in the age of Dilbert is cake compared to real wage slavery in the age of Dickens and Upton Sinclair.

Yes, 200 years was too many, but that's how long it took. Most people are stupid and slow to learn anything except what their parents taught them, which is pretty much what their parents taught them, and so on. The wheels of progress turn slowly, but they do turn. Take your lifetime and mine (born 1958) and compare this era to any other era in human history. It's better now.

The worst thing to be said about Bush & co. is that they're trying to turn back the clock, to the era of the robber barons and American imperialism (ca. 1900). But we hear more and more voices speaking out against the excesses of Bushism. The bastard's not going to get away with it.

But it's our duty to do what we can to help stop him. And that doesn't mean indulging our fantasies or demanding that the world flip itself over this instant to accommodate us. It means taking a firm grip on what works and making the best use of it to turn this godawful situation around. Remember Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

[maggrwaggr]

42. I will not vote for a one-party America

Having just two parties is bad enough

[maxanne]

45. nope

I will not cast a vote for an anti-choice Republican. McCain's been voting against my right to choice for decades. Screw him.

That the Democrats are so willing to snuffle up and suckle at the Republican teat is disgusting. Why bother to even have a second party, if we're going to emulate and assimilate?

[Blasphemer]

46. Yes, but I would be voting for McCain over Bush

One repuke vs. another. They'd kill Kerry - no question.

[TankLV]

50. I will NEVER vote for a republican ticket - NEVER!

nt

I will just sit out this dance, rather than encourage something nearly as awful as bunkerboy himself! I will not waste my precious vote.

Never!

I belong to the DEMOCRATIC wing of the Democratic Party!

[DFLer4edu]

51. HE WILL NOT PICK MCCAIN

SO STOP TALKING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!

[skypilot]

52. No need to go all crazy on the CAPS lock.

I've missed the other discussions about this so I decided to do a poll of my own. This thread is the FIRST time that I personally have talked about the issue here at DU. I'm allowed.

[John_H]

53. This thread proves my theory.

Check out the "no" posts. Mostly the same ol' Kerry bashers, either afraid Kerry/McCain would be a sure win or only grudgingly voting for Kerry in the first place.

For every one-percenter Kerry-McCain would lose, they pick up ten swing voters and GOP leaners.

I don't like McCain, but I'd take the ticket in a second if it meant a sure win and saving America from 4 years of George Bush and Don Rumsfeld unafraid of having to be reelected.

[Tinoire]

56. Swing voters and GOP leaners. Wow. PNACers for McCain!

Swing voters (code word for Reagan Democrat), GOP leaners, and Republican Vice-Presidents...

The corporate merger is almost completed.

How many shares do the members of the goon squads instigating this merger get?

In the 2000 elections, PNAC supported John McCain and not George Bush, it wasn't until Bush selected Cheney as his running mate that the neocons like Powell, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft dumped him. That's not exactly a warm fuzzy feeling for Progressive Dems.

Cheney & McCain are two similar war-shilling peas in a pod but ABB all the way baby, right ;)


Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. The act itself was promoted in Congress by Woolsey, Clarridge, and now-Deputy National Security Advisor for Counter-terrorism Wayne Downing. The act (a piece of bombastic anti-Saddam propaganda full of historical falsehoods) passed Congress and was signed by Clinton, with scant attention from the public at large. Its major sponsors:

Wolfowitz
Cheney
Rumsfeld
Feith
Woolsey
Clarridge
Downing
Carlucci
Armitage
Newt Gingrich
Senator Joseph Lieberman
Senator John McCain

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Chin110702/chin110702.html

And let's not forget Daniel McKivergan, McCain's legislative director & now Deputy Director of Project for the New American Century.

[Forkboy]

85. This post proves one of mine

[progressivebydesign]

54. I'd vote for Kerry if he chose Lassie, Rudy Giuliani, or Babs Bush..

ANYTHING but Bush!!!!

[robbedvoter]

55. Didn't pick Mccain.

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

58. It's a no brainer

Kerry/McCain against Shrub/dickie, you bet!

[Walt Starr]

61. He could pick Hannibal Lector

and I'd still vote for him.

[cms424]

64. That would actually make me like him a little more

I'd like that ticket more than Kerry-Lieberman or a few others, to be honest

[guitar man]

65. If that happens

I'm fucking packing up and leaving the US and not coming back. I respect McCain, but his political alignment is not suitable to make him a running mate for a Democratic presidential candidate. If Kerry wants a vet for a running mate,he couldn't do any better than Wes Clark, where he would be picking a good Democrat to run with.

IF McCain were to leave the Repuke party and go Dem, and convince me he REALLY meant it, I might be able to stay and vote then. If he stays "R", fuck it.

[Rosco T.]

73. I know it's impossible .....

to make a 'theoretical' point on this subject, or even to attempt to say anything even remotely positive on this without being shouted down or accused of being a 'freeper plant'...

.. but *IF* this happened... and remember the word is *IF*.
.. or *IF* Kerry came out of left field with some other choice that didn't appease every little thing you want..

Here's the (theoretical) ballot -

1) Bush/Cheney

2) Kerry/Whoever-you-dont-approve-of

start screaming all you want, but *IF* that happened.. then here's the real ballot -

1) Four more years of lies, criminal acts, wars, loss of freedoms

2) A DAMN GOOD CHANCE TO TAKE BACK THE COUNTRY.

say all you want about voting for Nader, writing in Attila the Hun, not voting, etc.. etc.. etc...

if you don't go for 2), you're voting for 1)

what part of that can people not understand?

NO MATTER WHO KERRY CHOOSES, do you have so little faith that he AND THE FULL PARTY LEADERSHIP would not have thought it thru?

This isn't about McCain.

This is about "do you have any faith in your party"?

Think about that...

Now, I'm sure I'll be denigrated, insulted and reamed out... but last time I looked, part of the DEMOCRATIC mindset was listening to other peoples ideas and thoughts.. not RIPPING THEM TO PIECES if they dared to disagree with you.

or did I miss something???

[osaMABUSh]

74. Gladly - that would really shake things up

might get the US out of this polarized state.

[Piperay]

77. YES, if satan

were his running mate I would still vote for him.

[bigbillhaywood]

78. FUCK NO. I'm barely voting for him now. nt

[Katarina]

79. No

no no no...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

80. No, I would not vote for that ticket....

I would simply sit out the election.

I compromise my Democratic Party ideals too much already without completely throwing them to the wayside by voting for a ticket with a hawkish, right-leaning Republican on it designed to pull in fencesitters and GOP-leaners.

I'm sorry, but I have to draw the line somewhere.

[KoKo]

81. Disgusting! Throw out all our principles if that's what you all want,

then. :puke:

[livinginphotographs]

82. Yes

but that doesn't mean I'd like it one bit. There's so many more qualified Democrats, why the hell does he need to pick a Republican who'll probably vote Bush even if he is on Kerry's ticket?

[AudreyT]

83. McCain called Israel and Turkey democracies

sorry, thats a slight to far

[Lydia Leftcoast]

84. Very, very reluctantly, and THEN

I would register Green the next day, because I would KNOW that the Democrats had lost ALL their integrity.

[President Jesus]

86. to the people who chose "no," you're either...

completely full of shit, or should be run out of town on a rail. (If you live in a slam-dunk state for Kerry, I'll give you a pass.)

Are you honestly going to sit there and tell us you would rather go through 4 more years of Bush and Darth Cheney out of spite for Kerry's veep choice? That is nothing short of inane.

[KG]

87. in-fucking-credible.

:eyes:

some of the lamest stuff i've ever read on DU.

[Forkboy]

90. You dont really mean that do you?

Has Carlos left your memory so quickly? :D

[Cascadian]

88. It won't happen.

I cannot believe people would take seriously what McCain was told on Meet The Press. That was a joke I believe.

I honestly think it is going to be between Wesley Clark and John Edwards.


John

[Vladimir]

89. The only option would be to boycott the election

A Kerry/McCain ticket, as I've heard it touted, would run on a cross-party 'national unity government' ticket. In these circumstances, Kerry would in my opinion cease to be a Democratic Party candidate. With the last vestige of choice removed, it would IMO make no sense whatsoever to vote in the election at all. Of course, this won't happen, or at least I hope it won't. But the fact that it is being touted around is interesting because it reveals (for me at least) exactly how desperate the Republicans are to move Kerry towards Bush on the issues. I doubt the Republican party would shed many tears over a Kerry/McCain ticket winning.

[library_max]

98. "Boycott the election"????

Damn, I'll bet Rove is laughing his ass off. That'd be the Republicans' wet dream, to get the left to boycott the election.

Can't nobody play this game?

[Vladimir]

109. Actually its not as stupid as it may sound

A widescale boycott, as opposed to voting third-party is one of the more frequently used forms of delegitimising elections worldwide. For it to be effective, of course, you need it backed up by protests and more direct action.

[library_max]

110. Deligitimizing elections. Sigh.

After Florida 2000, you want to deligitimize a U.S. Presidential election. How exactly could 2004 be made any less legitimate than 2000? And what exactly was the benefit that anyone derived from the delegitimacy of the 2000 election?

Less than half of the eligible voters vote in Presidential elections now. Because Bush has done such a good job of polarizing the electorate (that old "uniter") and such a godawful job of everything else, turnout is likely to be higher-than-usual in 2004. So what impact do you expect a boycott by the left to have? Other, of course, than helping George W. Bush actually achieve a legitimate win.

[Vladimir]

111. I don't think turnout will be much higher

than usual, although I may well be wrong on that. What I do know is that witha Kerry/McCain ticket you have 3 options:

1) Vote Kerry
2) Vote Nader
3) Don't vote

I don't think 1 is a viable option for a multitude of reasons, but primarily because it places the blame with one person (Bush) and explicitly absolves the wider Republican party from guilt. 2 or 3 both hand a win to Bush, but send out different messages. A vote for 2 is a vote for continued participation in an electoral system that is clearly devoid of any democratic nature. On the other hand, not voting (by a substantial number of people, obviously there is no point in 3% of the population boycotting. The aim is to drive turnout toward the 25-30% mark) indicates that the system itself wants changing. As I said before, this would need backing up through demonstrations, civil disobedience and suchlike if it were to be successful. If Kerry runs with McCain I think you can kiss what little of the democratic charade is being clung to goodbye. That is when it no longer makes sense to campaign within the framework of 'multi party' democracy. The point of a boycott is to delegitimise the government to the point where it can no longer effectively run the country, and in that sense the 2000 election produced an all-too-legitimate result.

PS Obviously, none of this will happen. Kerry is not that stupid. I hope.

[library_max]

112. You're not answering my question - what good will it do?

"The point of a boycott is to delegitimise the government to the point where it can no longer effectively run the country"

There is no such point. This is a figment of your imagination. Is the Bush administration not running the country now? Is the fact that they lost the popular vote, stole the Florida electoral vote, and more than half of the eligible voters didn't vote, impeding them in any way whatsoever?

In our system, you only get to pick off the menu. It's Bush or Kerry - choose, or let someone else choose for you. Those are your only real options.

[galadrium]

91. A democrat and a moderate repub is better than 2 right wing extremists

[FlashHarry]

92. 87 votes for Bush.

Don't worry. This ain't gonna happen, anyway.

[Q]

93. Don't you tire of implying...

...that DUers are 'voting for Bush*' if they refuse to vote for a Republican VP? At least there are SOME Democrats left that refuse to SELL OUT to the other side.

- Frankly, I expected...since everyone knew this was hypothetical...that most DUers would vote AGAINST Kerry choosing Mr. 'Iraq will be a cakewalk' McCain for VP. What this shows (at least to me) is that the Party is moving backwards because too many are willing to trade hard-won battles for the people for a few silver coins.

[library_max]

97. Ah, but the question wasn't "Do you want Kerry to choose McCain?"

The question was, would you vote for him if he did? As the only alternative to Kerry in the White House is Bush in the White House, refusing to vote for Kerry is tantamount to supporting Bush.

[ibegurpard]

100. you support Bush

McCain supports Bush and if you vote for him then you do too.
(To turn that increasingly irritating and useless argument right back at you).

[library_max]

102. Try to get it straight.

It really isn't complicated.

George W. Bush is running for President.

John F. Kerry is running for President.

One of them is going to win. The other one is going to lose.

Anything that helps Bush win hurts Kerry. Anything that helps Kerry win hurts Bush. And vice-versa. It's a zero-sum game.

McCain has got nothing to do with it one way or the other. He is NOT running for President.

Anyone who refuses to vote for Bush is helping Kerry, especially if that person is a conservative. Anyone who refuses to vote for Kerry is helping Bush, especially if that person is a liberal or leftist.

Refusing to vote for Kerry because of his VP pick or because of some other litmus test would be helping Bush get into the White House.

Do you get it now? It's not a cheap attack. It's a simple statement of fact.

[LWolf]

94. I have big problems with that ticket.

If you put a republican, any republican, on the ticket as VP, what an invitiation to the PNACers to take President Kerry out and leave us with a legitimate republican president...that we voted for...for the next 4 years.

If a repub vp from a dem administration takes office, what party does he run for reelection for?:tinfoilhat:

[truthspeaker]

105. If Kerry were that stupid I would leave the country in disgust.

[Toucano]

106. You'll find me a home if that day comes. n/t

[elperromagico]

107. With extraordinary reluctance, yes.

And I would be extremely concerned about Kerry's safety.

[0007]

108. I can't believe anyone who wouldn't vote for Kerry in this situation