Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

the "he's not as bad as Bush" argument

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:42 PM
Original message
the "he's not as bad as Bush" argument
Just got home from school and was greeted by a preemptive "challenge" to anyone who might even be considering voting third party in 2004, the overall theme of which seems to be "they're not as bad as Bush".

I'll happily admit that. Not a single one of the Democratic contenders for the nomination would be as bad as Bush in the White House.

Then again, I suspect that Bob fucking Barr would be better, in at least some respects, than Bush.

This is not to say that any of the candidates is a Republican. Even given my questions about Clark and my distaste for Lieberman, I don't think any of them is a Republican. Still, where do you draw the line? Is "better than Bush" good enough? If it is, then why not go ahead and follow Eric Alterman's post-9/11 advice that the Dems nominate Rudy Giuliani? He'd probably be better than Bush!

I'd say not. Setting the bar that low perpetuates a lot of problems, even if it stops them from getting even worse. I have to believe that we can do better than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
clar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. All we're discussing
is the current crop. Not Barr. Not Guiliani. And the fact remains that if you can't see the difference between our 9 candidates and bushco, you've got your eyes wide shut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. you're missing my point
I do see differences between all of the candidates and Bush. Please show me where I said otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Good post!
I believe that each of us thinks that our candidate (or several candidates) ARE 'much better than that', which is why we support them as passionately as we do. :) :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. We don't have to settle.
Several of the Nine would be good candidates and good Presidents. There is no reason for us to settle for a substandard candidate, and I am hopeful we will not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
5. A Democrat has to be at least twice as good as Bush to win.
Look at Gore. He was probably 175% the candidate Bush was, yet Bush is still president.

Dems can't run a candidate who's just a little better than Bush. The candidate's going to have to be phenomenal just to get over the hurdle of the money and media disadvantage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. the definition of "phenomenal" is where we hit turbulence.
A phenomenal campaigner? speaker? money-raiser? populist?

I had governance more in mind than electability, actually, but you make a good point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOPBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. Good point, but
I've never said that "better than Bush" is good enough. I mean, Bush's father would be better than the current Resident. However, I do believe that any of one of our candidates is a good candidate -- not just better than Bush, but at least a pretty good one. And I think most of our candidates -- Clark, Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Braun, Kucinich, and Edwards -- are excellent! So, I'm not voting for a "lesser of two evils." I'm voting for a candidate I truly believe in.

Having said that, I don't think that ANY candidate is ever 100% perfect. I think there's only one person in the nation who agrees with me 100% of the time: Me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. thing is that "better than Bush"
(from here on out "btB") is the rationale behind "ABB", or "anyone but Bush". I'm not here to rag on any particular candidate - we disagree on a couple of the candidates you name as "excellent", but whatever - but I want to talk about the mindset that would seem to accept any candidate not named George W. Bush. Candidate "perfection" is very much beside the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zero Gravitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
7. Given how bad Bush is
and what a firckin nightmare this Administration has been, then I would say that yes, and reasonably sane, competent individula would be better than bush. Even a moderate Republican. So to vote 3rd party and essentialy vote for four more years of Bush* would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zonmoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
52. cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Even if you know that your state is going to go a certain direction without your help. As for anybody being better than bush would the devil himself be better than bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
53. sorry
I don't vote for Republicans. Even moderate Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
9. Actually, Barr WOULD be better than the Shrub in one way...
Barr has been doing a lot of anti-Patriot Act activism lately. There's a lot of libertarian-leaning Repubs who are as against the act as any freedom-loving Dem. But I agree wholeheartedly with your point. We shouldn't have to settle for "just a little bit better" than the Shrub.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastliberalintexas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
10. Thank you Uly
I am a Democrat who believes very deeply in supporting the party. What some people don't seem to realize is that I (and many others) firmly believe that this ABB theory is not truly supporting the party. It is simply being anti-Shrub (an maybe pro-DLC?). There are worse things than Shrub, as evidenced by what is happening in Texas right now. Simply getting rid of him is not enough.

If our candidate is simply a nicer/kinder/smarter face of the status quo, then we will accomplish nothing!


Besides, as I have repeatedly reminded people on this site, MY VOTE DOES NOT COUNT IN NOV ANYWAY. I live in Texas, people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. ABB is about the differences between the two partys and wether
or not you recognize them. I do, therefore I shall vote BUSH OUT in 2004. It's not about voting for a Republican to replace Bush. It's about voting for someone who has to adhere to the basic principals of the Democratic party.

Let me remind you all of one very chilling fact. There are SIX supreme court justices who will likely retire in the next 4 years. Who do you want appointing them?

Hey last liberal: Molly Ivins says "vote your heart in the primary, and your head in the general election." I tend to agree with her ;)

Gotta love them liberal Texans! Molly, Ann Richards, Jim Hightower...etc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastliberalintexas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. I could write in my cat's name in Nov
and it wouldn't matter one whit. I LIVE IN TEXAS! My vote won't count anyway, except in some irrelevant bragging contest over who won the irrelevant popular vote.


You are right that this is about the difference between the 2 parties. I want there to continue to be a difference, and that is why I won't give a loyalty oath to a kinder face of the PNAC/military industrial complex agenda. I don't want my party to disintegrate even further into an "opposition" party that can't even elect officials or show a spine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #29
39. Well if you leave the party, it surely will...
:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zero Gravitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #29
51. popular vote is not irrelevant
sure only the Electoral votes "count" but I for one beleive that the only legitmate leadership comes from a democratic vote. Bush is not legitmate not only because of the stealing of the elction, but alos because he got half a million votes fewer than "the other guy". The Electoral College is just plain wrong, it throws my vote away too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
31. heh
Jim Hightower...etc

Who did Hightower support in 2000?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #31
40. Yea, but Granny D and Michael Moore realize the catastropic results..
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 05:22 PM by gully
of the Bush administration. To bad Nader didn't realize it in 2000.

I can only hope Jim Hightower will have an awakeing as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Hightower has been busting his ass
on the Rolling Thunder tours, trying to change the dynamic instead of just accepting it. *That's* your awakening right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
55. And I guess now the possibility
exists where we won't even get to vote for which of the nine we want, is that correct? No vote in choosing the Dem. Nominee and our vote won't count in Nov. What's the point in voting at all in '04 in this state?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
11. Answer me this question about the Green Party
It seems to me that the Greens require some sort of ideological purity. What exactly are these positions that the Green Party represents? In what State or localities are these Greens working for these positions. Are there any voting records for the Green Party officials?

When you can provide me with some sort of clear platform, that I can accept or reject based on the issues, and then provide me with some sort of real apparatus for governing an actual government, I would consider thinking about anything other than a Democrat. I want to vote for people who will actually be RUNNING our government. And yes, if I have to I will accept a marginal good over a terrible evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. who said boo about the Greens?
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 04:07 PM by ulysses
For your edification, their platform is here, but I'm talking about the Democrats.

Ok, don't know why the link isn't working...

http://www.gp.org/platform/2000/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. No you're talking the Greens, and anyone who knows you knows that
You're a longtime Green person. You're here talking about accepting something bad, as if there is a real alternative to your presumed bias against the Dems.

What is that real alternative? I asked some pretty clear points. I asked you to compare the Green Party platform vs. the Dem platform. Explain why the Green Party is better. Then explain what elected Greens have done to improve their localities.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Well, I know uly, and I know he's not a Green!
Who appointed you commissar anyway, sgr2?

BTW -- your last post pretty much rendered your contributions to this thread irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. well, no.
I know how deeply it annoys you, but I've never been anything but a Democrat. Sorry.

And I posted the Green platform for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Because to some here, if you question the Dems, you're for the Greens
It appears that sgr2 falls into that category.

The thing that kills me about people with that kind of outlook is that THEY have the audacity to accuse OTHERS of demanding "ideological purity". :wtf:

It makes me want to run to the window and see if the sky has turned yellow and the sun blue, because I'm thinking I've landed in Bizarro World!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Actually, I don't think I'm doing any kind of witch-hunt
I'm simply asking someone to defend there positions. You're the one freaking out, posting cute little wtf's, and offering nothing of substance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. ok, then how about
if you actually address my positions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. Maybe your little group of friends can attack uly
for not being dem enough :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. oh hell
This isn't even big league yet, Forkie. :) I'm waiting for the pms informing me that I'm not, in fact, a Democrat and never have been...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. hey...I get those too
from the thinking challenged :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. it's been a while for me
Is the MDP slipping in its vigilance? :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
12.  It all a matter of personal political choice....
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 04:03 PM by Rowdyboy
I respect your right to support any of our candidates and I don't speak ill of any of them (except occasionally Lieberman). I've followed the Democratic party since 1970 and I don't feel I've ever supported a candidate who was less than the best. Better than Bush isn't a question I ask. They're obviously all better than Bush. I look for a superior candidate who people can relate to. I've found mine and I'm sure you'll settle on yours. You have a lot of good choices so it won't be easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
13. This is a straw man argument
Even the most moderate Democrat in the field would be a HUGE improvement over Bush.

Don't believe me? Well, here's a short list of differences:

-- judicial nominees that are actually willing to respect what's left of the Warren and Burger court precedents
-- an attorney general that actually believes in civil rights
-- an EPA director that actually believes in protecting the environment
-- a Secretary of Labor that actually believes in unions
-- a budget director that actually believes in balancing the budget
-- a Secretary of Education that actually believes in public schools.

In addition, the bargaining position of Democrats in the Congress would be vastley improved because a Democratic president could be counted on to veto any right-wing legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. edit - shouldn't single one person out.
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 04:12 PM by Selwynn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. is it?
Let's go, then. Take just one example.

a Secretary of Education that actually believes in public schools.


Tell me how a candidate who supports voucher programs would nominate a Sec/Education "that actually believes in public schools".

Would someone who gets my support simply on the basis of being btB *necessarily* support the things you talk about here? I'd say not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Don't confuse the discussion with facts -- stick to vague generalities
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. there be devils in them details
:D

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. there is one, count him one, candidate
who has talked about supporting vouchers. But the teachers unions, who send 1 in 4 our the delegates to the convention, would not permit a secretary of education who believed in vouchers to be nominated by a Democratic President. Also that one candidate, has said time and time again that he only supports vouchers usning funds which wouldn't otherwise go to education .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. two, actually, unless
Clark's limited support has been disproved. It may have been.

I still can't say that a candidate who supports even limited vouchers would necessarily nominate a Secretary of Education who believes in public schools, and even you are missing my point. The point is the mindset, not the candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOPBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. Now you're just getting crazy.
What does the EPA have to do with protecting the environment?

What does the Secretary of Labor have to do with labor unions?

What does a budget directer have to do with balencing the budget?

What does a Secretary of Education have to do with public schools?

And come one, do we REALLY need an attorney general who cares about our civil rights?

I think you're just WAYYYY to picky there, dolstein. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
16. By all means, support your "best" choice... until
... the nomination is made, and your best choice isn't nominated. My objecction is to those who would rather contribute to a Bush victory than support a Democratic nominee that they didn't support in the primaries. I think that's pretty sad.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
30. I will support
(at least at this point) nearly every candidate should they wind up as the nominee. I do, however, have the stones to draw a line where a candidate loses my support, even in the general.

I still fail to see how this makes me remarkably different from the centrists that the party has courted for so long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #30
44. Because all leftists owe their vote to the Democratic party
or so it is believed in these parts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. careful, now.
Talk like that will get you accused to secretly supporting Bush.

:silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOPBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #30
50. That's very true.
"I still fail to see how this makes me remarkably different from the centrists that the party has courted for so long."

I agree. We need centrists AND leftists to win in 2004. If we lose too much of either one, we'll lose the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. a question, then.
I agree. We need centrists AND leftists to win in 2004. If we lose too much of either one, we'll lose the election.

Why don't centrists face the same level of vitriol that the left does?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evil_Dewers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
36. Plug for the Greens
Ralph Nader is not as bad as Bush...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. he's not, as far as it goes.
Join the growing line of those who've missed the point here.

As a side note: if I *did* want to spend all day on DU pushing/advocating for the Greens, I could do worse than bringing up valid concerns I have with the Democrats and letting y'all do my "dirty work". You're the ones who want to talk about Nader and the GP, not me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. lmao
your obsession is almost a thing of beauty...or tragic comedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
38. the BEST we can do is to elect the Democratic nominee
there is no other option. It's either Bush or the Dem nominee.

we should work to make the Dem nominee as liberal as possible, but once the nomination is made, we have but one choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. where's your line?
If "we have but one choice" is your line, fine. Knock yourself out. I'll accept a great deal, and compromise a great deal, but I refuse to accept that I have but one choice. That's me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #38
49. The ABB mindset
is not electing the BEST. IMHO, it is lazy thinking. In these dire times, we should be thinking how BEST we can effect change in our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laszlo_Hollyfeld Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
48. I don't like the idea of relying only on 'better than Bush' as
a philosophy. I don't like it because it harkens up images of my mom spouting homespun wisdom in the body of the phrase "out of the frying pan, into the fire." Unfortunately, I have the same general response to Anyone But Bush.

I haven't decided who I'll support for the presidency yet, but I'm certain that whoever I choose to support, it'll be a well researched, well thought out, well reasoned choice which I believe will help to bring about the downfall of the crudheads currently in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
56. You are missing the point
For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
57. You are missing the point
For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
58. You are missing the point
For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
59. You are missing the point
For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-07-03 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
60. You are missing the point
For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 27th 2014, 06:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC