Anybody But Bush and Clinton's disgusting visit

[lancemurdoch]

I am beginning to get disgusted with a lot of what I see here. People say, "Would I vote for Lieberman? Sure, anybody but Bush!"

Even more disgusting was the San Francisco mayor's campaign. The Republicans don't even run in San Francisco since they know they can't win, so they back the Democrat. The Democrat was a millionaire who ran on a campaign to fix the homeless problem in San Francisco - the fix being to have the police throw them out of the city. The city's business community was behind him, and funded him 10-to-1 against his challenger, and Republicans polled leaving the polls overwhelmingly voted for the Democrat. A grassroots, progressive campaign for the Green party is underway, and it looks like the Green might actually win. All of a sudden the national Democratic party goes into overdrive. A disaster might happen - a progressive person running a grassroots campaign might win an election! All the big guns were pulled out, capped off by a visit by Bill Clinton. Wow, it would be great if that starts happening to win Democratic campaigns against Republicans. Despite all of this, Gonzalez, the Green, got 47.4% of the vote.

I have no loyalty to the Democratic party as such. I have no comprehension of what happened in San Francisco - what are they saying, that the Democratic values are embracing big business, and that Gonzalez's ideas about empowering people, and running a grassroots campaign instead of just getting money from big business and running commercials are bad?

The usual reply is "well, they're a Democrat, aren't they running to win?" This shows that a lot of DLC "new" Democrats have no idea about what I'm talking about. This is also why they may lose as once again, enough people in Florida or wherever choose to vote Green whereas it could have swung to the Republicans if they voted Democratic. And "anybody but Bush" doesn't sell ME, and it doesn't sell NASCAR dad swing voters either, so why do people keep repeating that refrain? Looking at what happened in San Francisco, to me the Democrats are the Republicans. I expect this thread to be locked shortly because I spoke the truth. And because a straight, honest answer to what happened in San Francisco is not possible, so the only answer is "Anybody But Bush" "The only thing that matters is the Democratic party wins, no matter what they stand for, and that Republicans, Greens or whoever lose" or more likely the discussion has to be quashed and the thread will just be locked because it is too true.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. It is a shame and a frustration

As one who has worked with the party for so many years, I can agree with you to a point.
But I also look at the recall of Davis who was ACCUSED of being a Republican and believe me I DID have my share of issues with him..but look at us now.

On the state level, we had a Dem that virtually EVERYONE complained about, however, he brought more gay people and minorities to the table than any of the two admins before him. He put the brakes on developers. He made sure that there were healthcare funds available for the poor. He made REQUESTS at the fed level for emergencies he foresaw..which fell on deaf ears...and he got booted out on his ass for not being left enough and not being right enough.

Meanwhile, the Greens really did NO better in the recall than in the general election in spite of their candidate attending the debates and we are left with a governor who is manipulative at best and incompetent at worst.

[Cleita]

6. Tell the truth. We have no governor,

only a marionette sitting in the governor's office, whose strings are already being pulled in opposite directions. The strongest puller will get the spoils. Our "governor" has already shown that he can't consolidate any real power in his hands because all those muscles can't conceal the mental weakling who owns them.

[Andromeda]

12. I'm with you nsma...

California will be under a dictatorship for the next thirty days because Arnie has declared a fiscal emergency in order to go over the heads of the legislature. This gives him all the power to cut whatever he wants to. I think he's limited to 5%, however, and he can only do it once. Is that legal?

Some necessary services will not funded because of the Gropinator's veto of the car license tax. It needs to be made up somewhere and needed programs are going to take the hit.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. It's legal because it was part of the budget agreement reached with

and signed by Davis last July.

Davis however, handled the shortfalls with a PROGRESSIVE tax which is what the vehicle licensing fee is...it requires a higher fee for a more expensive vehicle.

Anyone who has driven on a California highway knows..if we can afford all these fucking Mercedes, BMWs and high ticket cars, then certainly we can afford a temporary (which it WAS) tax increase to fund all the emergency services that will save one's friggin ass when they change lanes in their friggin SUV without friggen looking.

Arnold just gave away benefits for the poor to Mercedes drivers. When will the Kennedy's speak out about their OWN robbing the poor to give to the rich?

[corporatewhore]

2. Republicrat is what i call clinton

Any way i vote for a persons beliefs and policies not their party
hell if there was a republican running on a platform that included getting out of nafta/wto (not so unlikely some cons dont like it either) and offered REAL solutions for peace and social justice id vote for them

[Syrinx]

3. there is a HUGE difference between Republicans and Democrats

Why naderites can't see this, I can't fathom. The Greens should concentrate on building a record of winning local elections. The winner of the presidential election next will be either a Democrat or a Republican, of that there can be little doubt. Our foremost concern should be to see that the evil empire does not hold onto power any longer than necessary. Anyone but Bush!

[economic justice]

17. Amen, amen and AMEN! <eom>

[AndyTiedye]

18. That Is What They Were Trying to Do in San Francisco

[La_Serpiente]

4. Nah, it won't be locked

We have a lot of Greens on here. Also a lot of people who aren't ABB, but I don't hold it against them.

Yeah, I wanted Gonzalez to win. I am not from San Fran, but I wanted to send a message to the Democratic party and the DLC that they either shape up or they will lose the liberal wing of the Democratic party. It's about time they go back to their core values instead of drifting away into polling and winning. At least use the values as a foundation for the party.

I have no doubt in my mind that Gonzalez will get another chance at higher office. Hopefully, he will beat Newsom in the next campaign.

Just look forward to the next campaign :-)

[toddzilla]

5. Excellent post.

It goes a long way in explaining my distaste for the deification of "big dog" who was just as much a corporate whore as many republicans.

Here's the rub, however. Bush is NOT a republican. He's a fascist, plain and simple. Many, many republicans are disgusted with his bait and switch tactics that he practiced after the election, and his massively irresponsible financial policies. So the real answer, as far as i'm concerned, is "anyone but bush" for now, and we'll work on getting some more progressive values once he's out of office. Far too little emphasis is placed on the fact that we also elect an administration in addition to the president. While the front runners offer little to no actual progressive policies, they are a far cry from the cash and carry attitude of the current squatter. I've recently decided to "support" clark, despite my thoughts that he's a possible trojan horse, simply to get asshole out of the white house. Kucinich is the only real choice, but with full fox mind control in swing, a true progressive has literally NO CHANCE whatsoever.


reality sucks, but you have to work with it.

[Sugarbleus]

7. I've said it before...

I'll say it again: WE NEED MORE THAN ONE PARTY in America!

I am registered Dem but only because there isn't a VIABLE third or fourth party in existence yet. It's sad. I'm in my 50's; I would have thought we'd be a lot further down the road to a fresh new society by now. I agree that most Dems are barely any different from Rep.s Those that may have some REAL ideas for a new society are being shut down or afraid or whatever. I remember when I first realized that Dems were not what I THOUGHT they were supposed to be about: it was when Clinton was in office. I don't hate him, he's smart...but he is an intellectual elite and not very interested in the underclass. I was absolutely APPALLED when he gutted the Welfare programs. The programs could have used some fine tuning and ADDED HELP but NOT gutting! Then, his platform on healthcare went out the window with a wimper!! That issue was why I voted for the big jerk. I was pissed. Then I look around me and see that it is Dems who are taking away MANY of my civil liberties just like the Rep.s do in their way. It's outrageous! I would definately NOT vote for any of these current candidates if there were a social democrat or Labour party candidate running. Alas, Bush has GOT TO GO as he is absolutly dangerous and will probably get us all killed one way or the other. So I'm voting dem. If Dems get in,then we should hound and hound them to recieve a new society; all the while supporting third and fourth parties. They need a base; some power to contend. Perhaps there will be a chance in the future for a sane and compassionate society--if not for me, then for my grandchildren.
Peace

[xxqqqzme]

15. I have actually

started 2 regard MoveOn as a 3rd party. They can get information out, motivate people, and the trial internet vote was an eye opener.

but 4 3rd or 4th parties 2 have have muscle, we need a representative system closer 2 parliament. The congress would have to function as a coalition instead of roach man's personal fiefdom.

[onecitizen]

22. I agree with you......

and would add we need term limits for Congress. I'm ready to throw them all out today.

[Bandit]

27. I agree with all you say

My idea would be for no one to be allowed to contribute more than a thousand dollars for politics period and corporations not allowed at all. Only people who can now or in the future cast a vote should be allowed to contribute. The thousand dollars should be for everything. Representatives and Senators and Mayors and Governors and Legislators. All combined not each. One thousand dollars Only That way a person would have to decide which was most important to them. Governopr or President or Mayor or Senator or ????. Money in Politics is the ruination of America. It is what gives the Corporations their power. It is why we have become a fascist society. True Campaign Finance Reform or else both parties are one and the same. As long as Special Interests have such influence there is no hope.

[G_j]

28. why on earth

SHOULD corporations be allowed to contribute? All the arguements for this are absurd and convoluted and completely ignore or are just plain clueless as to what the democratic process is about. Yes, Zero contributions from corporations. Let the people have their country back!

[Bandit]

30. If you read what I said you would know I agree 100%

Only people who can now or in the future vote should be allowed to contribute. Not Corporations at all. If you can cast a ballot you should be allowed to contribute. Even if you won't be able to cast your vote for many years you should still have some voice.

[G_j]

31. I was agreeing with you

asking the question along with with you.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. :-)

[JailBush]

8. I mostly agree.

Anyone who says there's a big difference between Republicans and Democrats should visit Seattle. Between King County Democrats and the Green Party of Seattle, who needs Repugs?

Still, I'll have to vote for just about anyone but Bush. We've simply painted ourselves into a corner, and there's no other choice.

But the solution to your predicament is to simply widen your horizons. The presidential campaign isn't the only game in town, and terrorism isn't the only issue. If you aren't riding herd on your local city council and school board, you aren't contributing much, if anything.

And even the Democrats and Greens won't make education an issue. Rather, they'll make it an issue, but no one is really interested in fixing anything. Kucinich could be an exception; I'll have to check out his eduation statement again.

[Tinoire]

9. That entire thing made me totally ill and extremely angry at the DLC

Clinton came out to stump for his DLC bud.

I am neither going to turn my back on the Democratic Party nor spit at the Greens. I lay the blame squarely where it belongs- at the feet of the AEI-co-habitiating DLC.

The Bay Area is my home and I do not take lightly to either Clinton, Gore or Jesse Jackson Jr coming over here to stump for Bechtel (Newsom's most generous donors) after they've been eying our water for so long.

I am at war with the DLC. Gloves off. This is not the first time they've done this. I also see the DLC as having had a lot to do with Davis' down-fall. When Davis was fighting Enron tooth and nail, not one, not one of them came to help or defend him. People like Lieberman were too busy counting their Enron donations to lift a finger and Clinton, my God, never before in my life have I been so disappointed with a politician I used to so admire (but that has to do with a lot more than California, it has to do with finding out how much of a corporate let's just call it enabler he turned out to be.

Bustamante and Newsom... go to www.NDOL.org and research them. Both pegged as part of the DLC's Top 100 to Watch. Both Golden Boys. Both total disasters.

Aside from their corporate & AEI "enabling", the DLC can barely win any elections. Never again. And never ever again falling for the conservative lip-service paid to the Greens, condescendingly patting them on the head and telling them to focus on local elections 'until' they can build up.

Fool me once... Nope. This is now war with the DLC. I've seen what kind of horses are coming out of their barn. Urgh. I'll only take Democratic thoroughbreds from now on.

Nice thread so far... I mean good posts- all of them so far... Thanks everyone for wanting a better way- regardless of which candidates we're each supporting. It's been great... This is the first thread in a long time where I've felt the old progressive spirit. Wow, thanks! :hi:

[G_j]

26. it's a reality

from what happened in SF, how can anyone honestly deny that the DLC is hostile to the grass roots? When money & politics always eclipse progressive values and the real lives of ordinary people, in the end what does the Democratic stand for? nothing? The DLC attempts to undermine at every turn anyone who wants the Democratic party to actually be the party of the people.

and what is the difference between what Clinton and Lieberman have been saying these days? :shrug:

[LiberalBushFan]

10. I don't know whether his loss is good or bad

It depends. Is Gonzales planning to endorse the Green nominee for president or the Democratic nominee?

[La_Serpiente]

11. He already endorsed Kucinich.

n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. The Democratic party needs a platform that supports the Greens

It's as simple as that. Democratics cannot complain about Nader taking votes away if they will not move their platform to include more Greens. If the Democratic party had a platform that was identical to the Republican platform, a lot of Democratics would not vote for the Democratic candidate and would look for a party and someone who more closely supports their wishes.

All the Green voters who voted for Nader were sending a message to the Democratic party. I hope it will be heard and acted upon this time around, because I don't think it was in the 2002 elections.

"Terminate Governor Gangbang" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[library_max]

19. Ah, the old "murder or suicide" choice.

Either run left in the general election and kill yourselves (as in McGovern, Mondale), or we'll do everything we can to kill you. Great choice you're giving us.

The right has the sense to vote Republican. Why doesn't the left have the sense to vote Democrat?

[Dhalgren]

32. Because the Republicans ARE right-wing!

But the Democrats are not left-wing. Our "two party system" is right/center and right - that's it, take your pick. The Democratic party has a decision to make (and I think it has already made it)to either go for the center/right in the upcoming election, or go for the left. The party needs to decide which direction would be more advantageous vote-wise. The Democratic party always tells the left "hey, you got nowhere else to go." Why doesn't it tell the center/right the same thing? Because the center/right doesn't mind supporting Bush. The Dems have determined that in order to get these Bush fellow-travellers on the center/right to opt for a Democrat the party must be all but republican in nature. So the Dems have determined that it is better to woo voters who agree with Bush than to retain those who oppose Bush - simple as that.

[Enjolras]

16. Gore moved left and GAINED votes in 20000

Al Gore, before he formally dropped out of the 2004 race, correctly pointed out himself that he closed the gap on Bush in the 2000 race only after he tacked left, presumably to head off Nader, at the Dem. nominating convention. (Even Lieberman was out campaigning sounding like a liberal, which was probably very difficult for him) Had he not, how many votes would Nader, who ended up with just 3% of the popular vote, have siphoned from him? Remember also that the Dems picked up Senate seats in that election too.

The 2002 mid-terms saw the Democrats desperately trying to hug the middle of the road, again fearing the dreaded "liberal" label. It lost seats. Does anyone see a lesson in this?

And the DLC still tries to convince us that centrism is the only path to victory. Puh-leeeeeeze!!

[library_max]

21. The 2002 midterms were all about 9/11.

In times of panic and paranoia, people turn to the Republicans. That was the whole lesson of the 2002 midterms.

[hatrack]

25. The same was true in 1988

Dukakis was closing the gap (though by not nearly enough) towards the end of the campaign. How? Simple - by emphasizing a populist economic message and by talking (Ooh! Bad candidate!) class warfare.

This was the only time the Bush I campaign got nervous, though in the end it didn't matter. However, the fact that Bush won 40 states masks the thinness of his win. In the book "God Is A Conservative" (sort of a history of the religious Right in modern politics), the author points out that relatively small shifts of votes in key districts would have been enough to make the race a lot closer.

[library_max]

20. I agree with you about San Francisco.

But the presidential election is another matter altogether. The point of "Anybody But Bush" is to get the supporters of the various candidates to stop eviscerating each other and particularly to stop saying "My candidate wins or I go Green! (or stay home, same thing)."

[sandnsea]

23. Why is this not locked?

Clinton's "disgusting" visit is an acceptable DU thread?? Other's have been locked for alot less.

[G_j]

24. Still, a great post IMO

I guess it's border line according to the new rules, but certainly it addressing something that is a very real problem, not only for SF but for all who hold progressive values.

[Iverson]

29. you've figured it out

"A grassroots, progressive campaign for the Green party is underway, and it looks like the Green might actually win. All of a sudden the national Democratic party goes into overdrive. A disaster might happen - a progressive person running a grassroots campaign might win an election!"

Now, remember that Greens are supposed to vote for the Democratic nominee, no questions asked.

And now recall how many times the same big guns campaigned against a Republican for mayor.

[John_H]

33. Couldn't you have saved a lot of time by just saying...

"WAAA! WAAAAAA! WAAAAAAA! The Green lost!"?

[Iverson]

34. Well, that added a lot.

3% registered Greens in SF; 47% of the vote. Republicans (15%) supported your boy.

When you're all done sneering, figure it out.

[Skinner]

35. I'm locking this thread.

It's flame bait.

There is nothing "disgusting" about a Democrat campaigning for another Democrat. That's how political parties are supposed to work.