Anybody here not believe in ABB?

[George_Bonanza]

I know there is a feeling out there that if the Democrats do not raise up a sufficiently liberal nominee, we'd be better off letting the neo-con Republicans burn themselves so that everything can start anew in 2008.

I, for one, don't believe in this, or at least am waiting to be convinced. There is a unified hatred against Bush's deeds in the 3 years he has been president. That hatred comes from the conviction that he has hurt and maimed America. Another 4 years under his presidency will mean more hatred, but also more hurt and maiming. Sure, the public may have a sour image of the neo-con politician, but how much damage will have to be done to the country first? I think a neo-con rule until 2008 will mean more unemployment, more injustice in the Supreme Court (which nobody can undo until the judges die or retire), more deaths in Iraq, possibly more terrorist strikes against America and her allies, more corporate irresponsibility, etc. Must I truly go on? This is all too steep a price for some lofty ambitions for some kind of political cleansing if you will. I think if the damage inflicted by Bush is so severe that the moderate Americans will suddenly capitulate to the left or something, that damage will be so irreparable that the successor can only wade and drown in it.

I think this is an extraordinary time. An in a volatile era, I don't believe we should blindly stick to ideologies. The Americans must elect, in 2004, whoever can stop the bleeding faster and better than Bush. And I believe that any of the 9 (or 10) Democrats is that person. If the bleeding continues, we will fail in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even more Middle Eastern hatred will spew at the western world. I believe it will take decades to repair that damage. Not to mention the environmental damage that will be irreparable by another 4 years of irresponsibility. Not to mention the nuclear situations with Iran and North Korea.

My personal belief is that while ABB may not be the most glorious way to go, it is in the best interests of the country to do so.

[lcordero]

1. I am not ABB and I will never support ABB

I will not vote for or support a Bush* enabler and yes I am taking Supreme Court appointments into account. The war vote was a slap in the face to me.
You are wrong about a pro-war Democrat or a pro-occupation Democrat being any better than Bush*. Pro-war Democrats and pro-occupation Democrats are doing what they are doing for the explicit purpose of underminding the whole Middle East. They exist solely for the purpose of padding their pockets and the pockets of their buddies at the expense of the rest of the population.

We failed in Afghanistan and Iraq by setting foot on those lands.

[DrFunkenstein]

2. Isn't That Special

I think we can live without the off-the-deep-end vote. My candidate is lightyears ahead of the rest of the pack, but the pack is lightyears ahead of Bush. Hell, I'd vote for Paul Wolfowitz before I vote for Bush again (actually, I'd move to another hemisphere first).

[wtmusic]

9. If Wolfowitz is elected, it won't matter what hemisphere you're in

it'll all be one big happy US of A!!

[DrFunkenstein]

11. I'd Move To The Martian Hemisphere

Beam me out of here!

[George_Bonanza]

13. Isn't Wolfy worse than Bush?

He's the seasoned wily veteran while Bush is the dummy new kid, prone to manipulation and toying by seasoned wily veterans. At least from my impressions. I think it's Bush's cabinet that needs to go, more than the man himself.

[George_Bonanza]

7. The way I see it

The war in Iraq already happened. Nothing can change that fact. Thumbing your nose at 2004 is not going to change that fact. So to me, there are two alternatives: Keep Bush in, and more casualties and ill-feelings will arise out of the fateful invasion. Or second, elect whatever Democrat comes out and stop the bleeding. In no way am I advocating a sort of laissez-faire attitude about the Democratic candidates. By all means, be partial to one and campaign the hell for them. But when the time comes, be willing to elect any of the more enlightened 10 than Bush. I'm mainly talking about the seemingly ultra-uncool Lieberman. I seriously don't think he has a chance at winning, but in principle, should he win, I'd have no problem voting for him, even if, as I said earlier, it's not the most glorious thing to do.

Personally, I think it's a tad aloof to not be ABB. I mean, we at DU are not the ones who risk our lives in Iraq. We're not the ones whose lives are going to be hung out to dry in a foreign country because of a supremely irresponsible president. If we're young and live relatively comfy lives, we're not the hard-working Americans whose jobs hang in balance impending on the 2004 election. And a host of other things. I'd hate to be talking to a bunch of high-minded aloofs who do not really mind the implications of another 4 years of Bush, as long as they're politically satisfied, reaching for some hypothetical scenario.

Another four years of Bush means a lifetime of biased neo-conism in the Supreme Court, more international mangling, more deaths abroad, both American and foreign, and more to come. I think that's enough disasters for most intelligent people to make at least some compromises in order to avoid the said disasters.

[lcordero]

15. "whatever" Democrat will not do and will not stop the bleeding

The war happened and I will not give anybody that contributed to it a free ride. Screw that.

I will not vote for somebody that has not represented me and will not represent me. If a politician wants to show "independent mindedness", he or she better do so after they are out of office.

I pay taxes in order to be represented. I will most certainly be selective on who I vote for. The time for cleaning up is now, not tomorrow and not after the election of 2004.

I will not give anybody that is part of the problem a free pass under any circumstances.

[renie408]

23. But what if YOUR

Democrat does not get nominated? Will you then abstain?

[lcordero]

16. The way that I see it

I will not vote for somebody that should be on trial in Hague along with Bush*.

[jiacinto]

18. Then don't complain come January 2005

Don't complain about Bush after 2005 then. Please don't as you will have done nothing to get rid of him next year. But like the typical DUer you want to defeat Democrats.

[molly]

34. W would have gone to war without the vote, but he would

not have been forced to go before the UN and explain his motives. The people that "voted" did so thinking the UN would force w into giving more time for the inspections. Tell me otherwise and I will debate you all friggin nite long!

[uberotto]

3. There are basically two schools of thought about this...

One is that if you take care of what is important tomorrow, the day after will take care of itself. The other is that it is better to give up a week to gain a year.

I tend to believe the latter of the two. Personally, I believe that if we elect someone who continues to follow the same course of action as the current president is Iraq, who is too close to corporations and who isn't willing to make the tough choices which are necessary to really start to turn around the economy, then we will find ourselves in a worse situation in four years than we are in now.

The hardest lesson for any liberal to learn is that they can't save the world, until the world wants them to. Republicans don't have this problem, because they don't care about the world, they are only interested in saving themselves.

The problem this causes is that the longer things are bad, the more people are going to become interested in saving themselves and less interested in saving the world. It is easier to make a republican out of a democrat than it is to make a democrat out of a republican.

This opens the door wide for republicans to come in in 2008 and tell the world that "see, it wasn't our fault. Even with a democrat in the white house things didn't get all that much better." They will portray the democratic party as wanting to take food away from the struggling, hard working family and give it to the person who would rather sit at home watching Springer all day instead of getting a job, as the party that will protect the criminal and punish the victim.

At the same time they will portray themselves as the party who is willing to do whatever it takes to protect the american worker. If that means giving large tax breaks to CEO's and ending corporate health care so that american corporations can continue to afford to hire american workers, that's what they will do. They will portray themselves as concerned about protecting the individual by placing property rights above personal rights, allowing people to do whatever it takes to protect their homes and their property values ( i.e. keeping minorities from moving into their neighborhoods ).

Of course none of this is true, but most people won't care. They don't want to have to think about things, they want to be told what to do and what to believe and they don't wan't to have to question whether these things are true or not.

Most people, including myself learn much more from a mistake that only took us a couple of seconds to make, than we ever do from hours and hours of deductive reasoning. And when it comes to something like politics, which most people aren't really all that interested in, you have to let things get really bad before most people will start paying attention to anything beyond what is being said.

That is why I feel that the democratic party, the united states and the entire world will benefit more from four more years of bush screwing things up than they will from four years of someone like lieberman not making things better. I would happily suffer through four more years of bush, if it would help bring about 40 more years of democratic control of congress.

[jiacinto]

17. Frankly I disagree

Why do I have a feeling that you aren't going to be the one "suffering" and "making the sacrifices"? I don't think country would benefit under four more years of Bush and I find that argument to be completley naive and laughable if it were not so dangerous.

[Booberdawg]

4. Well stated George

Reasonable people agree these are extraordinary times. I agree with your assessment about lofty ambitions for a political cleansing - I think they are well intentioned but naive and come with grave consequeces.

And, I often get the impression from the Greens that they feel that by choosing this course they will somehow extort the Democratic Party in to far left reaching concessions, but I don't believe that's going to happen. I think the Greens are the ones that are going to get abandoned.

[George_Bonanza]

5. Thanks

I'm just thinking that if the Greens think they're going to get into power by sheer default in 2008 or 2012, the mishaps by the neo-cons will destroy whatever ambitions they had, and their only accomplishments will be merely trying to clean up the mountains of mire the previous administration caused or couldn't clean up. Not a glamarous nor inspiring role.

[Booberdawg]

10. Yeah, that's absurd

They aren't going to have anymore support in 2008 than they do now, maybe less. And it's ridiculous to think the mess has to get catastrophic before it can be cleaned up.

I think we can still take 2004 without them though. We'll see.

[Paschall]

12. Agreed

"And it's ridiculous to think the mess has to get catastrophic before it can be cleaned up."

Not only ridiculous, but very irresponsible.

[sandnsea]

6. Well, not ANYBODY

I mean, Cheney certainly wouldn't be an improvement! Gotcha!

Any of our nine candidates would do a wonderful job. I agree with President Clinton, they're an outstanding group of talented individuals.

[George_Bonanza]

8. Any DEMOCRAT but Bush: ADBB

Specific enough for you? =)

[sandnsea]

14. It was just a joke!

[jiacinto]

19. Of course it is

No doubt about it.

[jiacinto]

20. Typical DU again

This thread is filled with the same usual suspects who troll in with their "reasons" as to why they will defeat Democrats next year. Typical DU I guess, where defeating Democrats often takes precedent over defeating Republicans.

[Tim The Enchanter]

21. Is there a possibility that the GOP may throw someone like Powell in?

If the s* really hits the fan for the Bush Administration (as if it hasn't enough), do you think there is a chance that we might see someone like Powell step into the ring? We've seen the GOP doing everything under the sun to grasp power. Personally, I think, that if push comes to shove, the election will be rigged, but I thought I would throw out the Powell thought for some feedback.

[JohnKleeb]

22. Powell wont run

Trust me, something to do with his wife not liking the spotlight.

[George_Bonanza]

24. Has that ever happened?

Where the incumbent was defeated in a bid for re-election by his own party? I mean, where the incumbent wasn't even nominated by his own party for re-election?

From what I hear, Powell is a much more respectable conservative and Republican. It'd be a much tougher campaign against him than an obvious fool like Bush.

[JohnKleeb]

25. yeah once

once and interesting President Pierce is a bush ancestor. I am not positive.

[molly]

31. Isn't Pierce Bab's maiden name?

[George_Bonanza]

26. At a teen forum I peruse

There's this unbelieve arrogance among some of the leftist kids that we should not be ABB if some devil like Lieberman is nominated.

This really pisses me off because these KIDS aren't going to be the ones paying the price abroad, or lose their jobs. Their parents probably have comfy jobs which pay for their computer and internet. Economic recession means what to them? More expensive movie tickets? These people aren't the ones living in Iraq who are in danger of a terroist attack at any given moment. They're not the women whose rights to abort are being threatened by people like Prior. Must I go on? If they foresee a destroyed country by 2008, it's not going to be magically fixed by a new wave Democrat or Green Party. If anything, those parties will bear the burden of fixing up the Republicans work, acting as a servant cleaning up their masters' mess.

Personally, I view this as all talk and machismo. They're all talking nobly like, "I will go down with ship <sob>, in order to save it!" But they're not really sacrificing one shit. It's the lower class families, soldiers, Iraqis, etc. that will pay the price of Bush until 2008. Meanwhile, they can act politically satisfied and magnanimous when they haven't done shit to help anybody. This just really pisses me off, this arrogance and bravado.

[jiacinto]

27. I agree with you

But unfortunatley you will see much of that mentality here at DU too.

[mourningdove92]

28. ABB or ADBB All the way.

Unless the repugs pull something much much dirtier than what they did in Florida in 2000, we should be able to defeat Bush in 2004. Remember that the Dems have won the popular vote in the last 3 elections. This election year, the Dems are more fired up than I have ever seen. I don't know of any Democrat that is not pissed off out of their mind. Add to the growing number of active Democrats, the number of Independents who are also totally pissed off and understand that a vote for anyone but the Dem candidate is a vote for Bush, and on top of that, MANY people who voted for Bush last time have determined not to vote for him again.

In all the recent polls, when asked if
1. Will you definatle vote for Bush
or
2. Will you definately vote for someone else.

Someone else (ABB) has been winning.

Anyone but Bush. We must take back our country.

[molly]

29. You are 100% correct - theory is NOT reality

some of us have been around for a very long time. It's great to be an idealist, but you got to think it out.

If you are a teen or young adult, you certainly have a lot of wisdom!

[JohnKleeb]

30. he is, hes younger than me

Y'all are lucky to have him in your camp.

[molly]

32. Well ------

TOO!!!!

[JohnKleeb]

33. why thanks I try