Why You Should Support The Dem Nominee *No Matter Who It Is* (!)

[ihavenobias]

What am I talking about? The supreme court! We need to be as passionate and determined (and unified, *after* the primaries) as these people are (below). That doesn't mean we can't question and criticize, but IMO, it does mean we'll eventually have to set our differences aside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvhn43BmdWM

I'm shocked this video didn't make it to DU before today but I'm more than happy to share it.

I'm not sure how anyone here can watch it and not reconsider the idea that they might not support the dem candidate depending on who it ends up being. This video really nails a huge part of what's at stake here (*especially* the initial part with Janet Folger).

Here's a description:

Theocracy Now! At the Value Voters Summit 2007

Max Blumenthal takes us on another shocking trip to the far shores of the Christian right, this time to the 2007 Value Voters Summit. Starring Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani (momentarily in drag), James Dobson, "Lucky Lou" Sheldon, Star Parker, Phyllis Schlafly, Frank Gaffney, and many more of the wingers we know and don't necessarily love.


www.theyoungturks.com

[Tesha]

1. Because if you do that, then no matter how bad they are this time, next time they'll be worse?

That is, after all, what happens if you vote for the
nominee no matter how awful they are: the powers that
be realize you'll support *ANYBODY* they throw up for
election.

Tesha

[ihavenobias]

7. 2 Things

1)-You responded in 2 seconds so I know you didn't watch the Blumenthal clip. :) Watch it and *then* respond again!

2)-Normally I'd 100% agree with you. But normally we're not at war with the prospect of another war (with Iran) just around the corner not to mention the supreme court being at the door step of being right wing for DECADES (as opposed to just right of center).

Even if you hold out now and the next time we get a great president (in your opinion) it's not going to mean much if the highest court in the land radically transforms our country when right wingers bring up issue after issue to the courts.

[Tesha]

30. I don't need to watch a clip; I've thought about this for decades.

I don't need to watch a clip; I've thought about this
for decades. (And the Supreme Court is already a lost
cause.)

Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates (all of whom I've
dutifully voted for except in '80 when I voted for
John Anderson 'cause my state was going in a landslide
for the Gipper) seem to just be trending worse and worse.

Wake me when our candidate proposes *REAL* (i.e.,
"Single Payer) health care. Or restoring actual
taxes on the wealthy. Or ending the war *RIGHT
NOW* and not sometime after they're re-elected in
2012.

Tesha

[ihavenobias]

38. But the clip is also entertaining, if nothing else!

And hey, as I've already written, I believe in the phrase "all things in moderation, *including* moderation".

With that said, you may well sleep for a very long time. Part of the reason we're in our current state is the double whammy of apathy and cynicism. The more we tune out and stop caring, the more they benefit.

And as Thom Hartmann says, despair is not an option.

[murielm99]

8. None of our potential nominees are awful.

Look at their voting records and accomplishments. Look critically of course, but look closely.

The ones who are awful are on the other side. They are a nightmare.

The infighting at DU has created an atmosphere where it has become acceptable to tear down and destroy good career Democrats.

I think many DUers need a better understanding of the political process.

And you will notice that I said all this without naming my choice. In less than a month, I will do that. I thought I would be doing it with the help of useful information from DU, but I guess I will be looking elsewhere for that type of information. I will still post here, but I will be spending more of my time working for the Democratic nominee, no matter who they are.

Maybe because I am a loyal Democrat, I am as awful as our potential nominees.

[Tesha]

31. Clinton, in my opinion, is awful. Obama is fluff personified.

> None of our potential nominees are awful.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. In my opinion, Clinton
is awful. Mr. Tesha and I strongly supported her
during her 2000 Senate race and she then went
ahead and voted against our interests on all of
the big items that mattered.

And the politics of the situation are appalling
to me: a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush(?) dynasty
that ignores each predecessor's shady dealing is
no way to run a democracy worthy of the name. So
if she is the nominee, I'll find someone else to
vote for in the General Election.

Meanwhile, Obama is fluff personified; the triumph
of hope over good political horse sense and experience.
I'll vote for him in the G.E., but that's the
limit of what I will do, same as I did for Kerry.

Tesha

[Lint Head]

2. I would vote for a blender just to keep the fascist Re-Pubic-Rats

out of office. :dem:

[leftynyc]

5. You got that right

Aint no way I would vote pub and not voting is also not an option. Dem, no matter who the nominee is and I agree about the supreme court being only the best of many reasons.

[bpeale]

3. sorry, i will vote for the candidate who IMO is best for the job

even if it is not the dem nominee.

[Individualist]

29. Ditto!

Lockstep and blind loyalty are for republicans.

[Big Blue Marble]

4. I am worn out voting for Dem candidates to protect the Supreme Court.

The Dems keep giving us questionable candidates, then saying but you better vote for this one or we
will lose the Supreme Court. Well I fell for that line and we have now almost lost the Supreme Court for
at least decades.

We would not be down to wire with SC if the Congressional Dems had filibustered
Alito, the most dangerous Justice since Scalia. I am sorry, but asking me to vote for
Clinton to protect the SC is asking too much.

No this time, I am not buying it. I will either vote for the nominee because I
think he is the best for the country or I will not vote other than third party.

[annie1]

6. Fortunately I live in NYS, so i don't have to. I can vote party line all the way down...

the line, and skip donnie mcobama

But democrats in swing states need to. because they are not just voting for their president, but the entire WH administration and courts.

[mike_c]

9. see the excellent article kpete posted just after your OP....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2652007

This article makes a compelling (if not entirely intended) argument for why we should do exactly the opposite. In short, all of the front runner dems, the ones most likely to get the nomination, serve essentially the same neocon agenda as the current republican administration. Like the Bush years? Then vote for the likely dem nominee, no matter who it is or what they stand for!

[ihavenobias]

11. Come on

It's one thing to say they have a centrist agenda rather than a progressive agenda, but a "neocon" agenda?

Not even all *republicans* are neocons, much less democrats. I totally understand the frustration with the party and I am by NO means a party-line ass kisser. I criticize the dems as much as anybody, especially the dems in Congress (and even take heat for it at times). But a blanket statement that there is NO difference between the republicans (ESPECIALLY *this* bunch of fools) and this group of dem candidates is absurd.

The answer here is not to royally screw the party, and maybe more importantly, the supreme court. The answer is to primary these non-progressives to DEATH at the local, state and then national level to build a true progressive party *from the inside out*, as well as supporting progressive media so that the people of America understand what's going on and realize they aren't alone.

We don't need a new party, we just need to improve the one we have.

[mike_c]

13. from the article...

...which a DU mod locked in minutes after it appeared, BTW:

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=49254

"As the names reveal, every major candidate... fronts for agendas set by current and former neoconservative and neoliberal “security” officers and politicos, members of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, and apparatuses such as the Heritage Foundation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Brookings Institution, AIPAC, the Hoover Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, and others."

more@link

Emphasis added by me.

[ihavenobias]

17. I read it

did you watch the video clip yet?

[mike_c]

36. watching it now-- xtians acting like xtians....

I'm not sure how to respond-- I simply cannot relate to anything those folks believe.

[ixion]

10. sorry, I can't support someone just "because"

I'm not good with the blind loyalty thing.

[ihavenobias]

15. Neither am I

but this isn't "blind loyalty".

Blind loyalty is when I post something harshly criticizing the democratically controlled congress only to have people tell me I'm tearing down the party and that we need to stick together.

Blind loyalty is constantly making excuses for EVERYTHING your candidate of choice has done wrong rather than just admitting that he/she is not perfect and that you're willing to live with those imperfections because X, Y and Z.

Blind loyalty is not doing everything in your power to at least *try* to put principle over practicality first.

But on that last point, people tend to create a false dichotomy. I see it ALL the time on DU. There are those who ONLY care about electability and winning (giving us watered down, weak centrists) and then there are those who ONLY care about principle and spend tons and tons of time and energy supporting candidates who go NOWHERE and often change NOTHING.

The fact is, there is *some* merit to both approaches, but clearly, only doing one or the other isn't working. I sometimes cringe at the idea of moderation for the sake of moderation (in fact one of my favorite quotes is "all things in moderation, including moderation"), but I also recognize that the best answer in this case lies somewhere in between.

You have to balance principle with practicality, *without* sacrificing your CORE principles. The trouble is, a lot of people seem to think EVERYTHING is a core principle when in fact we're talking about a few key pillars that create the foundation for what we believe in.

[ixion]

22. the only candidate I heard talking about things I believe in was Kucinich

and he has been summarily ignored.

I don't support the "top tier" candidates on either side because I know they won't do anything to make things better, they'll only maintain the status quo. And I am so tired of status quo politics that I'm having difficulty finding the will to stay alive.

[LynneSin]

59. But you're awfully good at enabling Republican wins

Sorry - it's a two party system and it won't be changing before Nov 2008.

We should have been fighting this battle harder between elections, but right here right now there are only 2 choices. I will not vote for a candidate that could feasibly put a republican into the office - my conscious will not allow that

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone.....

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[Romulox]

14. Maybe YOU should support someone who doesn't support endless war and job obliterating "free trade"

if the SCOTUS is so important to you, because I am done being manipulated into supporting warmongers and corporate whores over threats to the Court.

Political compromise works more than one way.

[ihavenobias]

16. So we're both currently

endorsing Dennis or John then?

[Romulox]

18. Nope. Neither of them is seeking the nomination in my state, so my "support" is not desired

by them (though I've been assured my money is nonetheless welcome. :eyes: )

[TahitiNut]

19. Actually ... Dennis IS appearing at various events in the area.

He, at least, has tried to balance party with PEOPLE ... which is an impossible task, it seems.

[Romulox]

21. Unless those events are characterized as "fundraising", Dennis has been breaking his pledge. nt

[TahitiNut]

24. Whoopefuckingdoo ... have him arrested or something, then.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about any 'pledge' in the FUBAR bullshit that left the VOTERS eating shit in this state. I have NO REMAINING PATIENCE with the shenanigans that gave the FINGER to voters. None.

Here's a newsflash: The GOP *IS* having a competitive primary. Funny how that worked, huh? THEY had their Iowa caucuses. THEY had their New Hampshire primary. The average voter in this state has GOT TO LOOK AT that and say WTF?!??! Nonpartisan (non-insider) voters don't give a flying fuck about all the Inner Workings and Hidden Mechanism of Party crapola ... when one has an OPEN primary and the OTHER hasn't - or at least the CANDIDATES don't come and make themselves accessible to the VOTERS.

I can't even begin to express how totally DISGUSTED I am with the "Democratic" Party at this point. They've said "fuck you" to the liberals in this state.

[ihavenobias]

25. But in fairness

that's *at least* partly because all of their candidates are so mediocre in the eyes of just about everyone (including republicans).

[TahitiNut]

26. Well ... I must admit that not one of them would have me URGENTLY pressing the brake ...

... if they suddenly staggered out in front of my car. (Unless, of course, I was concerned with the damage it'd do to my car.) Such "Acts Of God" would be no reason for me to panic.

:evilgrin:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Think of the expense of getting the smell off your car.

And, it would have to be a much more benevolent and thoughtful God than the one usually advertised.:rofl:

[TahitiNut]

32. There certainly is that consideration. One of our cars is a 1977 Monte Carlo.

I think that one could take it. It's got less than 47,000 miles on it, so I think it could "take a licking and keep on ticking." The other is a (red) 1990 Chrysler LeBaron pervertible - it's like a son to me. A drunken, lazy, broken-down son - that looks good to the girls. Great design - horrible engineering. The stench would forever be embedded in it - so I'd have to brake. (sigh) But my heart wouldn't be in it.

Joe Knollenberg (R-Hell) was canvassing on our street two years ago as I drove in from an errand. I could FEEL the steering going haywire and the brakes on the edge of failure. It was close.

Obviously, God wasn't very thoughtful or benevolent that day. (sigh) He OWES me. :evilgrin:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Damn, I thought we had old cars.

'94 Toyota pickup, well dented and with an unfixed cracked windshield. And, my wife's '91 Tercel. (Cost $5000 new).


Both give strong indications of outliving us.

[TahitiNut]

35. There's no substitute for reliability.

I had to (finally) take the LeBaron in for service - headlight doors not closing, antenna broken, transmission failing, and (for the last 3 days) not starting. It's the most expensive car anyone ever owned. I got it on a (terrible) lease, originally ... and have replaced the transmission twice and engine block once. It's only got 107,000 miles on it ... but the engineering is HORRIBLE. But it looks good. Nice body. Feels good. (Leather.) Sounds good. (12 disc CD changer). And nothing beats a pervertible in my heart.

But I look at folks driving Toyotas into the 200,000 mile range and ENVY them the reliability. I have a friend with a Toyota pickup truck ... and it just keeps going. (sigh)

I'm just a sucker for a nice body that's topless, I guess. :evilgrin:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Don't feel bad. I had a Jag XKE in my long ago, younger, impress the girls, days.

When it ran, it would go a lot faster than I would. I should say, on the few occasions that it ran. Leather seats, wood paneling, Blaupunkt radio, wire rims. It looked very nice sitting in the driveway.
You never realize how heavy those beautiful cars are until you spend a few hours pushing them.
:banghead:

[Romulox]

28. Umm, Dennis made the pledge, not me. In case you haven't noticed, I'm disgusted by it too. nt

[Kucinich4America]

20. Yeah, because when we're at war with Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Christ knows who else

I'm going to be preoccupied worrying about the Supreme Court all day :eyes:

[ihavenobias]

23. Look

if a republican is elected you are practically assured of BOTH.

If a democrat is elected, even a watered down centrist you don't like, you are not necessarily assured of either.

I go with option 2 and roll my eyes at option 1.

[slipslidingaway]

45. Maybe things will have to get worse before they can get better?

:shrug:

[mondo joe]

46. Actually, yes, you will.

If it comes to that, the Supreme Court will be vital to the civil rights of Americans who dissent and "enemy combtants" as well.

[ihavenobias]

50. Excellent Point

[TechBear_Seattle]

34. The brand name on the label is the one and only important consideration, after all

It does not matter how nasty, slimey, distasteful or outright poisonous the contents may be, if it says "Democrat" on the label it MUST be good!

[frylock]

39. been there, done that, never got my fucking t-shirt..

no mas. i'll vote for whoever i feel is qualified for the position.

[ihavenobias]

40. In the primary sure but

you know I'm referring to the general election right and this IS DU? As there is currently no 3rd party candidate, I have to ask exactly who you could possibly vote for if it's NOT one of the democrats?

Some people act is though one of the republicans will somehow be more progressive, which is laughable (not saying that's your opinion, I'm speaking broadly).

[frylock]

47. i'm an independant..

I've voted a straight Dem ticket the last three elections. John Kerry was the first Dem candidate for president that I've ever voted for. The frontrunners of the party want to continue to shift to the right in order to cater to the mythical middle, leaving progressives like myself out in the cold. My vote will no longer be taken for granted. I'm done voting for brand A.

[Norwood]

41. Nope

If I feel the Democratic candidate is crap *cough* Clinton *cough* they aren't getting my vote. I'll leave it blank or write in Gore. Im tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

[ihavenobias]

42. Well, at least you'll make

*these* people happy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvhn43BmdWM

;)

[LWolf]

43. You should support Dennis Kucinich because

his platform is light years ahead of the rest!

You WILL do so, since I told you that you should and gave you a reason, right?

[ihavenobias]

44. If he ends up being the nominee, of course I'll support him

that was the point of this thread after all.

Actually I went further and urged everyone to watch the short video of the 2007 Value Voters Summit, which is horrifying and hilarious, but most importantly, should remind us of a big part of what's at stake here.

[LWolf]

57. Of course, I'm sure you realize that

supporting the eventual nominee was not MY point at all, and I wasn't referring to the GE.

MY point, of course, was that you should not expect people to comply with your demands about what they SHOULD do, just because you say so. There is a little matter of respect for each individual's right to make their own choice.

I'll be making my own choice in the GE, and it has nothing to do with what anyone else thinks I SHOULD do.

I'll tell you what, though. If every Democrat agrees to vote the way I say they should in their primaries, I'll agree to vote the way they say I should in the GE.

[superkia]

48. As long as Americans keep this kind of attitude, we will continue...

to lose. The game is NOT being played by the republicans and democrats, its the republicans and democrats against the people. I don't care who is elected, they wont mess with issues like Roe vs Wade because it would actually wake up the American sheeple from their overdosed prescription drug induced coma. Its all a game and we continue to play it with their rules so we lose every time.

They will always ACT like they are on opposite sides on major issues like gay marriage, war, abortion and so on, so that the sheeple will continue to think they have a team fighting for them.

Look at the shape of the country for normal people like us, is it working by playing their games? We need to vote the right person in one time and give ourselves a chance but instead we always listen to the media for our thoughts and opinions and elect one of the usual suspects.

Eventually only the elite will be living the slow easy life and the rest of us will all live our stress filled, lack of time lives. It makes feel good when I see other countries revolting and standing up for their lives and freedom because I don't think I will ever see that from the citizens of the separated states of Amerika. They have us all bickering and fighting each other over stupid politically correct nonsense while they laugh it up and enjoy the real America!

Wake up!

[rodeodance]

49. FOR HEAVENS SAKE AND THE SAKE OF OUR NATION-JUST DO IT!!

[OneBlueSky]

51. the most that a Hillary or an Obama nomination will get from me is my vote . . .

I will vote for the Democratic candidate, just as I have in every election since 1964 . . . but unless the nominee is Edwards or Kucinich (highly unlikely at this point), my vote is all they will get . . . no signs, no bumper stickers, and certainly no money . . .

[ihavenobias]

52. IMO, that's a much more reasonable position

than the "I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM/HER PERIOD".

Again, watch that video. Watch how intense, insane and determined those zealots are and then think about the supreme court (and or how many of them are awaiting The Rapture and will push for instability/war in the Middle East).

People might make themselves feel a little better in the short run, but that is NOT going to be worth it 20 years from now if we have a right wing supreme court that helped squash any serious progressive reform for decades.

[MadHound]

53. Should have fucking though of that before Congress decided to keep its powder dry.

And gave us Roberts and Alito. Rather than holding out for somebody along the lines of O'Connor, when caved for the first two theists/corporatists to come down the pike.

Your reasoning would hold my validity if the Dems hadn't already shot it full of holes.

[RuleOfNah]

55. I'll vote (D).

Even though I agree with MadHound I'll vote (D). Partially because the planet is dying. Partially because the Constitution is dying. Partially because the economy is dying. Partially because law enforcement is dying. Partially because people are dying. Partially because I doubt my votes will be accurately recorded, so what's the difference?

[lateo]

54. Sorry but no.

Been there done that. Tired of replacing corrupt Republicans with corrupt Democrats.

[HughBeaumont]

56. Well, let me guess. WHO does this apply to?

I mean, look at your post. Look at a lot of these loyalty oath posts, directed towards one individual only.

You really gotta admit that it smacks of, as Tom Tomorrow put it, a feeling of "profound ambivelance". As if "well, I really, really REALLY hope she's NOT the nominee, but . . . I don't really think we have a choice in the matter and we better just . . . accept that she will be . . . and hope that rural America, the left and center, the fly-over states and the fence sitters get behind her somehow. Cross your fingers."

All I'm hearing is a reason NOT to vote Republican. But at the same time, I'm NOT really hearing a convincingly good enough reason why I should vote for, much less nominate, Hillary Clinton.

Oooh, the Supreme Court. Between Hillary Clinton or a Republican, the country's going to go to shit no matter who we select; jobs will still be sent overseas, there'll still be a recession, 50 million people will STILL not have health care, CEOs are still going to make 400 times more than their workers, the middle class and the poor will still shoulder much of the Failure-Fuhrer-created tax burden, soldiers are still going to die by the thousands each year, but HEY, we need to get a better set of judges!

Why are we resigning ourselves to "The Inevitable"? It doesn't have to BE this way.

This is why I HATE it when people say "vote your heart in the primary, but you'd BETTER support whoever comes out of it, no matter what?"

WHY? Why should I be held responsible for not supporting a bunch of other people's shitty choice?

GOD. It just completely amazes me that there are so many better candidates out there, and we're already tossing in the towel and settling; once again allowing the M$M to pick our damned candidate FOR us.

Personally, I don't think she'll be our nominee. Edwards, Obama and Kucinich all have better plans. I love Kucinich's ideas, but America's America, and that's just too much to overcome. Any combination of those three will be far better for the workers and the soldiers of this country. I care about the needs of the country's PEOPLE. They hold more precedence in my eyes than judges or Corporate America's needs. They're the ones (that's you included, BTW) that have been under the thumbs of Corporate shittiness for so long.

[Le Taz Hot]

58. Thanks so much for this post

because these talking points have never ever been brought up before in the previous 4,265 posts SAYING EXACTLY THE SAME THING! :eyes:

"Shut up and vote" won't work this year.