Would a Dem in the White House and no real policy change be a win?

I have endorsed no candidate, I intend to imply no candidate, this is a rhetorical question.

Suppose that someone promised you that there WOULD be a Democrat face put on current policies of the bush regime.

Many of them would even be reworded, and all Cabinet members would be very careful to use different language.

But the essential facts on the ground would not change.

Would that, in your opinion, constitute a win?

If you're hoping a Democratic prez will abandon Israel.....

Aww, maybe you just can't win.

I do not engage in the practice of using terms of endearments toward people I don't know personally.

If you don't mind the suggestion, I wonder if you might want to think of another way to express condescension or contempt for others, simply because it would not be very dignified for you to be calling me "dear" if I am, for example, a 97 year old chieftain from Malawi or a 45 year old balding plumbing supplies salesman from Peoria.

Now to address the issue you raised, you make a valid point, certainly the Gary Bauer approved Rapture Ready policy of unconditional support and unlimited funding for Israeli war profiteers has long transcended mere partisan distinctions, and while that does indeed define the US more than any other single issue, for the rest of the world, and is undoubtedly a cruel deception against the innocent citizens of Israel, I was referring to an overall policy, including but not limited to, the general Manifest Destiny, with us or against us pre-emptive invasion of when and where decreed by the regime, the consideration of health care as any other commercial product, thus empowering Americans with the freedom to purchase all they can afford, the ever-widening gap between rich and poor which will, within a decade, unless you are quite wealthy, divert your childrens' college money into security guard salaries to keep the hordes from storming the place and making off with all the Pepperidge Farm cookies, increasing tax relief and corporate welfare for the top 1%, with the needs of the bottom 50% liberated into the good services of faith-based programs and that marvelous spirit of volunteerism, the continuation of judicial policies that have us now with 1 in every 142 Americans currently incarcerated, the seizure and disappearance of US citizens, not to mention kidnapping of foreign nationals, without the tyranny of charges, due process or access to council, government inspection of which books you read, you know, all the wonderful things we have come to love.

there isn't that much difference in mainstream candidates anyway. Nothing noteworthy happens without consensus. Clinton sides with the right to "balance the budget" (we all know that this is a false balance), Bush gives the left a chance to look less like sniveling doves by lining up for the war(s).

Each side claimed victory in these elections. Whats different ?

Gore, Bush, things would have been exactly the same.

think.

Only on matters of substance. Gore would never get substanative legislation through a republican Congress, only that which both sides could live with.

.

it would not even be practical politics, since it would leave local Dem candidates with nothing to distinguish them from the opposition and would probably result in the Rs re-gaining the White House in four years, since the Dems would lose even more of their core constituents.

no matter which democratic nomination wins. Then I realized Will Pitt had already written it all in this post here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=227780

any questions?

He's the one with the courage to make changes. He got a Republican House to vote overwhelmingly to repeal the sneak and peek provisions of USA-Patriot. He gets half the Republicans in his district to vote for him. This is a man who can sway centrists from both parties.

No policy change. Ha ha ha. Very funny.

The most Conservative Dem seems like a Liberal compared to Bush.

Though sometimes I think people on this board trust a D besides someone's name as if it would be a win. This is where I digress with the party line. A win is getting our civil rights back, a win is getting our country out of corporate power, a win is having someone we can trust back in office, a win is someone who's words we can believe when the clean air act means just that. I could go on and on. If it's only about winning then we have allready lost.

Not even close to a win. And quite frankly, that is what is likely to happen.

But I expect an overwhelming number of respondents to this post to say that it would. It's a lot easier to play the old, familiar, Republicans versus Democrats game than it is to look at the real opponent.

You can eat your shit straight, Republican style, or you can have it candy coated, a la Democrat, but shit is shit.

a dem is "likely" going to continue Bush's policies?

because Bush, and any Dem who has a real chance of winning, represent first and foresmost, not we the people, but certain vested interests.

I don't think any Dem is going to use the strong arm tactics that the Bush regime is using. There is'nt any Democrat that is even close to having mastered the sort of vicious, venal, cold-blooded act that BushCo. puts on display for us every day. No, they'll slow things down, apply the brakes a little, but the train'll be on the same track, heading to the same place. Only Kucinich is talking about taking the train back to the station and starting out on a new track. And I'll be stunned if he wins.

"because Bush, and any Dem who has a real chance of winning, represent first and foresmost, not we the people, but certain vested interests.
I don't think any Dem is going to use the strong arm tactics that the Bush regime is using."

This suggests there's no connection between The Bush regime and the strong arm tactics of the right.
Whether it's right or left, pandering is what sheds light on strong arm tactics. Strong arming is the only way to get the majority of the population strapped into a radical agenda of minority of voters.

That's enough for me...

You mean the ones that ruled on sodomy, Ten Commandments, AA and others?

everything he does is unprecedented. All of his people are despicable.

There's absolutely no way there's not going to be an instant major policy change.

Any Dem candidate--even holy(ier) Joe--would enact policies a world away from Bush* on a host of issues.

Your question is yet another version of the old "Indistinguishable Rag" which has been so visibly debunked during the course of our two and a half year national nightmare that it doesn't even merit a response.

My point is that "bush" does not make policies.
There are credible indications that in fact, whatever capabilities he may have do not include either the intellectual aptitude, the knowledge, or the analytical skills necessary to make policy.

The same may be true, to greater or lesser degrees, of any or all candidates of any and all parties.

Policies are made by teams of advisors, in the case of bush, that team includes most of the prominent, and some less prominent names on the PNAC documents.

The policies were "made" prior to bush's installation.

I am curious to know whether people believe that it is more important to have a different individual as a figurehead, or more important to have a real and significant change in policy, as opposed to a rehash, or repackaging, or reworking, or whichever terminology you prefer, of the PNAC doctrine.

Let's say non-smokin' joe gets in and picks up chimy's war right where it got left off. I bet ther'd be a lot of Dems raing a bunch of hell, real ugly stuff.

But on the other hand, there might be some interesting wheeling and dealing going on to. Joe might have to trade support for his fucked up foreign policy for some pretty heavy duty concessions here at home.

Bush doesn't have to do that. Liberman would.

I have to stop thinking about president lieberman. Now.

is Zell Miller, and he's retiring. This is the same kind of question that the idiotic Nader proposed in the 2000 election. I would have thought you would have learned your lesson by now.

All of the Democratic candidates are pro-choice. All of the Democratic candidates oppose tax cuts for the wealthy. All of the Democratic candidates support stricter environmental regulation.

Sorry, but the suggestion that the election of a Democratic president might not result in a substantial policy change positively reeks of the flagrant dishonesty Ralph Nader displayed in 2000, when he claimed there wasn't any difference between Bush and Gore.

The fact is that even if Congress remains under Republican control, a Democratic president, through his appointments to the executive branch and the judiciary, would still have the ability to substantially influence public policy. And any Democrat would be a vast improvement over Bush.