Dude, where is my Democratic Party?

It seems to me that the Democratic Party is falling apart

1) We lost California, how did we manage that?

2) All the Democratic Candidates are dropping like rocks in the polls because we are all bashing each others candidates and even using repug news and sources to do so

3) Only 13 Senators voted against the $87 Billion Halliburton blank check.

4) The only hope we have of defeating Bush in 2004 is Hillary, Gore, Clark, Lieberman and Kerry. It is fairly certain to me that we have damaged ourselves enough to assure we are not capable of nominating one of these people to beat Bush.

5) Having 9 candidates is just making us look like a joke and nobody is getting to the people that truly can beat Bush.

6) We are even accusing our own candidates of being Republicans

7) I found that a good portion of Democrats dispise Catholics and show zero tolerance to even learn or ask questions about them, just attack.

8) Even the cousin of a candidate on the board is doubting the candidate.

I am afraid that I personally hold little hope for us in 2004. Maybe if we showed a little tolerance, togetherness, and less bashing of Lieberman, Dean, Clark, and Kerry we would have a shot. But honestly, I see it only getting worse. I see us as pushing our candidate to the top even if means we will not win in 2004.
The only way I could see this turning around is realizing that we need a majority of the vote to win, and that means appealing and being tolerant of all others that we may not be 100% or even 70% in agreement with. We need to narrow the candidates down. It is only hurting all the candidates by having some many, nobody is pulling through. I would back Lieberman or Zell Miller if it meant the defeat of the Bush. He is that bad.

Dude, where is my party? It seems that it is becoming an ever more leftist party that is pushing our candidates so far to the left to win the nomination that we will never beat Bush.

I just think I am going to bow out of DU for a while and not participate in the nomination process. If the Democratic Party cannot nominate someone that comes close to Bush in 2004, well, I guess I will just pack my bags to move to a moderate country that has got their act together and can the difference between the enemy and a fellow Democrat. I am sick of the intolerance of each other on this board. All the Democrats are great, and a better alternative to Bush, but only Kerry, Clark, and Lieberman can beat Bush. Attacks on them are just killing our chances and this is becoming a joke. Clark went down 7% in the polls from 20%. Lets see if we all can bring them all down to 4% shall we. Your attack on a fellow Democrat may be the very attack that the Repugs use on them in the General Election and win because of it. You will feel like the Cubs fan that gave a home run to the opposing team with your knee jerk reactions to get what you want right now. Face facts, no ultra liberal is gonna win the General Election.

Dude, where is my party? Has it gone Green?

Mike

In two recent polls here garnering hundreds of responses, the participants in one were 50% self-described socialists, while the participants in another were 40% self-described revolutionaries.

DTH

Don't have time to look for the revolutionary one, because I don't remember the thread title.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=288780

And it's actually more than half self-described socialists.

DTH

That's not exactly a stamp from Karl Marx. Firstly, I'll bet a lot of folks voted socialist who dont know better, and quite a few freeps that would probably vote socialist just to be obtuse. There are a lot of self-described socialists, but then, it's only half.

And over 50% here. Self-described.

That firmly places DU out of the mainstream and far to the left, IMO.

DTH

IMHO that is scary if we really want to win in 2004.

Mike

are you goofy? If's it's "gone" anything, it sure as hell isn't Green! :eyes:

that it's not easy being green :D

with the sheets pulled up over my head.
I'm shakin'
I'm quakin'
Stop the world, I'm gettin off!

I'm going to have to get me some Oxycontin to
face that bad news.

:eyes:

I found your use of the words "arrogaunt" and "demonination" particularly amusing in your other thread (and "dispise" in this thread). Just thought I'd point that out.

Now, as to this thread, don't you think points #2, #3, and #6 have a little something to do with each other? :think:

Yes my spelling gets really bad when I haven't slept in 24 hours. Thanks for pointing out that too.

Mike

.....how to spot a ******* anyone??? I'm pretty sure I have one in my crosshairs right now.

I'll apologize before hand but I can't let this shit pass. How fucking transparent and lame.

RC

Probably scared to death for their own lives and for the lives of their families. That is, imo, how Bush and his fascists are operating.

Some preliminary details:

- First, it was only 11 senators, not 13, that voted No on the $87 b.
- Second, some (many) of our own candidates are Republicans, for all intents & purposes.
- Third, it has nothing to do with Catholics or not Catholics. That's a complete non-issue that has somehow assumed overly large proportions in your own mind.

But aside from those little details: if your diagnosis is really "It seems that (the Dem Party) is becoming an ever more leftist party," you don't understand the situation at all. The Dem Party is much closer to being Republicans than to being Greens. Don't you understand? Most of them have sold out.

A far more reasonable comment would be,

Dude, where is my party? Has it gone Republican?

or

Dude, where is my party? Has it dropped dead?

It has nothing whatever to do with "going Green."

i dont think Dean, Clark, Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman are Republicans, but centrists, and in todays political climate, they are the only ones within the Dem Party with a real shot against Bush.

like McCain? Might as well call themselves left leaning Republicans and get it over with. At least we would have some sort of distinction between the parties. Hell why not do away with the two party system and just have one? Everyone can be a Republican....since so many here are sure being Republican is the only way a candidate can win! Hey that's a great idea...that way everyones a winner! We'll all be patriotic, god fearin, moral and brave by default then!

RC

but that is currently an impractical dream, much like the electability chances of someone coming out against a war that was overwhelmingly supported by the public. Also, "Being Republican" isnt the same as being "conservative", although both terms are so subjective that i cannot really discern between reality and fiction. Believe it or not, the political climate of today is much more "liberal" than 100 years ago, so being "republican" on an issue is more progressive than it has been before. Change is a slow thing, but i think civilization is moving in the right direction. Once a post-materialist world is achieved, and i think technology will reach that within the next 100 years or so, that will represent the end of private wealth and result in a dramatic decrease in authoritarianism which is a biproduct of the economic system we currently subscribe to.

Democrats are not that much further to left than moderate Republicans.

The local news told me that there were 13 senators, not that it matters, the point is, not many voted the same way. That bothers me a bit, it seems divided.

Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun and Gephardt can not win. All they are doing is sucking up air time the other candidates could be using to bash Bush and set forth their vision for America. Even if a miracle happened that they won the nomination, they could not win the General Election, that is obvious. I like them, but really, it is time to move on.

Mike

Since you failed to answer my question regarding your use of this term in the last flame bait thread you started I'll ask again in this flame bait thread and include a little recap for those who missed it the first time.

CoffeePlease to DU board: Stop Bashing Catholics

Rapidcreek: Got a question for you Coffee....Would you give me the dictionary definition of bashing? What exactly does that word mean? As far as the rest of your questions....I'll be more than happy to answer once I have yours.

CoffeePlease: It means to give a smashing blow. n/t

RapidCreek: I guess I still don't understand...

I don't think anyone is advocating physical harm to the pope, are they? Has anyone here actually issued a smashing blow to the pope?

Perhaps you are referring to the transitive definition 2 : to attack physically or verbally <media bashing> <celebrity bashing>....in the verbal sense. In which case, my next question would be....Do you equate valid criticism with verbal attack?

For instance....Which of the following choices would be a verbal attack and which would be valid criticism? Or are both attacks or both valid criticism?

1. You stink because you have dog shit on your shoes.

2. You stink because you are a fucking idiot.

So are you going to answer this question? I think it only fair that you clarify your intent when you use the words bash and bashing so frequently. Don't you?

Rapid Creek

I answered your question. You just don't like the answer. To bad. I will now put you on ignore. You don't ask real questions and refuse to engage in an constructive dialogue. Be gone now.

Mike

yourself when you make provocative posts, rife with blanket assertions, and an improperly used word, mean; then yes, I am a really, really mean person. :)

As a matter of fact, you didn't answer the question....not last time and not this time. The answer you did give, makes plain your need for a bit of assistance with coherent written communication. The answer you didn't give makes plain your proclivity to intentionally and disingenuously use words to piss people off.

I don't put people on ignore, not anyone. Ignoring leads to ignorance, a personal quality I prefer to avoid.

Just curious, you know, for future referance; what color granite do you like?

RC

?

take on socialist views more than moderate views.

Mike

is no kind of definition. Why don't you try to specifically name some of the policies of Kucinich that you think are so terrible? This would be more helpful than trying to smear him with a word like "socialist" that most Americans can't even define properly, anyhow.

It proves my points about intolerance, cruelty, and division of the Democrats on this board.

Hate to see how you treat people that agree with you even less.

Mike

It appears you do, so you can feel free to define it. I simply realize that a socialists cannot win the general election.

Mike

I AM a goddamn socialist, for Chrissake. You are really off the beam, somehow!

Most Socialist I know are very kind to me and others. They are tolerant, understanding, and try to explain things. They also don't deny that they are ultra left. Nor do they assume that the average person is not intelligent enough to know what a socialist is.

Mike

And anyone who doesn't vote for etc is a bad American and should be ashamed of themselves.

AS & Nader, & he's a socialist, he sounds like my kind of guy! :bounce:

etc is really a Repug. We have to fight against him. He can never win the nomination. :P

Mike

I'm guessing you're on ignore now. hehehehehe :) If people would just hang out at freeperville they wouldn't need to put me on ignore. I hardly ever go there!

RC

that is used exclusively by the right and repeated ad nausum throughout their campaign and promotional literature. Personally, I suspect ANYONE's motives when they use that term. It's a HUGE red flag, and along with the general tenor of the rest of the post makes me wonder what the intention was really was here in the first place.

DU is to the left of most democrats. We are gonna be harder on the candidates than most democrats.

the path to serenity is achieved when you start to accept it. :)

Why hang out at Democratic Underground if you feel that way? What's that, you want to educate us dumb Democrats?

(see post #1) they know what time it is. word.

When there is no hope, you go down fighting, taking as many of them with you as possible and you die an honorable death. Spit in the face of fate. Make them fight you. Demand death only at the hands of an honorable foe.

Dean in 2004.

What happened to feminism? Why aren't people even carring about the transfer of money and power to the wealthy? Why are people even still watching ABCNBCFOXCNNDCBS and buyin the Time and Newsweek and the NYT and Wash Post after what they've done to us? Why are we buying anything other than electric cars? Why didn't californians care about the fact that Arnie is a fascist?

In fact, the only front on which I think Americans are holding on to their democratic principles is on race (U of M case, and Prop 54 defeat being the examples). Other that that, I have to say, "what the hell are Americans thinking?'

Many democrats are doing the best they can in an environment that produces this kind of apathy.

if you want Democrats to be different you get the people around you to be better democrats.

I've been surprised at how far to the right DU has swung since the pre-primary race started heating up. And I'm not talking about new members. It's been a long strange trip already.

all that is focused upon is accumulation of wealth and influence and status. Whatever happened to art anyhow? All that is used to judge you and your "success" in life as a human being, is that which can be seen--ie, your wealth--your swimming pool, your million dollar house, your possessions, your status is based upon your obvious possessions--and, it seems this perfectly just finewith the rest of the people in the USof A--I do not happen to think this is so--and I think that that realization comes with the wisdom of old age. We only go through here once. What we need to do is reach that part of ourselves that allows us to be happy, serene and satisfied without the constant striving for material goods as an indicator of our "success" as a human being.

a fair wage for a day's labor.

All that other BS is advertising to get people to spend, and go into debt, and accept crappier, lower paying jobs, for fear of starving and losing all dignity.

What we need to do is care enough to vote for polticians who help people get rewarded for the labors, and also are willing to help people defend themselves from all the elements in society which are trying to reach into your pocket and steal your hard earned money.

As a rather "old fart", and a Dem for over 35 years, I've been through a number of elections and campaigns. What we are seeing is the "fleshing out" process. It's called politics. For better, or worse, in a democracy we are allowed to criticize candidates we don't like, and talk up the ones we do. It's the nature of the beast.

It seems that some who are complaining about the political processes they are now witnessing, seem a bit naive to the process itself. This is the way it works.

What really counts, is what happens after our nominee is chosen. That's when unity is important, and imperative, .. if we are to win.

So chill dude. It's just politics. Hop in, join the fray, put your amour on, and fight your fight.

Just my two cents...

Thanks, other than the old fart name calling, I liked your post. Although I think destroying all the candidates before they get the nomination is counterproductive to our cause. Especially when most the bad stuff is being spoon fed to us by repugs.

Mike

...so don't blame the current state of the party on them.

- The NeoDems within the party are shunning the likes of 'liberal' Kennedy and Byrd and marching to their own tune...which looks more Republican every day.

- The traditional base of the party would love to see a resurgence of the liberals...but that's not going to happen as long as campaign cash is more important that voters.

May have to borrow that once in awhile ..

:evilgrin:

The majority of the Democratic candidates (or are they Republicans?) are far to conservative for my likes. I don't like to see candidates that don't fit this mold being declared as socialists, etc.

We have a few fine liberal candidates that could succeed if given the opportunity. That's why I like Dennis Kucinich. His popularity is growing and just freakin' wait until the Green Party tosses him their endorsement - then perhaps he will win the race.

Remember DUDE, its something called the primaries going on right now in case you forgot!



:dem: :kick:

Having 9 candidates is good. In fact, it has done what most Dem. office holders have failed to do: Bush-bashing. And their message has gotten out. What else could be responsible for Bush's miserable poll numbers? It certainly hasn't been the Lapdog Media.

And your assertion that only 4 Dem.s can win in Nov. '04 is only an opinion. Who says Dean or any of the others you mentioned can't win. Oh, yeah. The Republicans. Well, I might mention they haven't won a national election since Poppy Bush. If you want to take their advice, fine. But consider the source.

With the exception of the Lapdog Media's candidate winning California, we have had a great month: Rush has been outed, the public is catching on to Bush's many failings, the Dem. candidates are raising good money.

If there is one dark spot it is the Lapdog Media's milquetoast treatment of the two "senior administration officials" peddling the identity of an active CIA operative. This an actual conspiracy. Bush's suggestion the "leaker" wouldn't be caught can be viewed as a directive, not merely an opinion. It should be a front page story every day. I have, however, hope the CIA will not let this story die.

your post is, to put it mildly, all over the place ...

it seems your key point is that the party is being pushed too far to the left ... it seems like the Green party to you ...

well, let's have a look at a few issues you've raised ...

1. we lost California ... are you suggesting that gray davis was driven too far to the left and that's why he lost?

2. our candidates are dropping like rocks? really? i keep seeing polls showing very good numbers matching up against bush and most americans don't know anything about our candidates yet ... and you say they are dropping because of "bashing" ... i don't like the name calling posts either but do you have a problem with legitimate criticism ... the republicans are going to bring up things ... there's no point in pretending things don't exist ... primaries are to get these things out in the open so we don't nominate someone who then has to admit something horrible in the general election campaign ...

3. 11 senators (democrats, this is) voted against the $87 billion ... i thought you said we were driving the party too far to the left ... i wish all democrats had voted no ... 11 is hardly "too far to the left" ... go check out the Green website ... i can't imagine any Green for any office ever supporting this bill ...

4. Hillary, Gore, Clark, Lieberman and Kerry ... you've named candidates here from the "liberal" wing of the party and the centrist wing ... i still can't see your "almost Green" argument ... you're the one lobbying for this array of candidates ...

5. 9 candidates makes us look like a joke ... first of all, i've watched all the debates and i think each candidate has become more articulate, more skilled in presenting their ideas and more detailed in the positions they've taken ... i think this benefits the party ... and anyway, polls have shown that very few americans are paying any attention to the campaign yet ... be patient ... in about 4 months or so, the field will be much smaller ... let the process work ... there's nothing funny about having a variety of candidates helping craft the eventual platform of the party ...

6. accusing candidates of being republicans ... yes, this does occur on DU ... and i agree it's unfortunate ... i will say, however, that i think it's legitimate to point out that certain critical votes did empower policies promoted by bush and the republicans ... and anyway, do you really believe that posts like these carry weight nationally?

7. democrats despise catholics - i have no information and no comments about this ... i'm not aware that this issue exists ... i'm a democrat (for now) ... i'm a leftie ... i don't despise catholics ... maybe i just didn't get the memo ...

8. cousin of a candidate doubts the candidate - so your point is, that if you're related to a candidate, you should not doubt the candidate? if you're related, you should agree with the candidate and support the candidate ... if you're related, you're really not entitled to act on your own beliefs ...

what can i say ... your entire post is riddled with contradictions ... i appreciate your desire to get bush out of the white house ... and i certainly agree that we must consider the electability of the eventual nominee ... but, other than throwing around labels like "ultra liberal", you presented no cogent analysis of why any current front-runner qualifies for that label ... i am not a Dean supporter but it seems like you were implying that the lefties on DU have put Dean where he is and he's too liberal (like a Green) to get elected ... if i've misread your implication, please correct me but that's what i inferred from your post ...

and while republicans may very well try to label Dean as an ultra liberal northeasterner, i don't think he is liberal at all ... he supported bush's war in afghanistan ... he said that if bush showed evidence of WMD's, we should give Saddam 60 days and then invade Iraq even without U.N. authorization ... he's for a balanced budget ... he's for states rights on gun control ... this is a Green ??? you've got to be kidding ...

i'm asking the same question you are, btw ... "dude, where is my party ??" ... the reality is it's moved way too far to the right ... and that failed in 2002 and it will fail again ...

anyone who would say "Democrats despise Catholics" is probaby an agent provacateur

is that i don't see the guy as a freeper ... i think he actually believes what he wrote ... he seemed to convey a genuine frustration with what he saw as problems in the party that could cost us the election ...

but the post was plagued by contradiction after contradiction ... and there were virtually no facts presented to support allegations ... the party is going Green !!! Hallelujah !!!

it's about time ... oh, t'were it so ...

I got some beautiful South Dakota beach front property, if yer interested :)

I get the impression that for this cat anything left of Oliver North is Ultra-Left.....that's his (and rush's and hannity's and oriellys and coulter's) term not mine.

RC

to your opinion of the poster ... and your opinion of me ...

i must say, having read all the responses you made in this thread, i see that you offered primarily opinion and insinuation but added virtually nothing to the analysis of the issues ...

whether the original poster is a freeper or not, there were plenty of points to discuss ... no one suggested you should agree with him ... but the quality of discourse you offered serves no purpose ...

In that you sought to address me.....Before one can make quality responses, that which one is responding to must at least be consistent, coherent and devoid of disengenous qualities. Why should I waste time responding to transparent, purposefully manufactured equivocation, in earnest?

I would have to disagree with you on your opinion of the quality of my discourse...but that is yours to have, of course. When a person directs loaded equivocation like "bashing" and "ultra-left" toward an audience in a post or conversation...it behooves that audience to force that poster or conversant to qualify those terms, or that audience shall be making a defensive response to a moving target, an enigma, if you will.

The biggest problem with the Democratic party, a quality which Neo-cons thrive upon, is their consistant attempts to defend themselves when accosted with a challenge or accusation, based upon inanity or equivocation. What they should be focusing upon, and exclusively addressing, is the inanity and/or equivocation, itself. In other words...when someone throws shit in your path...the best course of action is not to step in that shit. When someone throws shit in my path...I'll call them on the fact that they threw it there...I shall not jump up and down on the turds with both feet then complain about smelling like a dogs ass. So you see...my discourse serves a precise purpose....one I have considered long and hard and shall pursue with a vengeance.

To give you an example....you made a beautiful, well thought out response to the poster you addressed....one which will be lost on him...because he will never read it. On the off chance he does, he will ignore or forget that which you have so diligently labored to prove, by the time he gets to the last word of the last sentence of your post. I have, on other boards taken your approach...and recognized, after composing months and months worth of heartfelt, well thought out, well written, solidly researched rebuttals to posts founded upon equivocation, that I had wasted a great deal of time and energy which might have been invested in worthy debate with someone presenting their argument in a worthy fashion.

In any case, your rebuttal was not lost on me. I look forward to debating with you in the future....you shall be a worthy opponant...or ally, as the situation dictates. :hi:

RC

P.S. Don't be such a damn Welchman....lighten up!

I already asked what color granite our friend prefers :) ....I'm a meany, he says...and for that I am being ignored. Golly I feel so, so, oh...left out....Carlos thinks I'm mean too....with similar results.

Woohoo two for two! What can I say...I'm just doing my job.

Hey if you guys don't hear anything for a while....it's because I have slit my wrists in lonely shame.

RC

Man, that post was full of holes.

It seems that it is becoming an ever more leftist party that is pushing our candidates so far to the left to win the nomination that we will never beat Bush.

You and your right-wing talking points. (ABOVE)

I usually ALWAYS encourage posters who want to leave DU to hang in there, whether I agree with them or not. But rarely, there is that person who whines about their thoughts on leaving and I say -- thank you, just leave.

Your "reasons" for wanting to bow out of DU are because people here don't fall in LOCK STEP with your candidate. You post nothing but Pro-Clark drivel and give ridiculous "facts" that are simply NOT TRUE. I encourage people to stay at DU when they want to leave because it's usually posts like yours that make them want to leave!

Your frustration is simple: Too many people don't think just like you. You, like Wesley Clark, are too used to hearing, "Yes, Sir!!!"

So long. This place - which likes to THINK - is obviously not for you.

We lost California, how did we manage that?

We hold the lease but don't own it. Think of it as aftereffects of 1994- in 1998 Davis got a mandate as an Anbody But Wilson candidate. By 2002 that wasn't good enough, so he decided to run negatively on the advantages ($$$) of being an incumbent. He squashed anyone from running against him as a Democrat and wedged Republicans into nominating the unelectable Bill Simon against him. He prevailed against that piece of sludge by a mere 55-45, then managed to not prove himself against the electricity conspiracy.

The short version is that Davis is a Democrat of the sort that succeeded during the 80s, sorta like Al Gore in style, and was the best of slim pickings in 1998. But things have changed just enough since 1998 for people like him to no longer be the consensus candidate- people like him seemed behind the times for Democrats and generally didn't get elected in 2002.

All the Democratic Candidates are dropping like rocks in the polls because we are all bashing each others candidates and even using repug news and sources to do so

No, it's because people are realizing that it's possible for the major Democratic candidates to beat Bush next year, and so it's not like fantasy baseball for them anymore. All the people who backed one or another candidate for factually thin or superficial reasons are going back to Undecided, that's all. It has nothing to do with DU or the mainstream news.

Only 13 Senators voted against the $87 Billion Halliburton blank check.

The point of principle maintained by voting 'No' is not one of the great ones.

The only hope we have of defeating Bush in 2004 is Hillary, Gore, Clark, Lieberman and Kerry. It is fairly certain to me that we have damaged ourselves enough to assure we are not capable of nominating one of these people to beat Bush.

Well, I think you are wrong on three of them and not being sufficiently fair to Dean at this point in time. I think Democrats will rally to one of them in due time. Say, December and January.

Having 9 candidates is just making us look like a joke and nobody is getting to the people that truly can beat Bush.

Well, look at the Republican field in 2000, or the Democratic field in 1992. Or Gore's "hopeless" run.

We are even accusing our own candidates of being Republicans.

You presume sanity on the part of some people who don't warrant that assumption.

I found that a good portion of Democrats dispise Catholics and show zero tolerance to even learn or ask questions about them, just attack.

Oh, grow up. I think it was Mencken who said something like 'We pretend to find the other fellow's religion respectable in public, just like we pretend to agree with his belief that his wife is pretty and his children smart.' I haven't seen the contempt of Catholics per se around here, but you can hardly dispute that the Church's active role (even initiative) in political affairs makes it fair game. And don't forget that on the Internet you will find what you don't in daily life- ex-Catholics arguing with Catholics, with the ex-Catholics venting their bitterness at what they've lost or what was taken from them due to the Church's narrow strictures. A religion is a proposal of having answers equal to or better than anyone else's in private life if not public life; just because you are not used to seeing yours challenged doesn't mean that the challenge is unfairly posed.

Even the cousin of a candidate on the board is doubting the candidate.

So does the candidate's cat, but his dog doesn't, so there!

Dude, where is my party? It seems that it is becoming an ever more leftist party that is pushing our candidates so far to the left to win the nomination that we will never beat Bush.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If there is a Manchurian Candidate Communist among the bunch, you have a duty to report him or her to us immediately. And I do remember a lot of people telling me in 2000 that they didn't care for Gore because he was obviously too timid and moderate to do what really needed to be done. Nationwide enough of them presumably voted Green to cost him Florida.

Maybe you are talking about the country seemingly turning rightward. Well, in my experience the past couple of years are mostly about people who were already quietly supporters of the Right getting more vocal and vocal liberals finding it difficult to match the volume and vehemence, and a lot of moderate people tuning out on the theory that nothing much was going to change for the next while. But with the volume diminishing and the embarrassments on the Right, people are readjusting and the breakdown of the electorate of 1998 and 2000 is becoming obvious again. (It didn't actually go away in 2002, either.) And our side is gaining 2-3% every four years when our side makes the effort to register people and help them to the polls. Check your numbers and see what numbers we should reach in '04.