For thos who won't vote for certain democrats in the General election....

...You can all kiss my ass!

This is not for people who are registered third party, I'll let you folks slide. But in the general election if we have not succeeded getting the democrats that we desire most on the big ticket then we all need to get on board and get a democrat running the senate, running the house and running the White House.

You have a problem with it - kiss my ass. You had the primary election and obviously all the other democrats in your state (or across the country) had a different opinion that you. I don't want another 4 years of what we have now which is the Bush Regime runing everything.

your way of thinking. Just a thought.

TC

there are people out there who think just because someone doens't agree 100% with the way you think that therefore they are suspect at best. We have primaries where we can all fight our tailfeathers off in order to get the best candidate on the ticket. But the voting population is not made up entirely of people who spend time in the progressive online community. Many people make decisions without every peaking at the internet and finding out what opinion they should have. It's the only explanation of how Kerry got the nomination instead of Dean or Clark, 2 internet darlings.

Personally, I don't want Hillary as my presidental nomination. Hell I don't want Joe Biden and I live in Delaware and vote for him with pride as my senator. But if any of them or whatever democrat out there gets the nomination I will be going full throttle in campaigning to get them elected.

I just cannot, in my heart of hearts vote for a DLC candidate. I am through having their losers shoved down my throat, and I want the DNC to hear this and know this. I highly respect you and your position, and on a certain level, I might even agree with you -- especially about not wanting 4 more years of Republican rule. But, with a DLC candidate, we will have a Republican regime in the WH in everything but name. I'm done playing that game.

No DLC.

TC

I'm not voting for Tom Carper (he's my DLC Senator), who is up for re-election. I'm voting for Harry Reid as my Senate Majority Leader. I'm voting for Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy and other great progressive leaders in the party who have spoken about creating war deadlines and possible impeachment charges. I'm voting for the party that I know will keep activist judges off the bench and corporations out of ANWR. Tom Carper may piss me off from time to time but he is dedicated to the party and will support Harry Reid as a majority leader.

And it's the same thing with the house. Can you imagine having Henry Waxman as the committee chairman of the Governmental Reform committee. That concept frightens republicans! Nancy Pelosi has come out in full support of John Murtha (who btw, is a very conservative, anti-choice democrat who we managed to shed the light on when it comes to the war!). Mind you, it's an uphill battle trying to defeat my representative who is one of the most moderate republicans in the house (Mike Castle) but I'll vote for the democrat because that means I have Pelosi, Murtha, Conyers, Rangal, Waxman and all those other great leaders making the decisions instead of Hasert & Delay.

The vote is worth it.

DLC be damned, I want a majority! I want an impeachment hearing! I want the debate to create a timeline to get our soldiers out of there. And with Hasert/Frist (or whomever replaces him which I doubt will be Chafee)/Bush will not allow that to happen

whoever the democratic nominee is. what else can you do -- don't vote -- or switch parties?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Even a democratic majority might not get us the things we want but at least with a majority we have the chance of getting them which is much better what we have now!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

n/t

TC

<>

OR THIS

<>


HOW ABOUT


<>

WOULD FRIST NOMINATE SANTORUM FOR SCOTUS ? OR CORNYN?

:puke:

Yeah, Santorum is going to be needing a few favors after he gets his ass whooped in 2006

I mean, didn't you feel a lil puke in the mouth trying to post it

:shrug:

She is a retired OR Nurse and Nursing School Prof (with the usual antagonism re: surgeons - especially arrogant ones and "society" surgeons)

She is a pet lover (and very anti-vivisection)

And she is a life long Dem. (with pictures of FDR, Adlai Stevenson, JFK)

Plus, she is a fiesty, opinionated 90-something.

And when she gets going on Frist ----:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

And "for profit hospital chains"--- :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

if we vote DLC. What those pictures represent is a form of governance that takes from the poor and gives to the rich; supports class over equality; supports the corporate bottom line over the welfare of the least among us... that's also what the DLC represents. And, if the DLC runs another campaign like the last time, we'll have these bozos in charge anyway. So, what's the dif?

TC

I can assure you that if absolute worst case scenario that Joe Lieberman wins the presidency that we would not see a stream of bush regimists gaining cabinet and judicial positions. I mean, if you actually LOOKED at Lieberman's voting record you'd find he's a liberal as they come with social spending, taxes, CHOICE, environment, etc. (You did see his speech about removing the ANWR drilling, you do know this guy is about as pro-choice as you're going to find and has supported the filibusters. Oh, I forgot, you probably don't since those anti-DLC blinders are blocking your vision)

But you know, I'm guessing you love the way it is now and are probably looking forward to the replacement that the Bush Regime has lined up to replace the chimp. Because anyone who is as blind as you are when it comes to the DLC is going to get just that. I'm fed up with this bullshit of "Let's teach the democrats a lesson and not vote for them" because you my friend, are giving me MORE WAR and LESS CHOICE. It makes me ill that anyone who calls themselves a liberal would actually think like that.

I bought the bullshit a few years ago but it didn't work. It's time for a democratic majority so we can make a chance in this country!

the photos.

Do you think that every democratic voter has access to an online community where they can research and debate the issue? Hell I suspect the vast majority of the voting population probably doesn't bother to come online and find out what us armchair political quarterbacks have to say.

YOu want the war to go on forever, enjoy your strategy because the last I checked it ain't bring our troops home. If I have to vote for a DLC democrat in order to give someone like Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi the majority they need to bring our troops home then I'll pull that level with the biggest smile on my face (and trust me, I will be in 2006 when I re-elect DLC Tom Carper as my senator again). I'm not voting for DLC, I'm voting for the current democratic leaders in Congress that have shown me they want a timetable to bring them home. I'm voting for Reid, Kennedy, Feingold, Boxer, Pelosi, Murtha, Waxman, Conyers, Rangel, et al who will have committee leaderships to make a difference.

The DLC candidate is just a method to get there.

BTW, I'll assume you voted third party in 2004 since Kerry is DLC. You can look it up!

Not a penny or vote more.

Kerry is a good reason why DLCer will not win the WH they have no backbone....

The DLC of Clinton's first term is NOT the DLC of today. They have turned into Repug wanta bees.

The biggest problem with the DLC isn't the elected senators/representatives but the assholes like Al From who thinks he still has the secret for winning the White House - he doesn't. If the DLC wants to be accepted as a party with ideas for all Americans then they need to get rid of Al From and all the other non-politicos in that organization who thinks curtailing to Bush is the method for winning.

Kerry's problem wasn't the DLC but the ineffective campaign he ran especially when the Swiftboats came out after him suddenly making a decorated war veteran undesirable to an AWOL guardsman who pulled strings to get his cush position. The other factor is the fact that I think Kerry won Ohio but the voting machines are so fucked up we'll never know.

What we need is a candidate with the Charisma of Bill Clinton that can have every piece of shit known to man thrown at him/her and still come out smelling like the best person in the room. That is why Clinton won. Kerry could have learned a lesson or two about dealing with the bullshit

Two things Reagon and Clinton had in common is they both had CHARISMA. IMHO Kerry did win Ohio, or lost it only to the people that walked away because of the lines in the Dem areas.

IMHO, that why Dean was a major target, he was not a stick person like Kerry and a number of other Dem candidates.

1968 - I remember the cries of "Humphrey didn't break with LBJ soon enough" and "Humphrey wasn't against the War early enough" and "Maybe four years of Nixon will teach the country a lesson."

Well ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls - we got the divisive "Southern Strategy" and more war -- and Nixon for 6 years.

2000 - Just "Twedledom and tweedledee - No Difference" and "Bush is a middle of the road moderate" and "Nader will move the Dems to the left."

Well ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls - you see what we got.

Pennsylvania is my birth state - and I am a pro-Choicer -- but if I lived there I would vote for Bob Casey.

I live in California now - and I am generally satisfied with Diane Feinstein - but all of you folks who live 34 miles up north on 101 (San Francisco) or 40 miles up north on the Nimitz (Berkeley) - a vote against Diane Feinstein may be a vote for Issa or Lundgren or Duncan Hunter or Rich Tombo (Tombo has one precinct in Silicon Valley - :puke: on Tombo and Lundgren and Hunter and especially Issa who gave us the Boobbengrabber). Do you really want Lundgren in the Senate voting on Jebbie Bush's or Bill Frist's Supreme Court nominees?

However, in fairness to Chuck P, who I think would be a stellar candidate, I'm not making any contributions to the PA Senate race until the final decision is made (BTW, Chuck P showed up to our DU Party in Washington DC!).

To be honest, Senator Casey frightens me a hell of alot less than Governor Casey. Harry Reid is also pro-life and he has shown that you can be pro-life and still effective with providing a woman's right to choose. Casey would never be giving a position on the judiciary committee. So to be honest Casey would do little damage to choice and be quite effective with other social issues where he shows his liberal colors. But Governor Casey especially with our Courts so precariously tipping over to the neo-con right means that the governor pretty much has the last say in whether a woman has the right to choose. Casey is too popular in Pennsylvania to just disappear - let's send him to DC

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

all gone (and missed) -- and the ACLU Progressive (yes he was on the Pittsburgh ACLU Board and was pro-choice) Dick Thornburgh is now a right ringer and a pro-lifer.

they will select our dem candidate for us.

<>

SENATOR JOHN CORNYN TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

AND OF BERKELEY LAW PROFESSOR JOHN C. YOO TO BE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 9TH CIRCUIT.

<>

PROFESSOR YOO DRAFTED THE PATRIOT ACT, AND WROTE THE MEMOS JUSTIFYING TORTURE OF PRISONERS AND NSA SNOOPING

JOHN BOLTON WAS NOMINATED FOR SECRETARY OF STATE

<>

THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE VOTING FOR WHEN YOU VOTE AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE

:spank:

classy way you present your message.

:nopity: :sarcasm:

:popcorn:

mark warner is definitely electible.

He appeals to more than one wing of the party. He appeals to DLC/Centrist type democrats because he has proven himself to be a great executive in the business world and in gov't. He knows what it takes to streamline gov't, balance a budget, and make gov't work for the people.

He also appeals to more liberal voters because he is committed to core democratic values. Education and opportunity for all Americans, expanding minority owned business opportunites, protecting the enviornment while remaining competitive in a global economy, economic development in rural and urban areas.

He's great. He gives me hope. If he wins the presidency in 2008 I believe he has capability to turn this country around and get us back on the right track.

I think moderate to slightly conservative Republicans would give Warner a strong look. The busisness princples he brings to Gov't is long overdue and respected by voters on both sides of the aisle. Especially the all important center.

moderate republican who has watched mark warner speak twice. he said after the first one "he's got my vote" and felt even stronger after the second speech.

So, you think someone is "electable and can win" - on that basis therefore we should support him?

hmm.

if the Democratic nomination ends up in the hands of a prowar, anti-labor candidate, you are going to have a very difficult time getting people to vote for that candidate when you no longer have ABB to use as the bogeyman.

The Green Party is seen as too bourgeois and disconnected from labor issues (I am merely repeating what I heard).

Apparently some people have already decided to talk about this, and some of them come from union ranks:

"Building a Progressive Majority - The Next Steps,"

When: December 10, 2005

Where: New York City

'Sponsored by the Committees of Correspondence Education Fund, Inc.'

For more information, and how to register for the event, please download the attached "PDF" file. Building A Progressive Majority-The Next Step.pdf

http://www.cc-ds.org/leaflet.pdf

i've pretty much had my fill of these moronic threads ... but every now and again, i suppose it's worth registering my objection to the bullying theme of those who would command the rest of us ...

i will be voting for progressive Democrats as my first choice ... i am not a Green; i'm a Democrat ...

it's an interesting argument you're making between those who would leave the Party all together and those who think voting for some Democrats rather than none is less preferable ...

the "you had your chance in the primaries" argument doesn't cut it ... it shows a classic disdain for those in the minority ... if my preferred candidate is not successful in the primaries, i will not automatically, robotically support the nominee ... that decision will be based on compromise ... if the nominee sufficiently represents my views on core issues, i will support the nominee even though they may not be my preferred candidate ... if that nominee has no interest in reaching out to those who disagree, fuck 'em ...

i'm done supporting pro war candidates ... i'm done supporting corporate suck ups ... i'm done supporting those who put politics above policy ...

if you want my vote, earn it !! ... i'm done kissing the asses of the Party's bullies ...

If the party continues to front load candidates like DLC'rs or others that have no compunction to reach out and work WITH progressives - you and they can kiss MY ASS.

Period. Tell me to shut up and fall in line? Not ever again.

I did that in 2004, but i will never ever do it again.

that's exactly right, radio4 ...

and it's incredibly stupid politics ... what the Party's bullies don't seem to understand is that politics is about reaching out to people; not alienating them ...

the real laugher is the "purity" label they like to toss around ... i'm not demanding purity; i'm demanding a voice and some representation ...

bullying is a most curious political strategy ...

As an example, the Iraq War issue was in no way shape or form a question of "purity" , or a position of the "Far Left".

Evidence for that has been presented in voluminous postings, Op Ed pieces and now (finally)even the MSM.

But that one issue still confounds the DP. The *essential* elements in the quagmire of this war is IDENTICAL to Viet Nam - the differences are about as important and consequential as the difference between desert sand and jungle. Yet, the DP seem inexplicably unable to make the obvious point of the geo-political underpinnings which go to the complete immorality of the enterprise or disastrous failings of this policy, with a fairly unified voice.

And it should be made clear, that I (nor other progressives)am not a "one issue" voter. It just happens that an issue such as the Iraq War is one of a a contemptible, wholly destructive broadly applied POLICY that has significant consequences, domestically as well as to the global community.

What will it take for people to understand this?

a Fucking Nuclear Attack?

they call many of us the "circular firing squad" ... but it is we who call for negotiations, compromise and the pursuit of common ground ... it is they who tell us to vote with them or go to hell ... it is they who comprise the circular firing squad ...

and they call us "purists" ... but it is we who seek to find a shared view so that all Democrats are represented in the Congress ... it is they who DEMAND purity by insisting on our votes regardless of what candidate or what platform is nominated ... it is they who are the purists ...

i truly don't think they can see or hear themselves ... their message is "you better vote for the Democrat nominee or else" ... will this convince anyone to change their thinking?? i always thought politics was about inclusiveness; apparently some don't believe that ... they ignore those who disagree with them at their own peril ...

You make valid points. Well said.

Julie

If you vote for a third party candidate you are voting for a loser plain and simply.

before issuing such a laughable opinion that matters not one bit in the voting both. If a Dem can't make the case on the merits and expects a vote just because there is a D next to his/her name...well, too bad if there is a better alternative elsewhere on the ballot. :rofl:

Some people here seem to exist only to bash Democrats....

bashers of Democrats EVER!!! that is all the DLC DOES is bash Democrats who don't go along with their right wing agenda.

I reckon I might be able to actually cast a vote for any Dem, no matter how it makes me wretch. The important thing though, and here's where the one dimensional thinking among us have go slowly to digest it, what else would I be willing to do? Nothing. Now that matters in differing amounts, according to each person's level of (actual) activism.

For me to with-hold actual support would mean something in a large region: No fundraising, no volunteer recruitment, no phone bank organizing, no door to door organizing, no setting up events for advance teams, no precinct delegate recruiting/training, nothing. Nada. If I and the like minded fellow activists around my state decide we will not have yet another "here's your candidate like it or not, work your guts out or eat shit" situation rammed down our throats, then believe me, we won't.

Scream bloody murder, call names, hurl threats and insults, it will not matter. Those who care but are going to take principle into consideration can easily put efforts I listed above elsewhere. There are always local and state races to be won.

Sure, you may likely get your stinkin' vote but in the end, you will see that will not even come close to what is needed.

Julie

This has become a flame-war.