I Will Not Be Moved

Long before the infighting, the name-calling, the mindless bashing ever got a foothold, I had already chosen my candidate. I am not now, nor will I be in future, persuaded away from my choice, nor will I be insulted or bullied into changing my mind.

My candidate is the one who ends up winning the nomination and has a (D) behind their name. They have my vote, and my support.

Of course, I, like everyone, had my preference going in. But when it was clear that the majority of my fellow Democrats preferred someone else over my personal choice, I accepted that. I don’t think they are stupid or ill-informed; they simply had a different choice, perhaps based on different criteria than my own.

So be it. As long as their choice has a (D) behind their name, I’ll abide by the ultimate majority decision that is made by my fellow party members. That’s based on my wanting a Democrat in the White House; it is also based on the overwhelming fact that I, unlike some people, do not believe that I know what’s best for everyone, and therefore anyone who disagrees with me is clearly wrong.

I will not be moved by the Nostradamus factor; those who know we’ll lose in November if Hillary is the nominee, along with those who know we will lose if it’s Obama. And one can’t help but notice the irony: the listen-to-me-because-I-KNOW prophets are equally assured that they can predict the future – even though they are predicting completely different outcomes.

I will not be moved by the childish bickering between the pro-Hill and pro-Obama factions, which has gone from one ridiculous outburst to another. “Hillary supporters are pro-war and just don’t care about their country.” “Obama supporters obviously want us to lose in November.” Yes, that’s right. Millions of Democrats across the country are meeting in secret, choosing the candidate they are most hopeful will continue the debacle in Iraq and/or cost us the White House. Glad you figured that one out, Einstein.

Let’s not discuss how important it is to rid ourselves of Republican rule when there are more pressing things to focus on – like handshakes that did or didn’t happen. Let’s not concern ourselves with future Supreme Court nominees – better to wind up with another Scalia than elect a Democrat who might have snubbed someone – and, of course, let’s base the truth and/or the implications of that alleged snub on the MSM talking hairdos’ take on things, because it just doesn’t get any more reliable than that.

So while the Clinton-Obama virtual fisticuffs continue unabated (as they no doubt will), I will stand firm in my choice: last man or woman standing with the all-important (D) gets my vote – unequivocally, and without ‘holding my nose’.

In the end, it’s (D) v (R), and in the bitter fray that this place has become over the past few months, I have never forgotten who the enemy is.

As for those who refuse to vote for that man or that woman based on their ‘principles’, I am sure that if we get another four-to-eight years of a Republican in the White House, those same people will comfort themselves knowing that their personal agenda was far more important than the wellbeing of the nation and its citizenry.

Most of all, I will not be moved by those touting the idea that given the two candidates we're left with, there’s no difference between US (the Dems) and THEM (the GOP). If that is what you honestly believe, I hope you will give serious consideration to becoming an equal-opportunity whiner, whereby you post that same sentiment on Republican message boards for a while. If there's no difference between US and THEM, shouldn't you be giving them fair warning as well? That would seem only fair - and I’m sure there are many here who would welcome the break from your belly-achin’.

A Democrat in the White House, with a strong Democratic majority in the House and the Senate. It’s the only thing that matters now – and if you don’t believe that, think long and hard about the alternative – because if that doesn’t give you nightmares, you obviously don’t understand what’s at stake.

I believe, especially after the last seven-plus years, that I do understand what’s at stake – and I plan to vote accordingly.

That's why the nominee with the (D) is getting my vote, and my support, without question. It will be interesting to see which of the two remaining candidates wins the battle - but ultimately, when it comes down to our (D) versus their (R), it should be obvious that there's a lot more riding on who wins the war.

Thanks for a little sanity!
K and R

:applause:

wrong with a LOT of bedrock integrity all the time.

I want to be in your fox hole against the Pukes, madam. You've got what it takes -- the vision of the whole picture, the depth and scope of the problems we're facing, and the great gift of language to help get us to the solution stage.

If anyone on these boards reads what you've just posted and doesn't hit the recommend button, I'll kick their sorry butt.

Thanks, Nance. Just terrific.

As usual, you get right to the heart of the issue!

This sentence especially states the case so damn well:

In the end, it’s (D) v (R), and in the bitter fray that this place has become over the past few months, I have never forgotten who the enemy is.

Thank you!

K&R


:patriot:

...the much-needed reminder, NG!

Sometimes I just want to shout "GROW UP!"

The Republicans are the ultimate enemy. Why divide and conquer ourselves when we have Bush, Cheney, McCain, Romney, and the RNC to do it for us?

NO candidate is 100% perfect. We all have different personal values and beliefs. What binds us is those core values, those set of ideals that represent a better future for EVERY American; not just the upper-class or lower-class or middle-class.

To vote for anyone other than the Democrat in a general election is to say you care more about purity than about purpose. To vote for anyone other than the Democrat in a general election is to blatantly and spitefully turn your back on state of the emergency we face as a nation. Yes, I want to leap 10 steps in the right direction. However, if I have a choice between leaping 5 steps forward or 20 back, I'm gonna take the 5 steps forward and keep working to achieve more.

Thanks for adding that to the discussion!

"If I have a choice between leaping 5 steps forward or 20 back, I'm gonna take the 5 steps forward and keep working to achieve more."

There are too many people who mistakenly believe that politics is an X-box game, where you get into office and zap your enemies into oblivion.

Politics is the ultimate game of chess. You have to move slowly and cautiously, ever mindful of what the other side can 'spin' to your disadvantage, and equally mindful that the move you make now is not going to result in an immediate win, but is meant to set you up for the win further down the road.

It takes a bit of vision, and an incredible amount of patience - not only on the part of politicians, but on the part of the citizenry who have their eye on the ultimate prize.

The New Deal did not happen without vision and support from the citizenry.

The Great Society did not happen without vision and support from the citizenry.

It is so frustrating to see the narrow-mindedness and "tunnel" vision we exhibit. The masses didn't see this coming in 2000. They didn't anticipate what the effect of Republican rule would have on them. I don't think Democrats voted for Bush, so much as they just stayed home, thinking that eight years of prosperity and a term of surpluses would magically continue no matter who was guiding the helm of national policy. Well that apathy killed us then and if folks grab their marbles and stay home this time, their petulance will slaughter us once more.

We're quibbling over handshakes and stolen slogans when, by the way, China and India and Saudi Arabia and Germany and even the UK are buying up our country at bargain rates. One America, Two Americas... there won't be anything wholly American if we don't stop the Republicans from continuing their rule. People seem to not get that we fought for independence from Great Britain and we are now on our way to being economic slaves to several more nations if we don't beat back the right-wing assault.

There is a big picture. Neither Hillary's nor Barack's health care initiatives will become law when either takes the oath of office. You see, if we do our job and elect Representatives and Senators who actually do the business of the people, if there is an aspect of either plan that we don't like, we can voice our opinion and force our legislators to draft a bill that's more to our liking OR draft something entirely different. This election is about placing someone in office that won't say "this bill isn't what I asked for, so I'm not signing it." This election is about putting someone in office that will say, "this bill is the will of the people and I will listen to what they want."

Again, THANK YOU for an insightful post.

... I beg with you, plead with you, implore you to post this as a separate discussion thread of its own.

What you have said really goes to the heart of the matter, and deserves to be widely-read.

(God damn it, where is the down on my knees begging emoticon in the Smilies Lookup Table?)

:hi: :patriot:

Is my command. :hi:

... so allow me to proudly do so:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4375636

Well done, Tatiana!

Democrats came out in sufficient numbers that Gore won the popular vote. It wasn't petulance that gave us the Bush regime. It was a rogue Supreme Court which appointed him.

I think that it is important to remember that thoughtful, intelligent, devoted Democrats cannot find it in themselves to basically give away their votes for a "pig in a poke" -- with no aspersions being cast here on *any* of the Democratic candidates. People in Germany went along with what the *party* had to offer, and we know how that ended. One of the privileges of being an American (for yet a little while, and maybe forever) is that intelligent discourse is welcomed in evolved circles. DU is a good place to try out that highly-elevated principle!

I am *not* suggesting that our situation is equal to the Nazi scenario at this point, but we have a bought-and-paid-for media, and elections that are far from transparent. It isn't apathy that causes many people to say "I will *not* vote again for the lesser evil." It is a moral high ground that is under attack! A population that goes along with the party's wishes, without giving every issue very careful personal thought, is an apathetic population.

Your portrait of how we can influence our Representatives and Senators is very idealistic, and what Democrats in their numbers have been trying to accomplish since November 2006, to no avail. But there's always tomorrow, and you're right, we need to elect people to office who are willing to honor the People's voice in all they do.

Thanks for your post.

It should be required reading.

If you believe that statement after 8 long, bloody, frustrating, punishing and destructive years, you haven't been paying attention.

NOTHING could be worse than another 8 years of the systematic dismantling of the American Dream.

-- and had the thought that their world WILL be different when one of our candidates defeats the Republican. And, that small victories in many of the causes that Granny and I have supported since the 60s are represented by the two candidates today.

--it was a very comforting thought.

Thanks, Nance. K & R

My son is turning 11 this mmonth and unless things at least stop--or better yet, improve--I fear for his future on so many levels.

You've expressed my thoughts much better than I ever could, once again!


:yourock:

that there is no difference between the two major parties. There are some important and distressing similarities, but I won't get into that here. I voted for Nader in 1996 only because it was clear that Bill Clinton would be re-elected with or without my vote, and I wanted to send a message of protest (and possibly help a third party gain some momentum). In 2000, I voted for Gore; at this point however I was almost ready to believe Nader's message that there was no difference between the two major parties. He was shortly proven to be completely and disastrously wrong. He is still wrong and I can't imagine what he's thinking entering the race again. I won't vote for a third party again until/unless it gets to the point where there really is no difference (or so little a difference as to be meaningless) between Dems and Repugs. That day is not here.

Because after all, HillObam is better than a thug.

... enthusiastic about either Hill or Obama. But the important thing to remember (as you obviously do) is that even our worst will always be a better choice than their best.

evil people out of power.

which I thought was a very valid argument. While I think I could make a case that candidate A would be more electable in the GE than candidate B, I would never characterize either as "unelectable," since I can't see the future.

The word "always" doesn't allow for a change in dynamic. However, if one looks at the long time histories of both parties, we have seen changes in dynamics. Trent Lott used to be a Democrat, for instance, as did Ronald Reagan.

I realize this is a quibble but i think it is important to realize and continue to express that none of us can foresee the future.

I agree.

Brilliant post!

:applause:

Well said.

Mz Pip
:dem:

For trying to throw some cold water on the dangerously deluded and self-indulgent people who are promising to only vote Democratic if the one person they had set their hearts on gets the nomination. The attitude of "If I can't have the candidate I want, I'm gonna take my vote and go home", risks a repeat of 2000, when a host of people voting their "conscience" and pulling the lever for Nader or just staying home on election day, handed the country to Bush, Cheney and cohorts for 8 years. How are their consciences coping with that stark reality?

For some reason, these people seem to think that the primary purpose of voting is to make themselves feel good about their choice, with the ultimate welfare of the country and the world being no more than a secondary concern. The message needs to be sent (as often as possible) that your primary responsibility as a voter and as a citizen is not to make yourself feel warm and fuzzy, but to make the country as good a place as possible for as many people as possible. In no conceivable way can you accomplish that by staying home on election day.

VERY well said!

:patriot:

Another excellent post, Nancy. And I agree completely. Enough with the petty bickering, already!

I'm having a difficult time even coming to DU these days, and you, with your good sense and strong DU voice, have helped. I'm trying to tell myself that there is a relatively silent majority of DUers here who feel as you, and I, do.

And, yes, I was here throughout the 2004 candidate wars, and, in my opinion, they were nothing like what I'm seeing here now.

I feel we have come a long, long way from the time when we came together over a stolen election, and the fear, at least in my mind, was the very survival of our democratic system. Now, our common purpose seems to have been forgotten as we villify our own, and each other.

Because everyone here has been so affected by the partisan bitterness of the Republicans that they want Democratic bitterness to start. They saw the war as existing between Republicans and Democrats when it was really between two different philosophies; democracy and oligarchy. They want their own chance at an oligarchy, not a restoration of democracy.

There is a myopic sense of self-importance exhibited by some here.
How often have you seen the phrase "It's my vote and..."
As if their vote is the most important vote out there.

or

"I will not compromise my principles and vote for..."
Yet, they would be outraged if I refused to support their candidate because he or she didn't live up to my lofty expectations.

Their vote and their candidate are pure and the real Democrats. Everyone who doesn't see the wisdom of their candidate is a troll, stupid, a compromiser, etc.

What some ignore is "Politics really is about power and winning."
The winner gets the power and gets to make the decisions... Like who will replace the aged AJ Stevens on the bench.

They can take all the shots at Clinton, Obama, etal they want, but the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would not be Roberts and Scalia would not be an AJ under Gore, Kerry, HR Clinton or Obama.

This purity mindset is part of what cost Gore the election -- it's not the only reason.
The dittering about, "There's no difference between Gore or Bush." that went on was ridiculous.

But, the purity police won't compromise because they're too good for that.
Hopefully they'll wake up -- but I won't hold my breath waiting.

Exactly what IS important about this race, anyway?

This.

then you don't belong here. I don't care for Obama nor do I care for Hillary, but I can't stand anything the repugs have done since Eisenhower was president (I like the Interstate highway system). So, even if Edwards isn't the nominee, and even if my vote doesn't count against the rest of my precinct (92% 'thugs), I'll vote for the D.

BE HAPPY!!!

Thanks for a great post. I've been reading/lurking on DU since shortly after summer 2004, I think. Your words have always been spot on. And this time? You had me amening from the beginning.

right up until election day. Even on DU, far too many people just don't get it.

better we all are.

I have been telling people at work who have asked that, to quote Randi Rhodes, I am not "dating" any of the candidates, but I will "marry" the Democratic nominee. My husband is, sadly, another story - if it's Hillary, he just won't vote at all, and I think that's just SAD.

No matter what I just want the distortions on both sides to stop. Lying about the other side is NOT what Democratic politics and advocacy is supposed to be about. Haven't we had enough of that from the R's? Why would WE adopt that strategy?

To everyone else:

Advocate for your chosen candidate based on the truth of their record. Yell your support from the highest hills. Please do. We are passionate. Be passionate. Use the truth as your shield and your spear. But in the end, once our nominee is chosen, remember who the real opponent is: The Republican party and their determined efforts to destroy the basic balance of liberties, opportunities, and the rule of law. In short they are trying to destroy America. We can't let them. The way to stop them is to insure, with every effort and every ounce of energy you can muster, that we have a Democratic President, backed by a strongly Democratic House and Senate.

and to all the other wonderfully sensible, rational posters on this thread. Dems to win in November -- that is the goal, pure and simple.

... and welcome aboard!

:hi:

some we've lost, some we've won.

Under bush, it has never been more apparent just how bad the GOP has gotten. It is "The Party of Lincoln" in name only. There are no more Republican Teddy Roosevelts, there are no more Eisenhowers; there are only Nixons, Reagans and bushs left to further tear down this nation. We, as a body of Free Thinking individuals need to make a stand, and that stand is behind the D candidate, regardless of who it is. The second part is to ensure that we gain seats in both houses and then pester our congresscritters until they reverse what bush, and his minions from hell have done to this phenomenal nation.

We have one of the greatest opportunities that has ever been presented to a nation, a chance to do it all over again, a chance to replace a corrupt administration, and prevent another from taking it's place; we must not squander this opportunity...we cannot allow future generations to see us as cowards when the chips were down.

You see, no one can take Freedom and Liberty away, they have to be sacrificed by the people that own them. We have seen some of our Liberties given up in the name of "freedom and security", fear drove people to accept a situation that did not exist, and we, as a nation handed some of our beloved Liberty over to one of the most incredibly corrupt administrations this nation has ever seen. Are we willing to allow another to come in and demand that we sacrifice the rest?

It will be a hard battle to overturn the incredibly misnamed "Patriot Act", but a lot of D's have seen the flaws, they need help from us to gain enough seats so they can get rid of that horror.

We have the debt to contend with, we have the war to contend with, we have justice to contend with,, we have energy needs to contend with...and a myriad of other things that need to be addressed and corrected. To do this, we will have to have an administration and a Congress that can and will deal with these problems.

We are the keys to success, no one else is going to go out there and cast a vote for us, no one is going to care about another's principles, especially if said principles give us another 4 years of an R WH. The real principle here is to ensure that there will be no more Reagans or bushs, or anything like them entering the WH...no more Trent Lotts or Saxby Chambiss' in the Senate; no more Newt Gingrichs and Tom DeLays in the House.

We are in a battle zone, there will be some who show the "white tail", but most of us will fight and win. Politics is not for the faint of heart, nor is it to only the strong, it is for those who persevere, who face adversity without fear. Folks, we are in the battle of our lives, and the cost of failure is our nation. We cannot fall back, we cannot stand by idly, we must persevere and take this nation back. It is up to us, no one is coming to our rescue from the outside, we are in this not just for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren...we're in this for all Americans. We cannot falter, the stakes are far too high.

That is the bottom line, for certain. You vote for the "D" in November. Or be ready to accept at least four more years of the scent of bush. Or even son-of-bush. All the shit that's trickled down on us from the bush/cheney operation since 2001 - that has been so badly not working - will keep on trickling down on us - from the next GOP reign. And to add another nightmare - there goes the Supreme Court. Bad enough that it's as bad as it is now.

Is that REALLY worth it?

If you need any help, or if you still need convincing, just remember this (assuming that mccain is the GOP nominee):

1) mccain told people already hard-hit by joblessness: "the jobs aren't coming back."
2) mccain said, about the Middle East, that "there'll be more wars."
3) mccain said, about Iraq, "we'll be in Iraq for 100 years."

Sound appetizing?

When you look back, Bill Clinton continued the policies of George HW Bush and the indications are that Hillary Clinton will continue the policies of George W Bush and her emphasis now on "privatization" of public health care in this country and forced participation by payroll deduction is just another indication that there will be no real change with Hillary Clinton just as there was no real change with Bill Clinton.

I will vote for everyone with a (D) beside their name. Except for Hillary Clinton. My conscience will not allow me to.

Hopefully that will not happen and the candidate will be Barack Obama. He is the only candidate who opposed the administration with regard to Iraq and since that seems to be the main concern of a majority of Americans that should be sufficient reason to support him.

This country simply cannot endure another Vietnam. And the indications are that we will have another Vietnam under Hillary Clinton.

There are other concerns and one of those concerns is our economy and in particular the ability of a majority of Americans to have affordable health care and Hillary Clinton has formulated a plan to provide a universal health care system which serves the interests of the health care industry rather than the interests of the American people.

Sorry but as far as I'm concerned, as far as a growing number of others are concerned, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for another Bush.

Your "conscience" won't allow you to vote for Hillary? Which (R) do you see as a lesser evil? Sorry, but if you can't tell the difference between Hillary and GWB I PRAY that you stay home on election day. I'm not a big fan of Hillary on health care but I think she is trying to deal with the real world fact that there is a huge entrenched interest in the current system and large-scale reform is not going to happen overnight. Your objection to "forced payroll deduction" makes me think you have swallowed M$M's Viagra-financed rationale for our current system hook, line, and sinker.

You assume I will vote for the "R" but in fact I won't and will just simply not register a vote for president if there is not an "I" candidate if it is a choice between Hillary as the Democrat and a Republican and I do not hesitate in saying that and if the Democrats do not have enough courage to nominate an African-American with ethics and moral values, which quite honestly the Clintons proved a long time ago they do not, then so be it but no one should feel obligated to vote for "straight tickets" in this county if for no other reason than that is how we ended up with so many Republicans in office who belong in prison rather than public office. Republican loyalty. And voting straight tickets out of that loyalty. And sorry but I look at Nancy Pelosi and she alone is reason enough not to vote a straight Democratic ticket. In Texas there doesn't appear to be a Democrat who doesn't deserve my vote. That cannot be said of Hillary Clinton.

If Hillary Clinton manages to win the nomination I hope Barack Obama runs as an Independant and wins. Maybe we need more Independents at this point. And again I look at Nancy Pelosi.

Nothing could be worse than a Republican at this point. Except for a Democrat who serves the Republicans. I am tired of the Republicrats in both parties. Impeachment is off the table? Well, so is party loyalty and voting a straight ticket.

There are quite a few Republicans in Texas who will vote for Democrats to be rid of the corruption of their own party. But they will never vote for Hillary Clinton. They might vote for Barack Obama. Particularly if the Republican candidate is John McCain.

If nothing else, this year is certainly causing division in both parties but the division may work against both parties this time.

I think you are backing the wrong horse in the health care derby. Let me recommend a good, short column comparing HRC and Obama's health plans: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

On the subject of Iraq, I give credit to Obama for his early opposition to the occupation. I am sympathetic to Clinton's misguided early support just because the magnitude of GWB's foolishness/deception defied belief. If you compare HRC and Obamas withdrawal plans you will see they are actually very similar.

I think it is sad that so many people are determined to despise Hillary. I hope that if the day comes when you have to choose between Hillary and say, John McCain, you will see that your choice is easy if not pleasant. Of course, as a Texas Democrat you're not likely to have any real influence in this election. The day that Texas is in play for the Democrats is also the day that the Democrats already have 40 states locked up and don't need Texas...

But I do understand exactly what you are saying.

And I wish there was a way around voting for either of the two Corporatists, but it's oligarchy, not a democracy.

... a loyatly pledge - whatever that is.

Ooops! Forgot to add the :sarcasm: thingy for the thinking impaired.

You're not a bad writer, you just have to find something to write about that's not the glaringly obvious. Surprise your readers.

... and people are free to read it or not, as they wish.

I believe in the importance of a Democrat in the WH - and you're right, no surprise there.

this country will not survive another Repthuglican administration.

If a dead frog can't get us out of Iraq and provide universal health care, who on earth can.
We may not all be happy about Dead Frog, but the important thing is that no matter WHO wins the nomination, that we all UNITE behind the nominee. Even if it is a dead frog.

The US Treasury continues to be siphoned into the pockets of disaster capitalists. Cheney's Halliburton stock is more valuable now than before he got into office via cronyism. Veteran's funding has been cut, and some 1/4 of the homeless are now said to be veterans. Illegal wiretapping continues. Destruction of FEMA and other public-service agencies continues, and privatization of others. Torture continues. The Constitution continues to be whittled down. Oil prices and profits rise and the value of the dollar drops. Bush talks about attacking Iran. We've never managed to assemble any good conclusions about 9/11 due to years of stonewalling and obfuscation. Bin Laden is still walking around free. We know that there were no WMD, that we were lied to as they smirked. No one has found who sent the anthrax letters from within the US.

And the Democratic candidates won't do anything about it from their current positions, and they haven't during the seven years that it has been going on.

I will agree, the democratic and republican candidates are not exactly the same. The democrats have no excuse, and obviously, zero sense of shame.

My country means more to me than supporting those complicit with the republicans. It's just not my country any more, is it.

I don't like the bickering about non-issues that goes on here and is encouraged in the media. But there *is* a difference in candidates and there *is* a serious issue with the corporate philosophies of some even within the Democratic party.

If third parties could really work in the US, like they do in Parlimentary governments, we would have split into two parties, and the country would be better off for it. Unfortunately that possability is not available to us, so change has to occur within one party, and that makes for Rocky times.

I don't think even the ones who post really believe that they will change any minds. It's just some sort of feel-good, primal, chest-beating tribal behavior: "my group is best!" ; "my team beats your team!" ; "me good, you bad!" or even just, "oog, oogh, ah-ahh!"

I come here to find the juiciest, flame-iest threads and read through them just for fun. Kind of like when I used to watch Survivor--it's voyeurism and it's funny. Sometimes I join in to defend my candidate (but not to flame the other one), but I know it's no big deal whether I do or not.

Primary season only comes around every four years--it's the crazy season--let's laugh at ourselves a little!

:smile:

My candidate of choice is also not in the final two, and of those two, I do have a favorite, but like you, I will be voting for the person with a D after their name in November.

This country can't take any more of Republican Rule right now.

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

And I think you need to read a little closer.


Oh yeah, welcome to DU.

when I gladly campaigned for a man I didn't believe in. I can't be that person anymore. I look at them and see the same person standing there-(D), (R)...how about (S)...for same. Perhaps I'm letting my country down but I can't vote for a lie anymore.

than I could say it.

What more can I say....................

After that my favorite is our nominee.

Thanks for your post.

A thread with more recs than posts = another brilliant OP by NanceGreggs.

Another great post with a great message. I stand with you Nance and will gladly support the eventual Democratic nominee, whoever he or she ends up being.

Thank for your this post. I'm very happy to kick and recommend it.

:hi:

Thank you for speaking my mind NanceGreggs.

I've been a lurker on here for sometime. I cant remember if I found DU after the the first stolen election or 911. That should give you some idea of how long I've been lurking. I always enjoy reading your posts. You have the ability to get to the meat of the matter and I thank you for being able to write what i feel but can't put into words.

I'm glad you started posting.


Welcome :)

"and, of course, let’s base the truth and/or the implications of that alleged snub on the MSM talking hairdos’ take on things, because it just doesn’t get any more reliable than that."
The MSM shows a clip, out of context, and then tells everyone what the clip means. I for one do not need them to interpret for me. Much too often their interpretation is bias. I find myself wondering if they are actually commenting on the clip or on what they want to spin the clip to mean.
Too many of us seem to be letting the MSM spin our opinions and our vote. The MSM says it over and over again and their "truth and/or the implications" become our view of what was said and we repeat it.
It's hard work and time consuming but I will continue to follow the links to the source and see what was said in toto before I make a judgement. I never just post a link and/or a quote without "vetting" it myself. Sometimes it leads to places that bring light to a candidate's position that I didn't want to know. The truth may set you free but it can be ugly.

:applause:

I appreciate all of your sane posts.

Well said.
I agree completely.

Only Nance always says it so eloquently!

I'm laying low on DU here lately, because its just so darn frustrating to see RW talking points from the 90's rehashed - and by democrats! There's a mob mentality that's taken hold, and trying to clear up mis-information is a waste of time.

And, I know that I'm inviting attack by even posting with the user icon I've selected. I really don't care what people on here say at this point, and wish all DU'ers good luck with their chosen candidate.

But, thanks again for your post. We need to keep in mind who the real enemy is. After seeing the awful SOTU last week, it reiterated for me the importance of electing the dem nominee, whoever it may be.

what "we" (The D party) are going to do once it gets our country back.

Just....thank you.

That's not going to happen if we don't let it. The Democrats enter this election year with every advantage they could ask, except perhaps the Republicans nominating Alberto Gonzales or Dick Cheney. The smart money is heavily on the Democrats this year.

It is true I believe the candidate other mine will make winning more difficult if she gets the nomination, but far from impossible. It is even likely that she will still win, regardless of her faults. As long as Senator McCain -- who is the best candidate the GOP can put up -- continues to stay he'll keep sending troops to Iraq, we will win this thing.

for the D this year and possibly more activism after they take office.

I brought him into a world of hope and now I do little but fear for his future.

Thank you as usual, Nance. You spoke my heart.

I was all set to suck it up and vote for Obama, if he was the candidate (at first I said I wouldn't, but then I decided to do the adult thing) -- but after seeing how smug and nasty his people are, on this and other boards, I no longer feel the need to be adult, when they are so clearly children. If these people are for him (and I don't know anything about him, since he has made a career out of not telling anyone what he stands for) then I'm pretty sure he is not for me.

You've raised a point that really is posing a problem - the fact that some supporters can be so off-putting, they actually dissuade people from considering their candidate.

I would ask that you reconsider your position, and keep in mind that the supporters choose their candidate, rather than the other way around. I am sure that if many of the candidates had seen what was posted "in their name" on this board and others, they would definitely "not approve this message."

Anyway, welcome aboard!

Thanks again Nance, for another K&R worthy piece.

You never disappoint!

Edited to add: :hug:

and that some posters are anti Clinton, or anti Obama, or anti (fill in name of Democratic presidential candidate here), but I for one am proud that the Democratic Party could come up with candidates as qualified as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. I was an early Mark Warner supporter but he bowed out early on. It also speaks highly of the Democratic Party (and when I refer to the party, I'm referring to the voters rather than the institution itself) that we've produced a woman, an African American, and a Latino as viable candidates for President (with the white men--Kuchinich and Edwards--being the most progressive). Whether you support the Democratic nominee or not, it's clear to me that the Republicans will either need to become more diverse or risk losing many elections in the future.

also, I might add beautifully said.:dem: :kick:

Thank you :)

And welcome to the DU conversation!

:hi:

Very kind of you! :)

Doesn't mean they will be good for me or you.

If control in the House didn't prove how spineless and undeserving of our support Democrats are, I don't know what will.

In theory, I like a Democratic majority. In reality, the people who will be making up that majority along with Hillary or Barack make me cringe at how inadequate they will be for America.

... or any one individual representative. It's about the party being in a stronger position to get our agenda out there, and lay the foundation for the future. This is chess - you've got to make every move count in a process that takes strategy and patience.

Time to regroup

I do not care what letter a candidate has behind their name, I care what they stand for, but neither Clinton nor Obama stand for anything but "more of the same", and that is the last thing that we need. Is Clinton better than Romney? Is Obama better than McCain? Probably, but I wouldn't put money on it, and the comparison of their positions on issues could most aptly be described as "right vs. far-right".

Most of all, I will not be moved by those touting the idea that given the two candidates we're left with, there’s no difference between US (the Dems) and THEM (the GOP).

What difference? Clinton wants troops in Iraq "indefinitely", as opposed to McCain's "a million years"; Obama promises "affordable healthcare" while Romney wants to "extend healthcare to all americans".

Let's take your advice about the "nostradamus factor" a step further, shall we? Why not write in a vote for Kucinich (or Edwards, etc) or vote 3rd party? If you're not going to allow the fact that someone "can't win" stop you, why not vote for the person who would really make a difference? Let's use (Bill) Clinton's elections as an example; both Clinton and Bush supported NAFTA, that unmitigated horror-story of corporate favoritism, while Perot opposed it to wide acclaim. Yet Perot "couldn't win" because of attitudes like the one you have espoused, and so we got the "sucking sound" of jobs moving South.

I have not made my decision, yet; Obama could impress me yet (or Clinton, but less likely) and earn my vote, but unless I see some major platform shifts, I'm going to vote 3rd party if for no other reason than that if we are going to have another ill-informed, corporate-owned, reactionary disaster of a president, I would rather it be a Republican ill-informed, corporate-owned, reactionary disaster of a president, so at least next time we could maybe get an actual democrat nominated, rather than these two spiteful, shallow excuses for "liberals".

You want my vote? Here's my list of demands:

1. America. Out of Iraq. Yesterday. Yes, I know, it will destabilize the region, cost our corporations billions of dollars in losses, and invite other foreign powers into the vacuum left by our inept invasion. This is in wild opposition to the current situation, right?

2. Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al. MUST go to jail, do not pass go, sure as hell do not collect $200. I can't say that it would have made a difference, but Nixon should have gone to jail for a long, long time, and maybe it would have made these clowns think twice about pulling the same stunt all over again. Better yet, just turn them over to a war crimes tribunal.

3. Fix education; No Child Left Behind has been a joke ever since it was written, as it was supposed to be. Did anyone actually read it?! "What, your school doesn't have enough money? Then we'll have to take some away to punish you for it!" Brilliant. Also, I may very well punch the next moron who brings up school vouchers; anyone notice that there aren't enough private schools for the kids who can pay?

4. Universal Health Care; this one is easy, just take the phrase "over 65" out of the medicare act. Oh, and let them negotiate the price of drugs, seriously.

5. Reverse the Patriot act, et al.; can we go back to 1984, and work on it from there?

6. Legalize marijuana; purely selfish reasons.

7. If an evil dictator ever challenges you to a duel, ACCEPT! Cheat if you must, but can you imagine W going toe-to-toe with Saddam? I would have ordered pay-per-view for that; of course, the smart money would be on the man who wasn't a male cheerleader.

... I'd still rather a Democrat than a Republican anytime, any day. It's that simple. Our absolute worst choice would still be better than their best.

And I, along with millions of Americans who are supporting Hillary and/or Obama, don't see them as ill-informed, corporate-owned, reactionary disasters.

But you hang in there; I'm sure someone will come along one day and completely satisfy your 'list of demands' - because it is, after all, all about you; the rest of the country doesn't matter.

Again, I don't care about the letter after their name!

Let me take this one step at a time:

1. You're pushing a false dichotomy: it's not about Republican vs. Democrat; there are other options, even if independents are (legislatively, by both dems and reps!) at a disadvantage. More reason to vote third party, even if the mainstream candidates were good.

2. No, in a contest between the worst Democrat vs the best Republican, pick the Republican! Partisanship aside, the country is more important. Can you honestly look at Joe Lieberman or Robert Byrd and think that they are preferable to every Republican out there? I would seriously consider voting for Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton, since he at least has some liberal views.

3. How you and others who support those candidates view them is none of my business, but here I was thinking that you were advocating the "lesser of two evils" philosophy. Nevertheless, on every issue that I have more than passing concern over, both Clinton and Obama are on the other side of it.

4. I don't expect anyone to completely satisfy my list of demands, but I would have voted for Edwards, because he was at least trying.

5. Do you have anything but blind faith to offer here? "Democrats are always better" is both untrue and dangerously naive.

6. If the republicans win, maybe the dems will get their act together and put a credible progressive candidate forward next time; If Clinton or Obama win, their administrations might be a little better in the short run, but the next election will have the same old faces, and nothing will change.

Question: Why are Clinton and Obama willing to do and say (or have others do and say) the nastiest things about each other and other democrats, but have nothing but praise and "bipartisan" attitudes towards republicans? If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck....

... who is not a Democrat - by his own choice.

There was a time - way, way, way back when - when I respected Republicans. I saw them as a party that had the same basic goals as Democrats, but vastly different ideas about how to achieve those goals.

However, especially after BushCo, it is obvious that their goals for this country are not the same as ours anymore, nor are they interested in achieving anything that benefits the citizenry, nor the nation as a whole.

And yes, I will always choose a Dem over a GOPer because of the respective parties they belong to and represent. Politics isn't about individuals, who come and go. It's about ideals that are worked towards - and the ideals of the GOP (as we have seen for too long) are based on the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the hard-working middle-class footing the bill for everything.

Yes, I have faith in my party, which is comprised of millions of my fellow citizens who hold the same ideals I do - and there is nothing 'blind' about my faith in those fellow citizens.

by his own choice

Funny, I seem to remember something about the voters in the democratic primary having something to say about it - or are you suggesting that Lieberman leaving the party just so he could keep his Senate seat after losing the party nomination is accurately described as "by his own choice"?

I don't (generally) respect Republicans, either, but who says that all democrats are saints? I intentionally mentioned Lieberman because he is just the kind of "democrat" that can easily be mistaken for a republican. As I recall, he lost the party nomination, and then won the election as an independent because he got support - from republicans!

Yes, "their" goals are radically different from "our" goals, but the split crosses party lines: I know both honorable, well-meaning republicans and shady, corporate-owned democrats, even though they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

the ideals of the GOP (as we have seen for too long) are based on the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the hard-working middle-class footing the bill for everything

I would interject two points here:

1. Most of them seem rather uninterested in the poor and middle-class, and the fact that their policies hurt them is more in the nature of apathy than antipathy.

2. Just because their goals differ doesn't mean that they are irreconciliable; certainly, legislation geared solely towards the benefit of the wealthy is disastrous for the rest of us, but imagine going to GM and Ford and saying "Hey, what if the government picks up the bill for health insurance for all of your workers and pensioners so you can stop having labor disputes all the time and maybe build a car that works?"

I know it's simplistic, but the point is that, while the "owners" of this country need to be beaten with a stick for all the crap they've put us through, in the end we're going to have to put the economy back together, and we could use their help, if they get taken down a peg or five.

On faith: “I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning.”

... when his people made it clear they wanted Lamont in his stead, he could have accepted the people's will and walked away. Instead, he started his own little party of one, took the Republicans' support, and is now doing their bidding like the good little whore he has proven himself to be.

And I don't believe for a minute that the GOP's policies are merely "apathy" towards the working class. For the last seven years, they have dismantled Constitutional rights, our infra-structure is deteriorating, our educational system is in shatters - the list goes on and on. They knew what they were doing, and supported it all anyway.

BushCo launched an illegal and immoral war, ran up the debt (which will be paid for by the middle-class) and, at the same time, gave tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals and corporations. And his party cheered him on every step of the way.

It will take decades for the damage to this country to be undone - and no, for obvious reasons, I don't trust Republicans to undo that damage, especially in light of the fact that they caused the damage in the first place.

That's why I used Lieberman as an example: not all democrats can be trusted. What, you expect me to believe that he was the only rotten apple in the barrel? Please, he is just the one who got called out. And calling the situation his "choice" is disingenuous; this guy ran for vice-president on the party ticket! Do you think he would have "chosen" to leave the party if his constituents hadn't kicked him to the curb for holding frankly antithetical views compared with the rest of the party?

And while I agree that this administration has been awful, the dismantling of constitutional rights, negligence towards infrastructure, etc. are all incidental to them, unless you are suggesting that their primary motivation is torturing the little people rather than simply pursuing profit at the expense of all other considerations, which seems more likely to me. In either case, the democrats have been, at least for the past year, and in some cases much longer (<cough>Clinton<cough>), just as culpable as Bush, so why should we trust them? They take donations and listen to lobbyists from the same companies and, for the most part, vote the same way. Hillary Clinton's health care plan is endorsed by the pharmaceutical lobby, and I predict that it will have no effect on the price of prescriptions; would you care to bet against me?

The idea that all republicans are worse than all democrats is ad hominem, and the only part that speaks to credibility is the tendency of republican legislators to vote in lockstep. I happen to think that this is the last thing about the GOP that we should be emulating.

... it is not about individuals, it's about my party and what it stands for.

Are there some lousy Democrats? You betcha. Some good Republicans? More than a few, I'm sure.

That doesn't change the fact that I trust my party way more than I trust theirs - in fact, I don't trust theirs at all.

"... unless you are suggesting that their primary motivation is torturing the little people rather than simply pursuing profit at the expense of all other considerations ..." Well, that's it in a nutshell. When you pursue profit at the expense of all other considerations, the 'little people' do get tortured - you can't ignore that as some trivial, unintended nuisance (or, couched in more popular GOP terms, 'collateral damage').

And the minute you try to tell me that the "Democrats are just as culpable as Bush" you've lost me. It just smacks of every RW talking point we've been hearing since the Republicans lost their majority in '06: "Now, now, let's not lay blame. It's everybody's fault we are where we are."

Bullshit. We are where we are because of George W. Bush, his neo-con puppetmasters, and the party that spawned him, put him in office, and supported every disastrous idea that he ever came up with (or, more to the point, that the real powers-that-be came up with and perpetrated via their idiotic little marionette).

End of discussion.

-When the dems tried to filibuster in the minority and the GOP threatened to change the rules, the dems backed down.

-When the GOP threatened to filibuster in the minority, the dems backed down.

-When Bush came and cried for more support, the dems backed down.

-Madeleine Albright is on record as saying that (Bill) Clinton would have loved to have invaded Iraq, but he didn't have an excuse.

Certainly, the GOP in general and Bush specifically are to blame for the direction our country has taken; the dems are responsible for not fighting harder (or at all, in some cases) to change that direction.

How many democrats voted for the Patriot Act? A 3200 page document that the GOP supposedly wrote in one day.

How many voted to invade Iraq?

How many voted for No (read: every) Child Left Behind?

How many more examples would you like?

I never said that the dems are "just as culpable", but the fact is that the same people who are controlling Bush and the GOP are controlling both Clinton and Obama, as well as a good half of the rest of the party. We seem to have two parties in this country: a pro-life corporate party and a pro-choice corporate party, and the only candidates who might have changed that have been forced out.

The motivation is important: if their intent were simply to torture people, there would be no discussion or compromise, but if their intent is to make money, we can manipulate that, work with it, by making it more expensive to constrain our rights than to take them, more expensive to invade Iraq than to bid for the oil contracts, etc. They tried this in the '70s, if you'll remember, with the oil crisis; they only backed down because congress threatened to pass a windfall profits tax, so this time they made sure they had honest politicians (read: they stay bought) in their pocket.

Read this carefully: a businessman of this stripe does not allow "collateral damage" to color his thinking; in fact, in many cases they are prohibited from considering them lest they run afoul of minority shareholder lawsuits (minority shareholders can sue if they think that the corporation could have made more money somehow, even if it causes incidental harm to others, and they do).

Final question: Do you think that either Clinton or Obama is sufficiently divorced from the corporations that fund their campaigns to effect any meaningful change? If so, vote as you will; if not, might I recommend that we regroup and come up with a better plan?

From Your Post #128: "In either case, the democrats have been, at least for the past year, and in some cases much longer (<cough>Clinton<cough>), just as culpable as Bush."

From Your Post Above: "I never said that the dems are just as culpable ..."

Apparently "never" has a different connotation in your world than it does here. Hard to keep those talking points straight, isn't it - kind of like Bush and Cheney "never" suggested there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda ...

Why, that huge, glaring inconsistency invalidates everything I have said! I bow to the overwhelming power of irrelevant data! </sarcasm off>

Seriously, do you have any counterpoints, other than that my rhetoric needs to be proofread? Fine, I'll clear it up: The dems are not (quite) as culpable as Bush and the republicans. Happy?

Let's wrap this up: What do either Clinton or Obama have to offer? What change will they effect in our country? How do they differ from their Republican counterparts, aside from the letter after their names?

You speak of the "ideals and goals" of the parties, and rail against the GOP for promoting the greed of the few over the need of the many, yet it has become glaringly obvious that certain democrats, including Obama and Clinton, share the exact same attitude.

I won't vote for a DINO.

I stated in my OP, and throughout this thread, why I think it imperative to elect a Democratic president and a stronger Dem majority.

"(You) rail against the GOP for promoting the greed of the few over the need of the many, yet it has become glaringly obvious that certain democrats, including Obama and Clinton, share the exact same attitude."

I don't believe they do - as 'glaringly obvious' as it may be to you.

I am not going to change your mind about anything (nor have I tried), and you are certainly not going to change mine. Therefore, any further discussion on the topic is moot.

And by the way, when you make a statement in a post, and then deny ever having said it a matter of minutes later, that's not a proofreading problem, as I see it.

So you won't vote for a "DINO"? That's fine. I'm sure I'll get over it.

...to vote in a savior who has let them down completely. Agree that there was an intention on the part of the cabal that has taken us over to kill off the working class -- no matter of what party -- not that they just decided to let "laissez-faire" run its course.

The reason for listening to some of the good ideas of a Ron Paul is the same rationale used in the Marshall Plan for rehabilitating a country that had been taken over by ignorant schmucks that America (or more correctly, corporate interests in America) decided deserved a chance to take up life again and maybe do better next time around.

Kucinich lost. He barely even registered.

But this was another case of "he can't win, so I won't vote for him".

Well, that and an orchestrated campaign to marginalize him.

for any other reason. He was sabotaged! Well, if we have 4 more years of Republicans to get another Kucinich to come forward what will make it any different next time? Are the changes the world is expected to make for your point of view limitless?

I have yet for anyone to explain precisely how a Clinton or Obama presidency would differ from a Romney or McCain presidency, other than giving the democratic party a bad name. Neither will give us universal health care, neither will get us out of Iraq, neither will do anything but what their corporate "campaign donors" ask of them.

As for "sabotage", how else would you define the act of a major news outlet trying to arbitrarily exclude a candidate from its debate?

Don't I recall that Lieberman's choice to become an independent fell hard on the heels of his being REBUFFED by Democrats?

But he wasn't tossed out of the party; he left of his own accord. That's what I meant by it being his choice.

He could have accepted that his constituents wanted someone different, and moved on to other career options - which, with his resume, would have been plentiful.

But when the game didn't go his way, he packed up his ball and went home.
You can't be a team player if you're the only one who gets to call the shots.

what the country needs. (And an argument could be made in favor of marijuana legalization on several grounds.) Faith is *always* blind (that's basically what defines it), and generally dangerous. Holding a vision for something better, and working toward that vision, is in opposition to going along with a group -- any group -- and leaving individual choice behind. We loyal Democrats are all faced with making a choice that may or may not be in consonance with our personal vision for what is best for the country. What differentiates the Democratic ethic from the Republican one is that what is "about you" is the foundation for what is "all about us."

It is people with the courage to stand up to the madding crowd, as this poster has done, that comprised our legendary group of founding citizens; and it is people who are willing to swim against the current tide of going along with voting for candidates *carefully* selected for us by corporate interests who *might* stand a snowball's chance in hell of bringing integrity back to our voting process.

If time permitted, I'd love to post a list of events which were initiated, or profoundly affected by...The Power of One!

I feel like I'm in an echo chamber in this, and several of your recent rants, when any dissenting opinion is labeled as "all about you"! All about *us* is a compilation of individual voices, all freely expressing their own opinion! A tapestry has many threads, blending to make a whole. A public post will attract public participation, some of which is bound to veer from the OP's own opinions.

We live in times of change, shifts in political viewpoint. That which is "Democrat" in name needs to be carefully examined, every moment of every day, to see that it isn't morphing into something so Republican-like that the "D" has lost its meaning. I will go on record by saying I will *not* vote for any Republican in this coming election; however, many people have made the very good point that Ron Paul has some excellent ideas about the direction this country should have gone, should go in the future in terms of our foreign policy. He's right: They don't hate us because we're rich and free; they hate us because we're camping in their back yard (my paraphrase). As the mother of a 30ish daughter, I think he's anathema on social policy. But I think we have to honor the right and obligation of adults to look beyond the small boxes we are being handed, to a broader vision of what America needs to become -- honoring fully what we have come from. It is entirely possible that in time a third party will arise which will express all that the Democratic Party originally stood for, and has forgotten in these early years of the 21st Century.

As Americans, we *all* need to *hang in there*, with great tenacity, until someone comes along to completely satisfy *all* of our constitutionally-based demands. After the cheering and the pom-poms, what will we have in 2009? Could it be that we will have what we got in 2007? There's a reason that some of us are showing up at the party sans tuxedo and great big smile!!! There's an effort afoot to close the door to the ballroom much too prematurely. It's likely to be successful. But there are some of us -- patriots of a certain stripe, if you will -- who still honor principle above party and are gauche enough to force our toe into the doorway -- even if the door slams on it!

My daughter just handed me a good analogy: We're all walking across a frozen pond, not knowing where the thin spots are, afraid to put one foot in front of another, afraid to choose a place to stand for fear it will not hold us up. Indeed, courage and vision are required for times such as these.

It is sometimes difficult to interpret emotion in text, so let me state that none of this should be taken as offensive; indeed, the idea that we can disagree is central to my philosophy!

Re: Ron Paul

while I disagree some of his social and economic views, I agree with many of his other views, and let's face it, if the Republicans were going to outlaw abortion, you'd figure they would have done it when they controlled all three branches of government.

Technically speaking, we are not supposed to espouse support for other than Dem candidates in this thread, and there are some who might come down on you for this very post, but discussing his *ideas* is very much a progressive act because some of his ideas are quite progressive! Well, maybe I should qualify that and say that some of his ideas are genuinely conservative -- the kind of old-fashioned conservatism that resonates with Democratic principles; things straight from the pages of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When we become demonizers like the Republicans of everything not "blessed" by the party, we're no better than they are.

I think there's a radical group that will still beat the drums over abortion, and try to abolish, but then who would perform the abortions for all those Republicans who got someone pregnant outside the bounds of HOLY MATRIMONY???? :(

The GOP marches in lockstep, not us. At any rate, I will espouse support for whomever I please, and damn the torpedoes (er, flames). That being said, Ron Paul is WAY down my list of acceptable candidates, but, just in case I didn't make myself clear earlier, above Clinton.

As for abortion, my own (extremely limited) experience has been that, even in places where it is supposedly unavailable (there are no abortion clinics within 100 miles of my home), a well-to-do young woman with a problem can find a cooperative doctor, while the less fortunate have no such alternative. If abortion were somehow outlawed, I imagine that the situation would continue.

Also, think about it from a more cynical point of view: how many GOP voters only vote republican over this (and similar) issues? How many would stay home if abortion and gay marriage were actually made illegal? Could the GOP be paying mere lip service to the religious right while using their political support for their own selfish ends? Perish the thought!

I now have a better understanding of where you've been coming from all along.

But we also have to face the realities of where we are as a country, right here, right now. And that means keeping another Bush-like administration from happening. That is the immediate concern; we're running out of time to undo the damage, and we're running out of it very quickly.

"A tapestry has many threads, blending to make a whole." So true. But individual threads cannot provide shelter from the elements, nor do they have the strength individually that they do once woven into the whole.

"Hanging in there with great tenacity" sounds good on paper. But at this juncture, if we allow the GOP as it is currently comprised have another kick at our collective can - there won't be much left to idealize over in future.

As for waiting for someone to come along who meets "all of our demands" - who is that someone? We all have varying opinions, and views on how things should be done - "demands", if you will - ergo, there will never be someone who meets all of the demands of every individual.

And THAT is exactly what I mean when I accuse people of allowing the political process to be "all about them". Unless we are all going to splinter off into separate countries, with separate governments, pleasing every individual is just not going to happen. Each of us is called upon to compromise for the good of the whole at one time or another - that's what democracy is.

As I said, I do now understand where you're coming from. (Duh! Took me long enough). I respect what you and yours want to achieve - I just don't see it as a viable solution, especially in the immediate future.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - but I think we should both give ourselves kudos for waxing so politically poetic here tonight!

Suffice it to say that what me and mine are trying to achieve is not distinct from what you are trying to achieve. Time is indeed of the essence, but I hate to see people just agree to eat what's served them without having a choice (just can't stay away from metaphors; they come of their own accord).

Every night, my daughter and I have our own "What are we to do?" forum, weighing our various choices. Weighing every choice, we still are left with a lot of anxiety for where we are headed as a country. I truly believe that if we are going to continue to have a democratic republic, we are going to have to see change from the "two party" system we have now. Ours are better than theirs, there's no doubt. But we're better than what this election cycle (and the others that have preceeded it) is offering us. And we should not forget the betrayal we've suffered after November 2006. Post-inaguration, we have the same power to effect change we've been using all along; to wit: letters and phone calls to our Congresspersons, which are summarily ignored, for the most part; another round of compromised elections in only two years, or only four years. Speaking for myself, my life is going by in depressing two-year chunks. And I share your horror at the thought of another successful Republican power grab.

Maybe this coming election will give us a foothold for change. I hope so, while continuing to remember the history of the 20th Century, the decades of the '30s and '40s, and what all that brought us. That past, I fear, has been forgotten by a younger generation that thinks we fought Hitler during the Civil War. I think, though, that there's a more evolved younger element that intends to be heard, and I welcome it. They may not know the history, but their gut says there's a better way.

Your "tapestry thread" response to my "tapestry thread" comment was.....GREAT!

"Hanging in with great tenacity" has to do with a refusal to let speeding fascism have its way with us. Those who take money from corporations rise up with obligations to those same corporations. We haven't yet had a government, or a President, that meets all our needs. But the needs are legitimate and memorialized in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and we should not rest (well, maybe an evening off with a margarita) until we have perfected that ethic.

End. Headed out for enchiladas and at least one margarita. I'll have to wade through all the Obama door hangers they've been putting out! Can't say there isn't enthusiasm for Obama in New Mexico! If I see Joe Wilson, I'll try to quiz him about why he supports Hillary! :) And I won't even say "WTF for?"

Democratically .....

Wish I was joining you for one (or more)!

:toast:

After reading your earlier post, I realized we have been talking at cross-purposes for months now. We both have our eyes on the same prize - just differ as to the most expedient route to get there.

:hi:

... and I'm glad we did.

Now get the hell off this board and go HAVE A GOOD TIME!!!

Thats the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans will usually rally around their chosen one while Democrats will continue to bitch or in some case refuse to participate. Maybe Ray-gun had it right speak no evil about fellow Republicans. People then wonder why we lose.


"the Nostradamus factor", absolutely loved it. :spray:

spontaneous emotional reactions. I can't say that I haven't had similar reactions - the difference is I don't verbalize them, as I know they are impulsive and temporary.

I had a great debate coach in HS who made us debate both sides of an issue. It taught me a lesson that has survived decades. I have my preferences, but I can step back occasionally and view the other side objectively. It serves me well and helps me maintain my sanity.

I don't think you're allowed on this BBS if you still have your sanity!

Very nice post... covers my view of things.

Let's all agree with this. Dems are not the enemy.

That it isn't democrat vs republican... it's corporations vs their slaves. Until and unless we come to terms with this unpleasant point of reality... we will continue down that stupefied cattle chute euphemistically called freedom.

thats saying something!

:think:

Thanks, Nance.

I agree with all your points but have a hard time staying civil in this atmosphere. I look at this quote:

"As for those who refuse to vote for that man or that woman based on their ‘principles’, I am sure that if we get another four-to-eight years of a Republican in the White House, those same people will comfort themselves knowing that their personal agenda was far more important than the well being of the nation and its citizenry."

Unfortunately, if a stubborn minority succeeds once again in letting us all suffer because their enormous demands aren't met, the minority won't comfort themselves. They'll still haunt the Internet bashing the remaining Democrats who aren't pure enough. They'll insist that the Democrats ,who the minority worked against electing, throw away their careers and power and sacrifice all else for causes that are nothing more than symbols. New demands will come up every month. And we'll read statements from the same people who refuse to help that say, "That's it. I'm never voting for a Democrat again."

I was a waiter. I learned that the people who run their waiters ragged are also the people who are least likely to leave a tip. Some people only think of themselves.

We had a debate about mandatory health insurance membership yesterday. The same people who demand the Rolls Royce of health care plans for everybody were outraged that, only if they could afford to, they might be required to kick in something toward the kitty. "Give me everything, ask nothing of me in return." That's the attitude. They don't say it outright but their flimsy excuses do. The same people won't compromise to vote for a good Democrat because they might endure a moment of discomfort about their choice. That's too much to ask from the same people who demand the greatest sacrifice from others.

This same minority constantly posts threads that tear apart everybody who is working hard at doing what is actually possible. The minority lies without a second thought. They refuse to listen to objective facts or reason. They have world view that everybody but them is part of an "evil" corporate conspiracy. Anything that conflicts with that world view is automatically rejected. It has to be. Otherwise, the minority couldn't go on thinking that their stubbornness makes them better than everybody else. Its virtue by choosing a side called virtue, rather than achieving self virtue.

I do my best to respond calmly with reasoning and facts. I've noticed that threads that only get 20 responses can get 1,000 views. There must be people out there who deserve to hear the other side.

But I still lapse into anger at times. I'm sorry for the negative energy that brings to a wonderful board. It just seems worth it.