Beating Bush isnt enough!!!!

[wanderingbear]

Dont choose a canidate on their ability to beat Bush..That isnt enough to Qualify them for the job. You need to vote for who YOU beleave can do the Best Job in doing what you beleve should be done..
This isnt a popularity contest.. We are electing a presedent here. Not the King of the Prom.

Take a look at you canidate and what they beleave..Then take a look at their record.. Do they match up with what you expect in a presedent??? If Not then why are you voteing for them?

[neuvocat]

1. It isn't Bush that needs to be beaten.

It is the media and the corporations that propped him up to do their bidding. That is the true threat.

[Raya]

3. By Now we should have a Leader who makes Bush look like garbage. We Don't

[liberalnurse]

12. Yes we do......

their are road blocks;

the right-wing media and ego-centric democratic candidates. Most of the candidates are trying to play the same old campaign game plan....it will not work this time.

Please don't forget, this pResident was selected in 2000 and he has 911 hype surrounding him and has diluted the American people that Saddam was am imminate threat....Not... . They own the media and every branch of government.

We the people are in deep shit.....The traditional campaign will fail.


Thats why we should look at the real target, as noted above...
I recommend we all back Howard Dean.

[Scott Lee]

31. Aye!

now if we could just get some of those who are against Dean for personal reasons on board....

[wanderingbear]

60. You are right..New game.New rules..The canidates havent got the memo yet.

[wanderingbear]

4. You know.People are turning off the TV.

The High Prices,Bad Service And poor quality of content in cable and satilite are causeing people to tun off their TV all together..No cable..No CNN..No Fox News.. Just PBS..

[loudnclear]

48. And the entire neocon cabal. Any puppet who will do their bidding

can do as much as Bush. It's the power behind Bush that is the problem.
We all know for sure that Bush is incapabal of leading a nation on his own. He doesn't really even understand what he has done right now. It's not a matter of being stupid...it's a matter of being ignorant.

[liberalnurse]

2. Yes it is......

If we don't beat *bush...we are stuck with the crime family for another 4 years. It's not rocket science. That is the enemy and I want to most aggressive, most financially backed democrat to go after *bush.

Then; Congress can do its job......try and balance power and serve the people.

[wanderingbear]

6. Ya and If we beat Bush with the wrong guy well be stuck with another crime

what good dose that do ya?

[liberalnurse]

13. None of the democrats are anything like *bush.

We must back a powerful democrat......the rest will take care of itself.

[wanderingbear]

25. Are they Anything like Clinton??

[mikehiggins]

26. That was Nader's argument in 2000

I thought that had been answered very clearly.

[wanderingbear]

62. Who do you think gave him that argument?

[wanderingbear]

7. Is that a pair of Pink panties for your avitar??

[liberalnurse]

15. Excuse me?

My Avitar is the State of Ohio ......

[wanderingbear]

16. Oh..It looks like a pair of pink panties.

[liberalnurse]

19. Why are you refering to pink panties?

I'm sitting here at my computer without panties.

[wanderingbear]

21. Dont know..

Just what it looks like.. Or I just might be that Im really stoned right now.

[sidwill]

5. You are wrong

Beating Bush is a great start.


You are suffering from the same detachment from reality that Ralph Nader and his supporters suffered from back in 00. They felt the same way accomplishing nothing other than throwing a close election to Bush.

Do you think the country would have gone so far into the pooper with Gore at the helm? How would we have done in the 02 midterms? Does 9/11 happen?


Bush is the worst president in US history, its not even close.

We all should rally round the one guy who can beat him.

[wanderingbear]

11. Replaceing Bush with Bushlite does no good.

[sidwill]

20. Are you calling Clark Bush lite?

Can you back that statement up?

Clarks positions on all the major issues are consistant with current progressive/Democratic philosophy. He is at least on the issues MORE liberal than Dean. But projects a moderate image to the electorate while DEAN does the exact opposite more conservative than Clark (see guns and Medicare) while projecting as more liberal to the electorate.

[wanderingbear]

23. Hes Military and an Ex republican.. Bushlite.. You know..Lite one Bush..

[mikehiggins]

27. Say, you don't suppose

that exchanges like those are why people think Dean supporters are incredibly arrogant?

Naaahh. Can't be that.

[wanderingbear]

30. Accually Im a Green Peace Activist...Thats why I dont like his background.

[BenZodiac]

32. Clark, the one who praised Bush's leadership?

Clark, the one who voted for Nixon and Reagan?

Clark, the one who advised those running for Congress in 2002 to vote for the War?

Clark, who claims to be a Democrat for about a month now, but still hasn't changed his voter registration?

If I wanted a Right-Winger in Sheep's clothing, I'd vote for Bush.

"We need those guys there!"
-Clark, referring to Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

"I would have been a Republican, had they returned my phone calls"
-Clark, the opportunist

[Tinoire]

51. I thought he changed his voter registration to Dem in September

Could have sworn he did.

[ourwinter]

8. hmmm

In case you need a lesson on how to spell believe it is:
"C-L-A-R-K"

President is oddly similar it is also:
"C-L-A-R-K"

This of course adds up to:
1) A man I believe can do the best job for the unique times we live in.
2) A man whose record distinguishes himself with conviction, an iron will to succeed - and the ability to perservere despite near impossible circumstances.

In short: {I believe + in Clark = 4 President}

ahh the things we learn day-to-day...

----------------------------------------------

[wanderingbear]

18. Sorry..To military..

[Droopy]

9. I'm backing who I think is the best guy for the job

He isn't up there in the polls right now, but in the primary I'm going for the guy who matches up with me the most.

Barring a miracle, I'm going to wind up backing a person who I don't match up with all that well. That's because I think any of our candidates is light years ahead of Bush. Just because my guy isn't going to get the nomination doesn't mean I'm going to sit this election out or vote third party. My main objective is to get Bush out. That means casting my vote for the nominee. And although that person won't be my ideal candidate, I'll feel comfortable knowing I'm doing the right thing.

[wanderingbear]

14. Good ,You should..If thats what you really beleve

dont let some one scare you out of it.

[liberalnurse]

17. Have you ever been

involved in a Triage? Like in the emergency room, 911, survival stuff.... We need to triage and bring the strongest, most powerful democrat in to save our lives.

[wanderingbear]

39. Have you ever been at that point where you know that life isnt worth...

saveing if you have to do what is required to save it? If not stay in your profession long enough and you will.

[Crunchy Frog]

44. I havn't been but I am

going into nursing, so I expect that I will at some point. I'm pretty sure that the most important thing is to make sure the patient has a proper manicure before attending to such minor details as bleeding and airway. Am I right?:silly:

[wanderingbear]

55. Ah,But thats where we disagree..

On the importance of these so called Minor details..We dont happen to think their so minor.

[Crunchy Frog]

64. I actually don't think their minor details

either, but I've looked at Clark's positions and they satisfy me as being at least as progressive as those of his major competitors. Nevertheless I think getting Bush out is the number one priority. If Bush stays we won't even have to worry about these other issues.

[impeach the gop]

10. The job is beating smirk

Daffy Duck is more of a leader than the coward we're stuck with at this time.

[sandnsea]

22. My guy is both

He can beat the pants off Bush and he's the most progressive candidate running except for Kucinich, Braun & Sharpton. I actually looked at his record which is why I know that the progress in health care, education, women's issues, glbt rights, environment, labor, small business and more have been directly related to legislation he's written, worked on or stopped. I wish more people would look at the candidates' records instead of just buying in to election year rhetoric about the candidates' records.

[mistertrickster]

24. Beating Bush may not be "enough," but it's a hellofa good start!

Look, anybody is better than Bush. Someone who does NOTHING is better than Bush because he keeps doing idiotic things--so many I couldn't even list them all, but lying incessantly and blowing the surplus are two good examples.

ANYBODY BUT BUSH

--don't ever forget it, baby . . .

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[wanderingbear]

41. So.. Ive got a med card...

[BenZodiac]

29. agreed

This sickness of "I don't care what the nominee believes" will sink the party in the long run. We must stand up for our beliefs! I am amazed by some Democrats here in California who, during the recall, pointed out to people that Arnold really isn't a Republican because of his stand on some moral issues. But while Arnold has been a registered Republican for decades, working for Bush Sr., these same people don't make a peep now that we have an admitted Reagan and Nixon voter running for the Democratic nomination, who just decided to become a Democrat a month ago, then didn't even bother to change his registration to Democrat?? What the heck is going on?? If Rumsfeld said he was a Democrat suddenly and wanted to run against Bush, would you believe him? Then why do you believe Clark?
Do we want to beat Bush so badly that you become him???
Which is why I will never vote for Clark, even if he is the nominee. I'll vote green. If I wanted a Republican, I'd vote for Bush.

[QC]

33. You would have a point--if any of the Dem candidates were even remotely

as bad as Bush.

But even the worst doesn't come anywhere close.

But feel free to vote Green if you don't get your way. That'll really show Bush!

[BenZodiac]

36. I vote issues, not popularity

Has nothing to do with "getting my candidate". Has to do with the fact I only vote for people that I sincerely believe, and that share the same issues as I do.
So far, Clark has come across as someone who will say anything to anyone, will wear any football team jersey in a pathetic attempt for votes, and can't seem to decide how he'd vote on the War.
He comes across as an opportunist, I'm sure he'd be a Republican right now if a Democrat were president. He voted for Nixon and Reagan!

Replacing Bush with Clark, in my opinion, would be no different. I do not trust a word Clark says. I am sorry, but its his OWN record and comments that make me feel this way.
Obviously, you feel differently. Thats why opinions are like noses: Everyones got one.

[QC]

45. "He voted for Nixon and Reagan!"

In 1972, 60.69% of voters chose Nixon.

In 1980, 50.75% of the electorate voted for Reagan. In 1984, 58.77% did so.

Do you really believe that all those people should forever be locked out of the Democratic Party? If so, how can we win elections when we consider the majority of the electorate insuffiently pure to associate with?

[ozone_man]

54. Obviously, voters should not be locked out.

But candidates who do not have a substantial history of supporting Democratic party ideals, candidates, etc. should probably not run for president.

Clark has more unkowns in his background than I care to try to investigate, but Acxiom, NED, Stephens Group, etc., are enough to further disuade me from considering him a viable candidate, aside from voting for Reagan, not once, but twice. Surely by 1984, anyone with a shred of common sense knew what Reagan was like?

[BenZodiac]

58. Your point is valid

You are correct that all those voters should not be locked out of the party forever. I do not consider the majority of the electorate insuffiently pure to associate with, and we should always welcome converts! And if this were Clark's only fault (voting for Reagan and Nixon, that is) I'd get past it. But its one thing in a pile of things for me about Clark.

To me it comes down to this: his "conversion" to a Democrat happened a little too quickly.

I listen to what he says, he is saying all the right things and much of it *lately* sounds like any Democrat, but I have hard time with his past record. There is very little there that says "I am a Democrat." I personally do not feel his conversion to be totally sincere. I have tried, really I swear, to not wrongly judge the candidates, but whenever I see Clark, why does my brain scream "opportunist"?

[Crunchy Frog]

53. He was sure a good loyal Republican

during the Clinton Administration.:eyes:

[wanderingbear]

38. Bad Is Bad.And I wont be responible for Bushlite or Clinton 2.

[QC]

40. You prefer Bush, then?

I agree about the importance of principles, but I also understand how winner-take-all voting works. Until the system is reformed, voting third party has, under the best of circumstances, precisely as much impact as writing in my Aunt Ethel, and under the worst circumstances it splits the vote and allows the likes of Bush to take office.

[wanderingbear]

43. If I dont get what I want Its all the same to me.

[QC]

46. "If I don't get what I want...."

That says it all. Thank you for your honesty.

[wanderingbear]

47. Hey lets be honest..Thats Just the way it is.

Does me no good to vote for your canidate if I dont get anything in return.

[QC]

56. That's not the way it is for all of us.

Some of us do not think that "it's all about me."

What about the people in the next five or six countries on PNAC's invasion list? Do they figure in? What about the poor in this country, and members of racial and sexual minorities? The young people who are almost certain to be drafted if the PNAC plan continues? Do they figure into politics somehow? Or is it all about you getting what you want?

[wanderingbear]

63. Ah..Well you see...

My Issues have alot in common with those people. Now it is possible to deal on the issue.. But the domocratic Party has been totally unwilling to deal with the issues we have.. So it is not we who break the circle but the democrats in their Donkey like stubboness to accept change with in the party who has broken the circle on this one.

[Crunchy Frog]

52. That reminds me of

the suicide squad scene from the movie Life of Brian. "That showed em huh."

[ozone_man]

35. Right you are.

The Democrats are being infiltrated by Republicans. Sort of a one party merger. I only see Dean and Kucinich as having traditional Democratic party ideals.

ABB doesn't work for me, I stand on principles and if I see no appreciable difference between Republican and Democratic candidates, will consider going 3rd party.

[Crunchy Frog]

49. I recently watched a C-span forum

on Neoconservatism with Richard Perle:puke: on the panel. I'm pretty sure that he said he was still a registered Democrat, out of respect for Sen. Scoop Jackson. I may have misheard him, but if that's the truth, then would you be willing to vote for him?:eyes:

[CreekDog]

50. That's A Selfish Attitude

You should support a candidate that you agree with and that you believe is best.

BUT, you should take other people's opinion into account. Why? Because if you want your BEST and FAVORITE candidate elected, you better figure out if anybody else wants to vote for them. If not, then it's time to compromise and agree on a candidate that can both meet your needs (keep in mind the compromise) and win.

It's all about sharing power if you ask me. Even in Parliamentary systems, the Greens and Social Democrats must share power, give up things to have power --there's no way around it.

Ironically enough, the more successful your party is, the more compromise you make because there are more people and more interests that the party must meet.

I believe the guy I'm supporting is the best. I would not have left Dean and Gephardt (my initial favorites) if I didn't think so.

[wanderingbear]

57. Thats just it.. the Dems have never...

taken the oppinons of the far left into account..

[bowens43]

34. I agree completely

[Crunchy Frog]

37. I'm supporting the person

who I believe is both most likely to beat Bush, and who I think would make the best president. However, if forced to choose, getting rid of Bush is a higher priority for me. I regard the Bush administration as both a national and global emergency.

It's sort of like debating which furniture to try and save while the house is going up in flames. That's just the way I see it.

[wyldwolf]

42. I see there are a few newbies and somewhat newbies in this thread...

Dishing out the lies about Clark as though they are new to us.

They've all be debunked, guys.

[RetroLounge]

59. Sorry, too hard to read your post.

Please correct your spelling if possible...

and if you truly are stoned, then why should I care about this post?

[Tinoire]

61. No argument from this corner

ANY candidate who wants my vote has to earn it by having a consistent, verifiable record that matches my beliefs.