Damn folks, get rid of Bush and worry about Kerry later.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Four more years of this shit, and you won't be talking about elections on DU. Hell, there might not even be a DU if Bushit and AssKKKroftfuhrer
get another four years.

[yorgatron]

1. i say we throw out the naderites right now

i'm fucking SICK of'em.

[Renew Deal]

3. Hang 'em high.

While I duck flying objects.

[CaliforniaLady]

13. Nader promised to not be a spoiler in 2004?

I'm trying to convince the pro-gay, anti-war crowd that votes for Nader could throw the election to Shrub; but a number of people have read the NY Times article (something about 2 for 1) that stated Nader could select the same electoral slate as Kerry....which would mean a vote for Nader would still be a vote for Kerry, but with a message from Nader.

[Hekate]

21. They still believe that s**t?

No no no no no no
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Period. There's not a Republican on the planet who will actually vote for him -- he will only take votes from our side.

There's a reason why Ralphie is getting enough money to keep going from Republican donors. I have lost all respect for the man I used to think of as a secular saint for the good he used to do. Expressing myself as charitably as I can, the man is flat-out delusional. If I were less kind I'd say he's sold his soul to the devil.

I understand Kerry has had some conferences with Nader. If Kerry can defuse the man and his followers by listening to him, all to the good... Another Bush term in office will be an unmitigated disaster for the environment Naderites claim to love, and if they don't know that they are as delusional as Nader has become.

Hekate

[CaliforniaLady]

22. About the idiotic Nader followers I know:

These idiots are intending to 'sit out the 2004 vote' if Kerry doesn't make a clear anti-war stance and state his support for gay marriage.

And, yes, there are strong anti-war, pro-gay marriage supporters in California. Some Californians are stubborn on certain issues.

Personally, I don't think Nader will have much impact on California because the overwhelming support is polling for Kerry.

[Cheswick2.0]

23. he could but he wont

I wouldn't trust him to do what he says. Last time he said he wouldn't campaign in swing states.

[John_H]

33. Naderites are too self absorbed to think about the inanity

of that premise for even a second.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

2. I agree

my whole goal right now is to get a Dem in that FREAKING WHITE HOUSE.

THEN, THEN, we start working on some serious shit. But we can't work on a damned thing until we get the evil bush people the hell OUT. I don't care where they go, they can't stay there.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. Absatively, rabbit-hugger

All the "oh how cruel that we can't bring up the war" and other such arguments are just divisive. We must run off the marauders, then we can get our house in order.

There is no other option. The President elect will be either Kerry or Junior, and anything that dampens enthusiasm for Kerry is narcissistic twaddle.

If we lose this one, we deserve what we get, and boy will we get it.

[Robbien]

5. When Kerry is in office, he is going to have the lowest ratings

of any President in US history. With the fundies, conservatives, and those of us in the center and center-left all not supporting him, Kerry will have little influence and will not be able to sustain this aggressive foreign policy of his.

[PurityOfEssence]

6. Well great, why don't you just break out the ashes and sackcloths now?

Misery will sweep the land and moroseness will engulf us all like a pea-brained fog.

Some people see a glass as half-full, some as half-empty, and some as totally fucked. Personally, I'm ready for a dreary miasma of hopelessness as the forces of darkness plague us and sabotage us at every agonizing turn, because the abject fear I have of the madmen holding the reins now is much worse on my delicate constitution.

I'll happily take my chances and muddle through.

Dammit.

[Robbien]

11. I do not understand your post

My post said if Kerry is elected, we center-leftists will get what we want, a stop to the wars of aggression and destructive foreign policies. And since Kerry will have low poll numbers he will not be able to continue all the other Bush policies that Kerry/DLC supports.

I posted a justification for center-leftists to help the DLCers elect Kerry.

Why are you posting I am talking doom and gloom?

[K-W]

12. Your post could have been read as gloom or doom. EOM

[Robbien]

14. Upon re-reading it, you may be right

hopefully the second post was clearer.

[I thought so.]

18. How do you know?

If it is your ignorant opinion,say so. Kerry has no aggressive policy. An aggressive policy is not possible,there is no money to support it.
Kerry won big in the primaries,the party backs him. I would have to guess that you are not a Democrat.

[Beearewhyain]

7. The way I see it

What I have boiled down for the debate between Nader supporters and the rest of us is WHEN Kerry is elected, what will we be debating as opposed to what we will be debating if Bush* is elected. For me, this crystallizes the argument.

With * in for four more years we will be arguing many of the same issues that we have at the moment, however, we will see all the liberal gains eroded to such a level that it will be arguments as to whether liberalism has any place in America anymore. We will be so far away from the table as to be irrelevant, with all three branches in firm neo-con control. This frightens me to no end

With Kerry in office, I don’t think I will get all that I want, but there will be plenty to complain about that will be a far sight better than under this admin. We won’t have to convince a divine right emperor that God may see things differently; rather, we will have to convince someone that is inclined to our way of thinking. A much better proposition anyway you slice it.

Bottom line is that we will be a part of the dialog rather than being relegated to the margins and ignored. While I would like everything to move faster to the left, I still believe that patience is a virtue and I, for one, am going to strive for those long term goals, which is much better than complaining that my candidate is not perfect.

[patriotvoice]

8. = "Pay your bills with your credit card now and worry about it later"

Bad policy.

[K-W]

9. so we just give up and move?

[patriotvoice]

10. No, we get Bush out (guarantee screw) and get Kerry in (probable screw)

Then we start getting local and state representation that actual represents the people, not the politicians. Changing the figurehead isn't going to do anything; we have to take the whole system out from the knees.

[CaliforniaLady]

15. patriotvoice-- has the whole plan nailed! n/t

[Beearewhyain]

16. I would have to say that I largely agree

We have to start looking at our local and state elections to really make a shift in American politics. The plan by the Repubs was to take control of state legislatures and then redistrict in their favor. While the majority of Americans identify with the Democratic party, The R's control the House. This was not by accident. I forget who said it but "all politics are local".

[I thought so.]

20. The republicans have been working on this for 40 years.

What you see are the fungi that is above ground( appearing as if overnight),the roots that produce it are underground.
Those that want change need to unite and quit trying to plant bananas trees in North Dakota. That is not the current political climate.
The republicans want to render any opposition to the margins and have said so publicly.
As BF said "we either hang together,or hang separately".

[I thought so.]

19. So do it.

Oh and BTW politicians are elected,"the people" just sit on their asses and whine.

[bushwakker]

26. Stop the damage first - then worry about positive change

politics is as much about preventing the bad as furthering the good.

[Raster]

25. all due respect, but not the same thing...

...whatever it takes NOW!!! Tomorrow may be too late!

[patriotvoice]

34. = "If we wait for a smoking gun, the smoke might be a mushroom cloud."

Also a bad policy.

We must affect change now with a mind to the consequences.

[Zorra]

17. Your plain old common sense is refreshing.

:toast:

[Nlighten1]

24. 95-3 says you are wrong...

Getting rid of Bush isn't going to fix what is wrong with our government. Remember, the President can hardly do anything without Congress and Congress (including the Dems) have rubber stamped everything this piece of shit "President" wanted.

If the current Democrats in Congress fought like the Republicans did against Clinton this asshole would have NEVER got anything done.

So get rid of Bush by voting him out. It will be a hollow victory unless the Democrats nail him and everyone in his administration to the political cross they have foisted in DC.

The Bushes aren't going to just go away, we have Jeb waiting for his chance to take the helm from his brother. Not to mention all the other little Bush rodents scurrying around the corners of power.

Everyone here is so focused on the short term fix that they are missing the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is the Bush crime family needs to be exposed and ruined. It isn't enough to let them slide out of power. They will pardon everyone on the way out.

[msmcghee]

27. Way too many folks here think that this is all about . .

. . who we elect to be president.

That's only the top layer of the conflict. Really taking back America depends on all the layers below it.

Ultimately, the kind of government we will have in this country will depend on one thing - what the average citizen thinks is right and wrong about our government.

The pukes have all three branches of government right now because they started 20 years ago with a well financed, well planned and massive PR campaign to convince average voters that liberal (tax and spend) government was bad, that taxes are bad, that liberals themselves are sleezy, that welfare is bad, that we can't manage national security, etc. - and that Republicans are good and wise and better caretakers of America.

Those people now vote against their own interests in the face of massive evidence to the contrary - because they've been brainwashed. We have a good shot at the next election for one reason - and it's not because those brainwashed masses have seen the light. It's because the Bush regime has so egregiously overstepped all bounds of decent conduct that even many conservatives are turning against him.

Remember this - it's not because they like us better. If Bush* loses, it will be because he hasn't been faithful enough to the conservative principles the Republican leadership promotes and that the masses have learned to love.

If Bush* rating drops too far, and it well might, and if they decide that Bush* is a lost cause and run somebody like McCain/Powell, we're toast. That could be why McCain keeps throwing cold water on any talk about a Kerry/McCain ticket. He might know very well what's about to happen.

We Dems need to stop believing that what's happening to Bush* is our own doing. We got lucky, if you can call anything about the last 3-1/2 years lucky. And we better get busy promoting true American liberal values at all levels in society - something that we should have started ten years ago.

The sooner we get over the idea that they really like us better because we are the good guys, then we can really start taking back America.

Otherwise Bush* will just be a speed bump on the road to complete neo-con domination of this country for decades to come.

[CWebster]

32. That is the heart of the matter.

that must be addressed sooner or later, otherwise might as well just give up.

[republicansareevil]

28. The problem with voting for Nader to "send a message" to Dems

The problem with voting for Nader to "send a message" to Dems is that it is sending a message to people who are not in power. Republicans control all three branches of the government, but Nader-voters can't send a message to Republicans because they have nothing to hold over them - Republicans know these voters would never have gone "R" to begin with. The best thing to do is get Kerry in office and then, as others have said, hold his feet to the fire. No point in blackmailing someone who can't do anything for you anyway, right?

[tom_paine]

29. kick for THE TRUTH!

:kick:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

30. You got that right.

and frankly I am worried about Kerry not.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. I was thinking

of a response to someone along exactly those lines yesterday.

I second that emotion. Concentrate on the task at hand.

[hiphopnation]

35. You'd think folks around here

would get the basic precept stated in your post. Yet, there is a group of on-the-fence whiners who don't really see this vote as:

A) Apocolypse

B) Senator John Kerry

:shrug: How many more ways can it be stated to make them understand? Hello? Mr. Nader? Can you HEAR ME?!!?!?!