Have we become the Party of the Lesser of Two Evils?

[Q]

How often have you heard: We have to hold our noses and vote for the 'lesser of two evils'? This phrase always seems to be preceded by the qualifier 'we have to'.

Could someone please tell me why it is that we HAVE TO vote for the lesser of evils? Who said so? Who made this rule? Was it made by Democrats who saw their party was becoming so much like the other side that they had to find a reason to vote at all?

That's quite a drop in stature: from the party of the people to the party of the lesser of two evils. One would think that voting for Democrats over Republicans would be an honor and a no-brainer. After all...the Democratic party is superior in many ways. Isn't it? A quick answer to that question is...maybe. But could there be a gap between the party we think we have and the party that exists in reality?

Democratic (DNC) campaign literature touts:

"The 2004 Democratic Party Platform: Stronger at Home, Respected in the World"

This is what the Democratic party 'promised' if elected in 2004. But hidden behind this rhetoric are the ugly facts that the Democratic party voted WITH Republicans to make us 'weaker at home' and 'disrespected in the world'.

It's a shallow campaign slogan to suggest that Democrats would have made us 'stronger at home' when they voted with Bush to gut our treasury and give corporate welfare tax cuts to the rich. How does it make us stronger when they stood by and watched as his environmental policies made it possible for industry to plunder our natural resources and pollute our air and water? How does a rubber stamp congress make us stronger at home? How does ignoring election fraud make us stronger at home?

Democrats voted with Bush to invade and occupy Iraq. In other words...Democrats must share the blame for the World's hatred towards America for their participation in an illegal, aggressive war. Democrats have turned a blind eye to illegal detention, torture and the slaughter of thousands of innocents. As it turns out...their 2004 slogan "Stronger at home, respected in the world' was a fabrication when it's taken into consideration that they voted for, supported or didn't fight against these policies.

The Democratic party:

"The Democratic Party has a long and proud history of representing and protecting the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing personal liberties for all."

The Democratic party may have a history of 'representing and protecting the interests of working Americans'...but they threw off this cause in the 90s with NAFTA, WTO, abandoning unions and worker's rights. And how can they say they're the party that 'guarantees personal liberties for all' when Democrats voted with Bush to weaken the Bill of Rights and destroy civil liberties by helping to make the USA Patriotic Act law? And now they're thinking about 'guaranteeing the personal liberties' of women and other Americans by abandoning 'choice' and the separation of church and state.

Democrats that have cooperated with and enabled Bush's policies to become reality seem to think that they should share none of the blame because Republicans control all branches of government. But they are ON RECORD as having supported many of these horrendous policies. That makes them less than the lesser of two evils.

If the Democratic party expects to EVER win another election...their rhetoric must match their actions. What they say and what they do must become one in the same. It's getting more difficult to vote for the lesser of two evils when the parties are moving closer together in ways that makes them indistinguishable on many issues. Democrats must become the party of truth and responsibility or risk becoming irrelevant and fading into the shadows of history.

[henslee]

1. Deep pocket Freeps + contrlled media result in skewed peception of Dems...

who then feel obligated to recast themselves as being more conservative thus losing all credibility and forgetting what values got you to the ball to begin with.

[Q]

2. Is it a 'skewed perception'...

...or a reflection of reality? To me it's not that the party is becoming more conservative...it's that they're not telling the whole truth about their intentions and below the radar cooperation with the Bush junta.

If the world hates America because we illegally invaded Iraq...shouldn't Democrats share at least part of the blame for that because they made it possible with their votes and support? And now that nearly every person on earth knows that it was illegal and immoral...isn't it a breech of trust for the party to continue to support it?

[K-W]

4. You missed his point.

He was saying that the right wing is using its considerable propaganda power to manipulate the democratic party into resisting leftism and being sympathetic to radical conservatism. You cant judge the democratic party in a vacuum.

[Q]

6. It wouldn't be the first time I missed a point...

...but it seemed like an excuse to blame the other side instead of taking responsibility for our own actions.

[henslee]

15. I must point out that this is my opinion and b. it is only a contributory

factor to current condition but one I feel should not be forgotten.

[K-W]

3. Drop this 'lesser of two evils' bull

Stop looking at the world as if it should be providing you perfect idealized choices.

'Lesser of two evils' is to 'better candidate' as 'the glass is half empty' is to 'the glass is half full.'

Until medical science creates the perfect statesmen in a lab you will ALWAYS have to choose between flawed people in any election.


In the meantime, if you dont like where the party is going, change the course of the party. Get involved. The party isnt a person, it doesnt have a will of its own. Its direction is decided by the people who are involved in it. Make yourself one of those people.

[Q]

5. If honesty and integrity are 'perfect ideals'...

...then we're in more trouble and denial than I realized.

You used the word 'perfect' twice in your post. I said nothing about perfect politicians or policies. But have we fallen so far as a party that we don't even expect the very basic principles of honesty and integrity from our candidates?

Perhaps you could tell me what makes us different from the opposition if we're willing to overlook these basic values in order to win?

[Cary]

7. Yes, you have to understand too that our parties are coallitions.

In a plurality system like ours, and unlike the British, it doesn't pay to have multiple parties. All third party candidates can do is syphon off votes from one candidate or the other.

Our parties are supposed to be coallitions, rather than forming coallitions between parties. The candidates we get are supposed to be the product of some negotiation. Negotiation necessarily involves compromise, which means nobody is going to be completely happy with the end result.

I'm not so much troubled by the manifestation of this in the Democratic party as I am with the results in the Republican party. I don't understand how any moderate could be a Republican. It seems to me the moderates have no voice there.

[Q]

8. In the end result...you're defining a one-party state...

But I'm not talking about parties and perfection as much as practices and policies that lead to good government.

It's very disturbing that the discussion aways veers back to the Republican party. Yes...they are definately the cause of many of the ills facing our country. But they couldn't have been so 'successful' without the help of too many Democrats.

You say you don't understand how a moderate could be a Republican. But have you considered how difficult it must be for a liberal or progressive to be part of this new Democratic incarnation? You complain that moderates don't have a voice in the GOP...but it seems that you have dismissed the possibility that the same thing is happening in our party.

[VioletLake]

13. I don't find it disturbing in the least.

It's very disturbing that the discussion aways veers back to the Republican party.

I think it's reasonable for people to want to focus on our #1 adversary. What I find disturbing is the attempt to shift our focus to each other. This is starting to become your theme, Q.

[Q]

17. I'll define my OWN theme...thank you very much...

If I have a theme it's CLEAN UP OUR OWN HOUSE before presuming to clean up the house of the opposition.

You're promoting a 'team sports' mentality...where we cheerlead for our side no matter what they do or how many 'games' we lose.

We can't demand things of the other side that we're not willing to demand of ourselves. We bitch that 'Bush lied this nation into war with Iraq'...but seldom do we even mention that our side voted for it. We rant against the Patriotic Act...but our side helped make it possible. I could give you a very long list of issues where Democrats and Republicans worked in concert to make them policy.

Why do so many consider it unattractive to want a party that accepts responsibility for it's own actions instead of blaming the opponent?

[VioletLake]

25. That's what you're doing: defining your theme.

My house is clean, Q; as are the houses of most of the people here.

You're promoting a 'team sports' mentality...where we cheerlead for our side no matter what they do or how many 'games' we lose.

I wish that it were just a "sport." The situation is more like assault & battery. Everyone here acknowledges that the Democratic Party has serious problems, but we need to hit back and defend each other. We can work on our family problems when the threat to its survival isn't so severe.

I know: "We can't beat them if we don't get our shit together." Point well taken. Of course you're free to make the point as many times as you like.

By the way, the "lesser of two evils" meme works to the benefit of the anti-government party. I wrote an article for DU a few months ago dealing with the topic:

Republicans are quite comfortable when the choice is between the "lesser of two evils." After all, they're the ones that worked so diligently to lower - and bury - the proverbial bar.

They know that for a patently inferior product to be able to compete in the "free market" of ideas, the integrity of the market must be destroyed first. It doesn't matter to them that people depend on this market to thrive. For Republicans, it's a small sacrifice to pay for power.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/08/27_evils.html

[welshTerrier2]

28. "but we need to hit back and defend each other"

should we defend those in the Party who believe that the Iraq war is "winnable" if we could "internationalize" the crises? should we defend those who want to find a "middle ground" on abortion rights? should we defend those who refuse to make the case against those who have bought our government?

why should we be afraid to "have it out" within our own Party? people are dying everyday in Iraq ... should those of us who oppose the position cited on the DNC's website just say "gosh, fellas, couldn't we just change that policy a teensy weensy bit" ... personally, i hold genuine disdain for those who continue to condone the insanity in Iraq whether they are Democrats or not ... should we all just be "good" Democrats and make nice ???

and one last point ... you stated: the "lesser of two evils" meme works to the benefit of the anti-government party. ... i'm not sure what point you're trying to make by pointing this out ... is there such a thing as an "anti-government" party?? it seems to me that the "lesser of two evils" meme works to the benefit of those who see a two-party process failing to highlight the real differences that exist across the political spectrum ... the argument is not anti-government; it's better government ...

[VioletLake]

30. We don't have to defend every Democrat,

but we don't have to attack them either. If you want to "have it out" with other Democrats here on DU, go right ahead. I made my point clear and now I'll say that I'm going to make it a point to stay away from Democrat vs. Democrat slugfests for a while.

Is there such a thing as an anti-government party? Which party is trying to shrink the government in order to "drown it in a bathtub?"

If you want a little insight into the anti-government party, read this essay by Lewis Lapham:

As long ago as 1964 even William F. Buckley understood that the thunder on the conservative right amounted to little else except the sound and fury of middle-aged infants banging silver spoons, demanding to know why they didn't have more—more toys, more time, more soup; when Buckley was asked that year what the country could expect if it so happened that Goldwater was elected president, he said, "That might be a serious problem." So it has proved, if not under the baton of the senator from Arizona then under the direction of his ideologically correct heirs and assigns. An opinion poll taken in 1964 showed 62 percent of the respondents trusting the government to do the right thing; by 1994 the number had dwindled to 19 percent. The measure can be taken as a tribute to the success of the Republican propaganda mill that for the last forty years has been grinding out the news that all government is bad, and that the word "public," in all its uses and declensions (public service, citizenship, public health, community, public park, commonwealth, public school, etc.), connotes inefficiency and waste.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Republican-Propaganda1sep04.htm

Edit: added an "it."

[welshTerrier2]

11. "the perfect statesman"

"you will ALWAYS have to choose between flawed people in any election."

if you see the U.S. invasion of Iraq and its subsequent occupation as morally wrong; if everyday you see the horrors we are doing to the people in that poor country and if you realize that we are destroying our own country and any hope of global cooperation in the process, then you also see that we are not talking about some degree short of "perfection"; we are talking about a Party that has sold out right and wrong for political gain ... a political gain that was not forthcoming by the way ...

[wyldwolf]

26. what a great analysis

and, regarding one specific part of your post, I have noticed (since I entered politics) that those who bellyache the loudest do the least. The worry and complaining is what they thrive on. To get involved might mean eliminating that which causes them to thrive.

[Mend]

9. Democrats are more agreeable.

As higher functioning beings, unlike repukes, we try to see all sides of an issue, empathize, and try to cooperate and see the best in people. Every example of campaign errors show that we still can't believe the evil these repukes are capable of, because we just don't think that way ourselves. Maybe a new starting point would be a war room where worst case scenarios are predicted and acted upon. Kerry explained his "war vote" many times as a vote where war would be a last option if all else failed but bush lied and ran with it. We are not evil, just naive, a sign of a clean mind and spirit.

[Q]

12. You're right to say....

...that the Democratic party attracts 'higher functioning beings' that try to empathize and see all sides of an issue. But I'm referring to the Democratic leadership and party bosses.

My complaint is that the Party is still presenting itself as something it no longer is: THE party that represents civil rights, workers, women and a sane foreign policy. I submit that we can no longer make many of these claims when our leadership votes or supports the antithesis to these ideals.

I believe that the Iraq 'war' is a prime example in my premise. We must be able to confront the disconnect in what our party says and does. How can we say that Bush* alone made the world hate us when our party voted for and supported the very aggressive war policies that provoked that hatred?

I disagree that all we have to do is put together 'war room' where everyone agrees on the lies they're going to tell the American people. There IS no good argument for the Iraq war. Of course Bush* lied...but so did we when we voted for his war and then refused to admit it was a mistake after the fact.

[welshTerrier2]

10. the good old Democratic Party

i'm afraid the Democratic Party has stopped believing in itself ...

we used to be the Party (Vietnam era) that fought for peace when war was not justified ... Iraq is not justified ... and yet, the Party calls for more war in Iraq ... "internationalization" is not a peace plank ... and why is this? is there some deep seated belief among those in control of the Party that Iraq is a just and moral war? i don't think so !! the sad reality is that the Democratic Party has felt the sting of the "peace label" and is running away from it as fast as their little legs will carry them ...

we used to stand for "emerging rights movements" ... the struggles of women, blacks and gays have for many years been the bedrock of the Party's soul on social liberation ... have they stopped supporting these groups? no they haven't but they no longer place these struggles for liberation in a prominent position in their messages and their campaigns ... again, the Party seems unwilling to loudly and clearly proclaim its support for things it believes in? why? politics again ...

and in the class warfare struggle that sits at the core of what our country is and is not, we see no incentives at all from the Democratic Party ... Q's base post has already talked about the Party's failure to support American workers ... outside of campaign appearances in union halls, "union" has become a dirty word ... the support of unions is welcomed but advocacy on behalf of the working men and women in opposition to those who would oppress them is nowhere to be found ... and on tax fairness, i.e. taxing based on ability to pay, we saw Kerry do little more than put bandaids on the wounds bush inflicted with his insane tax cuts ... the rich are getting richer at an alarming rate ... this is not good old American capitalism at its finest; this is the destruction of America's middle class ... and in the midst of this great crises, the Democrats say nothing ...

so, has the Democratic Party become the lesser of two evils? the answer to this is that "the jury is still out" ... i'd like to believe that the Party is the "good" Party and that it has temporarily sold its soul to foolishly pursue, a "win at any cost" strategy ... i'd like to believe that "perceived pragmatism" has led them astray ... and i'd like to believe that continued republican gains in the Congress and a poor track record of Presidential candidates for so many years will awaken the Party to the total bankruptcy of its "politics first" approach to good governance ... so with a dimming glimmer, a rapidly dimming glimmer, i am clinging to the hope that the Party is NOT the lesser of two evils ...

but time is running out ... if the Democratic Party, which controls no branch of government, cannot now see the truth, then perhaps they really have become republican-lite ... perhaps the views that I hold will never again be represented by one of the major parties ... and perhaps I must throw political pragmatism aside to fight for my beliefs in a new arena ...

all these things are churning among many long-term Democrats, and from the Democratic Party, we still hear only a deafening silence ...

[Q]

14. Indeed...the jury is still out as Democrats wait...

...for the party to take the 'right' side of the debate.

I've been 'warned' by others on this board to stop 'trashing' Democrats and concentrate on the real enemy...the Bush Regime. While I would readily agree that Bush is the enemy...I can't agree that we should ignore what our own party is doing for the sake of winning at any and all costs. It's simply too much to pay if the price becomes giving up what we believe.

And then there's the other side of the coin. Many believe that our party HAD TO go along with Bush on the Iraq war because it increased our chances of 'winning'. But we need to face the fact that if we support the Iraq war we're participating in Bush's Big Lie. How many voters did we lose because we couldn't tell the American people the whole truth? Maybe that's what they expected us to do?

[welshTerrier2]

19. not just "waiting" ... "waiting and working"

i don't think anything you've said is "trashing" democrats ...

and those who say we should be one big happy family, and only focus on bush, are ostriches ... we are a minority party ... we have work to do ... and that work starts with putting our own house in order ... we can't just brush our disagreements under the table ... we can't just shut our mouths and pretend everything's OK ... sometimes you have to fight, even within your own family, to emerge stronger ...

those in control of the Party have done tremendous harm not only to our performance in recent elections, but to people all over the world who are affected by the horrible policies the Party's failures have enabled ...

and this business of "had to go along in Iraq" to "win" the election is the most tragic view of all ... while those at the top see only "perceived political pragmatism", more and more, on both left and right, are coming to view the Democratic Party as rudderless ... absent a soul, absent deeply held beliefs (i.e. beliefs beyond "winning") and the courage to fight for them, we will remain a long, long time in the great darkness ...

in the end, the struggle is not between moderates and lefties at all ... this is a myth that too many have bought into ... there are, of course, very real and very deep differences in these belief systems ... but that is not where we are today ... the real struggle within the Party is between those who emphasize strategies and those who focus on values ... one camp, often mislabeled the moderates, believes we must put aside our deepest values in order to win ... the other camp, often mislabeled "the left", may indeed want to see different policies but more importantly wants the Party to truly define what it stands for and wants to see the Party stand in opposition to the Republicans because we do not believe what they believe ...

being caught "standing for nothing" and only running to win puts the Party at tremendous risk ... voters will not listen to you if they come to believe you don't hold the courage of your convictions ... and with our credibility destroyed, our entire platform will fall away like the platform under a man being hanged ...

[Q]

21. The thing is...they're not simply 'disagreements'...

...as you have pointed out. We've been put in a situation where we have the 'choice' of abandoning everything we believe in or 'shut up' and go along in the hope that we might win.

It's correct to say that it's not a battle between liberals and moderates. It's coming down to the very basic concepts of right versus wrong.

Many of us didn't go looking for a Dem nominee who 'reported for duty' and promised to kill more terrorists. We wanted a Dem president who would look Bush in the eyes and call him a liar and a thief. That may not seem like a winning strategy to some...but it would have shown that Democrats understood the difference between right and wrong...moral and immoral. It would have restored the faith of many Democrats who feel that neither party is being honest with them and they're both in on the scam which is the Iraq war.

Dean and Kucinich (and Moore for that matter) appealed to millions of new and old voters because they broke outside of the party rhetoric and simply told the truth about the horrible state of the union and status quo party politics. This makes one suspicious of why the rest of the party isn't doing the same. We have to break out of the mindset of voting for politicians that 'may' win instead of those who call for reform of a badly broken system.

[andyadkins]

16. prudently forward-thinking Democrats are not evil

My opinions on the Iraq war are already clear to you. For the rest, I valued the example of Iraq's ba'athist's government only because it revealed what we should act to exclude from the inescapable global community of place that is shaping our self-identities. Saddam Hussein was a monopolistic vivisectionist. Hussein's government necessarily was a bad example to other armed to-the-teeth dictatorships with horrendous weapons to use against their citizens or neighbors.
Originally, I supported the war, in part, because Saddam Hussein's mass murdering of many Iraqi's was common knowledge. In addition, and also common knowledge, Hussein misappropriated state resources(oil-for-food money) to glorify himself and as consequence was identified as the leader of the type of government I am unwilling to tolerate.
It really doesn't matter who armed Iraq. When the world ordered its disarmament and Hussein was not honest about his state's activities, he created the conditions for his removal; he is at fault for allowing the world to be misinformed. By failing to recognize international sanctions with probity and forthrightness, Hussein violated those sanctions and became subject to the stipulated consequences for such miscreance. After 12 years his continued rule would only further license similarly styled governments to disregard international bodies and their edicts.
Originally, I supported the war, in part, because Saddam Hussein's mass murdering of many Iraqi's was common knowledge. In addition, and also common knowledge, Hussein misappropriated state resources(oil-for-food money) to glorify himself and as consequence was identified as the leader of the type of government I am unwilling to tolerate.
Q, in short, I am pointing out that you are not disconnected from the plight of the average Iraqi, North Korean, Sri Lankan,Kazahki, etc, so quit divorcing yourself from the sufferings that they are enduring and support the quickest end to them. I am actually sick of people who allow others to suffer without good knowledge, good remedies, good laws, etc. while they rest within the monopolized arms of wealth, luxury, and their work week spending habits poohpoohing about why their team lost without looking to readjust their flawed outlooks.
P.S. The terrorists were almost all raised desperately poor and hungry by governments that tended to only favored friends within the nation-states.

[Q]

18. We're in a two-party state of denial concerning Iraq.

Democrats had some of the best talking points available to shoot down Bush's Iraq war. But they chose not to expose the 'state secrets' about the Reagan and Bush I administration's financing and material support for Saddam's dictatorship. Republicans CREATED Saddam.

Many Democrats are becoming pissed that their leadership's silence has helped the Bushies get away with so many scandals and crimes. "After a while, silence becomes betrayal"

As a party...we can't be what we say we are and continue to support the lie which is the Iraq war. And the same could be said for any number of issues which the party has conceded to a totalitarian Bush government.

[andyadkins]

24. is this the UNDERGROUND. or the recycling bin

why repeat wrong-headed and antiquated viewpoints? Where are the posts with pocketsful of new ideas to share?
Why continue to stick our fingers in our ears; stick out our tongues; shout "LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa I CAN'T HEAR YOU", LIKE THE RIGHT USUALLY DOES;and continue to lose?
people following my posts will see a pattern of generality concretized with regularity. But the first step requires everyone get their heads right by focusing on tomorrow.

[izzie]

20. I am sure the Dem will win but we may have to wait.

Look at our history. We go up and down. Why would we stay with one way of doing things? Have we ever? I can recall when they said the Dem were the war party.Spending all our money on arms and never paying the army any thing. Does that sound like us or them? At my age I may not see it and I was born when the Dem just came into power with FDR but things will swing back. Unless we lose the country and I do not think that will happen. I do think we will slowly get poorer as a country as other countries move up.

[welshTerrier2]

22. "Unless we lose the country"

that's really the issue, isn't it? understanding that time always bring change is perhaps comforting in some way ... with things as they are now, we all want to believe that the "eternal pendulum" will start moving things back in our direction ... that's what history encourages us to believe ...

but these are very scary times ... right-wing power is gutting the very foundations of our republic ... it seeks to weaken and then destroy fundamental liberties embodied in our Constitution ... and it values money and power more than it values the people it is supposed to be serving ...

at their very core, those in power are un-American ... and yet their wealth continues to grow; their control of our media continues to grow; their corruption of our government continues to grow ...

i appreciate the hope your message conveys and know that the struggle is far from over ... still, as we stand today, I see fewer and fewer battles being one and the long-term trend is very dark indeed ... my greatest fear is that too many of us do not understand the obligations we have to protect our democracy from this tyranny ...

[Q]

23. The question shouldn't be: how 'evil' are the Republicans...

...but what are the Democrats doing about it? One doesn't have to be in the majority to attack wrongdoing and make criminals accountable.

How many Democrats have asked themselves why their party is seemingly giving the Bush White House a free ride and 'get out of jail free' card?

We need to stop obsessing about winning and try to understand why we're losing. I believe we're losing because our leadership is trying to play both sides of the truth at the same time. We must lead by example and not depend on ignorance to keep the truth from being used against us.

[Mend]

27. Democratic writers don't seem to attack the person

only the policies....that is playing too much by the rules. I believe republicans are very evil but even Molly Ivins, whose writing I admire, has often called bush "nice". That's part of the problem. That is no sides of the truth.

[Q]

29. Evil...

...is not a word I like to use because it has religious implications and tends to move the argument to bad versus good as opposed to right versus wrong.

"Nice" is a term relative to social graces...but it doesn't define a person or their policies. It can be just as 'wrong' to ignore a crime as it is to commit a crime.

The truth has only one side and isn't subject to shades of gray. Is it true that the war in Iraq is just and that the American people have been told the truth as to why we're there? No. Neither party has told the truth and it should bother every Democrat that this is the case.

[Malva Zebrina]

31. While I wouldn't quite hang the word 'evil" on the Democrats yet

I agree that the reality is that something has gone seriously awry and we no longer have the same party we once thought we had. I don't agree much with the notion that there will never be a perfect candidate that fills all the desires of all Democrats, or with the notion that it is all negotiation or that we must work harder to change the party.

People worked their asses off of Kerry and the party in the last election, according to anecdotal reports. Many never did this before, so acute was the need to get Bush removed from office. And how much does the average person's input have to do with the "negotiating" going on amongst the candidates? I get the feeling that I am being tossed about in the wind, while the "negotiators" work for something that to me, is not the Democratic party and have come to the conclusion they are all piss poor political manipulators.

To me, the Iraq war, and all the lies told by Bush, Powell and all the slaughter, chaos and horror inflicted on 100,000 innocents was THE main issue. I agree that Bush could have been wiped up off the floor if these lies , and the immorality of it all, were to be hammered until he no longer had a platform to stand upon.

We KILLED innocent people by the thousands, for nothing, just because we could.

I may be the only one so caught up in the shock of this immorality, but to me it was an abomination for which I was ashamed to be an American.

We heard not much about it, while Kerry campaigned on the economy,and "there is hope" which to be honest is NOT an issue to many people,and is boring to a lot of people and he kept it up way beyond the attacks on his medals etc, by the SBV,

The reason of course, is that he and Edwards both voted to allow Bush full authority, knowing the evil that is present in that man. 'They were boxed into a corner with that vote, as were all the Democrats who voted for it--and there were a majority who did.

Why? For one of two reasons, as far as I can determine--they were actually for the invasion and war, or, they figured IF the war was a great success and Bush lauded as another Roosevelt or Churchill they had it made, thereby tossing aside all the humane considerations the party stands for. I wonder now, if they wake up during the night to go to the bathroom,turn on the light and are shocked and horrified to see blood all over their hands, or if there is any guilt at all they will take upon themself.

My solution? Have none. I am a political newbee, bringing with me the mind set of a lot of people who vote, but who are not privvy to a whole lot of in depth information.

In this case we lost because many perceived Kerry to be no different than Bush on the war(many said to me that Kerry had no real plan for Iraq that Bush did not)plus he
DID vote for it so therefore don't change horses in the middle of the stream,had no idea of the economy and could have cared less, and they went for the abortion and the gay marriage issue right out of their churches and into the voting booth. They wondered what "hope" would bring.

[Q]

32. There was no intention of calling anyone or thing 'evil'...

...I was simply using the phrase 'lesser of two evils' to illustrate my point.

It seems the election was centered around a 'time of war' and Kerry offered no alternatives to illegal wars and the slaughter of innocent human beings. Both parties insist on fighting a fake war against terror in Iraq.

The 'values' crap was just that...a bone thrown to the 'religious' right for their support.

[Malva Zebrina]

34. I understand your use of rhetoric

but I do think Bush and his entire cabal are truly evil. :-)

[IStriker]

33. No, but oftentimes an election is "the lesser of 2 evils..."

If you don't have somebody in the two major parties that you want to vote for, then you're forced to pick which one you think will be the less damaging to your agenda. I would not think that this election for DUers was about the lesser of two evils in actuality since most folks believed in ABB since it would be hard to find anybody more evil than Bush is. Unfortunately, for others it will be seen that way because they didn't have anyone to vote FOR, just someone to vote AGAINST.

[DrGonzoLives]

35. This party needs to do more than oppose

they need plans of their own. We cannot and will not win elections by saying "Hey, the other guy sucks, vote for us." We need to have plans of our own, an agenda of our own. Until then, we have no chance.

[Q]

36. It's a foregone conclusion that we have to 'plan'...

...and it's an understatement to say that the Bushies simply 'suck'. They have committed crimes against the state and humanity.

What chance of winning do we have when we're perceived as the party that coddles criminals and allows them to escape responsibility for their wrongdoing?

How about this: The other guy is a criminal and we're going to prove it. You can count on us to make 'equal justice' and 'no president is above the law' more than just slogans.

[Vidar]

37. In a word, yes!

[Q]

38. There should be no doubt in any Democrat's mind why we 'lost' in...

...2000 and 2004. We 'lost' because those who call themselves the leadership of our party are cowards. That's right: cowards. If they didn't have the guts to defend the People and Democratic base...they should have at least had the will to defend the Constitution and 'free and fair' elections.

And I say this as someone who has voted Democratic for 30 years.

I can forgive many things. But not these:

2000 and 2004 elections: widespread fraud and civil rights abuses

Iraq invasion and occupation: war based on lies and deceptions

Democratic party silence on these issues has become betrayal.

[Vidar]

39. You expressed it beautifully. Connyer & Jackson are what is

keeping the party alive, but they are far from leadership positions. Maybe Dean could revive the party but the campaign to keep him out of leadership positions seems to be accelerating. Leadership by opinion poll be damned. Stand up for what is right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. The "New Democrats" are the old Republican "moderates".

They gave up their home in the GOP and have taken over the Democrats. Their "policies" reek of Rockefeller Republicanism. "Not as bad" as the open Rightwingers in power, but still Republican.

It is neither one thing or the other. Watered down capitalism. Watered down socialism. Watered down civil rights. Watered down militarism. etc, etc.

It believes in nothing but winning by appealing to the lowest common denominators of greed and apathy.

It surrenders everything and gains nothing.

It has become an irrelevant home for those that "sacrificing the few to save the many" i.e abortion rights, civil rights, gays, the environment, peace.

The Democratic Party is dying because it is being smothered in the pablum of "compromise" in the name of "electability".

[dolo amber]

41. We don't *have to*....

I refused to this past election.