Why do Deaniacs, Naderites, and Kucinichians threaten us?

[Evil_Dewers]

I'm sick of being "threatened" by the Deaniacs, Naderites and Kucinichians. Hey, to cut your own throats to spite us (the Dem party and the American people) really is suicidal. Do whatever you want, but I don't ever want to hear you bitch about Bush again if he wins. Otherwise, you will just be hypocritical losers.

---

I know some here have labeled the so-called "true progressives" as ignorant or delusional, but I don't call you that. I call the leftwingnuts "impractical"--just like I call the rightwingnuts fundies "impractical." Oops, I also call the rightwingnuts delusional and ignorant. Oh well, at least I am honest.

Why should we, the majority of Democrats, the Kerry and Edwards supporters, the DLC, the practical people, the grownups--be threatened by the small minority to kiss your ass, when it should be the other way around?

The leftwing fundies should hate Bush far more than they hate Kerry, yet the hatred here of Kerry and is appalling. I'm really sick of being called a sell-out, a loser, not a true believer, a DLC shill, etc. by the leftwingnuts.

I don't share Lenin's and Nader's view that things need to get much worse before they get better. Things are already much worse right now. And the actions and views of the so-called progressives are helping to guarantee that our lives will not get any better--only worse.

[Goldmund]

1. I'm a leftwingnut.

And I'll be happy to vote for Kerry in the GE. I don't hate him at all. I'd vote for Spongebob over Bush, since Bush is a criminal enterprise and my hatred for Bush goes far beyond political ideology. Besides, a Kerry presidency may move the country in a direction where eventually somebody that I actually _like_ can win the presidency; Bush won't.

So not all leftwingnuts are impractical. Only the impractical ones are.

[Terry_M]

2. Simple

Why should we, the majority of Democrats, the Kerry and Edwards supporters, the DLC, the practical people, the grownups--be threatened by the small minority to kiss your ass, when it should be the other way around?

Simple, you want our votes while the party doesn't give us what WE want (which is change from the status quo of the rich getting richer & stuff like that).

[RogueTrooper]

3. Don't forget the money

they want that too.

[mr715]

4. Query

DO rich people ever deserve to be rich?

Is there a kind of rich person when "getting richer" isnt bad? Perhaps is the person who is rich got rich from producing superior products at lower costs.

[deutsey]

7. Paul Newman

He deserves to be rich and he knows what to do with his wealth so that it benefits the many over the few.

[Rich Hunt]

15. that's because

Paul Newman, as an entertainer, gets a much more fair cut of the profits in his industry than do most workers.

Being an athlete or entertainer is probably one of the more honest ways of making millions.

[deutsey]

22. And yet you always hear people say how "overpaid" they are

I mean, I admit it seems silly that athletes and actors get paid so much for playing a game or acting, but whenever I hear someone complain about that I always bring up that they're just demanding a cut of the profits derived from their abilities (abilities that are in huge demand).

[Terry_M]

13. Let me explain

Between 1970 and 2000, the bottom 90% of the population gained just around 0% in new income, despite lengthening working hours and rising education levels. Brackets within the top 1% however have been gaining 200-500% in income.

[RogueTrooper]

38. I think you think you are talking to somebody else

I'm a centerist and my politics were pretty moderate. That was until George W. Bush turned me into a militant pragmatist.

Of course I believe there are people who have earned their wealth. I also believe that there are people who are more content to loot the common wealth rather earn their wealth by producing superior goods at lower costs.

What is the point you are trying to make?

[MessiahRp]

8. "What WE want"?

So even thogh the Democratic party is much, much closer to your views than Bush, and Kerry is much, much closer to your views than Bush you're going to take your ball and go home because you're not being directly catered to?

Talk about irresponsible. No wonder nobody caters to you, you're just screwing yourselves. A Vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. There is no other way around it. After the last four years please get off your high horses and fuck principles a little here. There is no question the Dem will be leaps and bounds better than the current administration and won't be purposely aiming to cut your very causes off at the legs.

Oh and one last thing... Deaniacs need to stop labeling themselves in the same camp with Naderites and Kucinich supporters. Dean in NO WAY, SHAPE, or FORM resembles either guy. He was a fiscal conservative, he supported the war on and off regardless of the stance he took afterwards to create a political plank for himself, he wanted cuts to medicare and he approved toxic waste dumping in any place he could find that wasn't his own state to appease his voters.

Not exactly a Green Party, "Stick to your principles" guy. Dean's more conservative than Kerry is.

Rp

[Terry_M]

16. So, you would prefer if people who intend to vote for Nader

Actually went out and voted for Bush? I'm getting really tired of the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" nonsense. Are you telling me 0 = 1?

[MessiahRp]

26. Essentially it's the same

because if you go out and vote for Nader, that's one less vote on the left that Kerry will get and let's be honest, disgruntled Conservatives or not, the Right will have every single vote in order come November so yes it is the same because the Left's candidate will lack the neccesary votes to win because of some on the left not organizing to eliminate Bush.

Rp

[Terry_M]

37. So 1 = 2?

1 vote lost by democrats is the same as 1 vote lost by democrats + 1 vote gained by republicans?
Honestly, do you want Nader supporters to all go out and vote for Bush?

[MessiahRp]

44. Let's re-do this Math so it makes sense to you...

I think the Math goes like this. Nader is irrelevant to the overall picture with the exception of how he hurts Kerry. Any vote for him does not hurt Bush. So 1=1 still but you take Nader's votes away from Kerry and it is Bush who comes out ahead.

Either way playing mathematics with it and trying to simplify it takes away from the real purpose here. In 2000, Gore lost enough votes to Nader that it would have won him a couple fo states and the Florida mess may have been moot.

So do this Math..

In 2000 voting for Nader in a close state= Record Deficits, perpetual wars (some unprovoked), cuts in social programs, environmental rollbacks, corporate frauds as far as the eye can see...

Because by voting for Nader in 2000 you didn't vote for the other guy on the Left, Al Gore. And thus Bush had more votes when he shouldn't have had.

For christs' sakes show some solidarity in your convictions. If you hate the things Bush stands for, vote for the guy who can beat him. Allow common sense to override opinionated principle.

Rp

[Iverson]

46. uh, excuse me

Gore won in Florida.
The theft of the election had nothing to do with Nader.
Sorry you don't believe that your guy won.

[Evil_Dewers]

19. Simple, you want our votes while the party doesn't give us what WE want

Hey, the party doesn't necessarily give me all that I want, either.

Yet they do give me a hell of a lot more that the Shrub administration does.

You think the fiscal conservatives are happy with Bush's $550 billion deficit? You think the paleo-cons are happy with Bush's dirty, oily Iraq war? You think the fundie so-called Christians are happy with Bush? They aren't, but they aren't threatening Bush and his supporters because they feel they have no place to go.

You can't win the battle against big bidness, evil rich people and the status quo from the outside. Ralphie tried in 2000, and he gave us Chimpy McCokespoon. And now he's running again.

Dean tried, bitched about the Democratic leadership, and got hammered by corporate media. He failed--miserably--and I voted for him in the primary. He got a whopping 8% of the vote here.

So I switched my allegiance to Kerry. The only way to change an organization is from the inside. Will Kerry do that? I don't know, but at least give him the opportunity, because this country really is going down the tubes and 4 more years of Bush might just be the end of us for good.

[Terry_M]

36. Yeah the democrats are closer,

But change is needed. Kerry has not indicated that he will really change the party, unlike Dean, Kucinich and Clark. If Kerry wants more votes, he should work for them.

[deutsey]

5. It's interesting that you charactize the dynamic here as "kissing ass"

"Why should we, the majority of Democrats, the Kerry and Edwards supporters, the DLC, the practical people, the grownups--be threatened by the small minority to kiss your ass, when it should be the other way around?"

I see it more as building a coalition and, as a Dean supporter, I see it more as the "practical people" being unwilling to include the left (and there are many of us who aren't "impractical" or "leftwingnuts") in that coalition. Clinton was able to at least give us on the left the sense (at first, anyway) that he was open to our viewpoint as part of his centrist focus. I got the same feeling from Dean.

PS: I've always said I'm voting for the Dem nominee, and I'll do so with Kerry. I will do so, though, with the understanding that I'm voting against the GOP, which I've always done since casting my first ballot against Reagan.

[Iverson]

20. It's an essential dynamic.

In these uncritical all-or-nothing times when if yer not wiv us, yer agin' us, it is crucial to demonize and mischaracterize. I wouldn't call it "grown up," but it is quite effective to pose as if giving a little respect and an honest listen is the same thing as "kissing ass."

How else will lefties mutely, penitently line up and vote for the centrist that they're ordered to vote for!

[Evil_Dewers]

42. it is crucial to demonize and mischaracterize

Calling every Kerry voter a self-out, not a real progressive, a DLC shill, a Bush-enabler, a war enabler etc... and "threatening" Kerry and his supporters by claiming "you give us what we want or else" isn't exactly grown up now, is it?

My view is that you should vote for whomever you want: Nader (Bush) or write in Kucinich or Dean or Mickey Mouse. But don't threaten me.

If you are so petty that you feel the need for a protest vote, that is your right. But don't bitch about Bush's 4 more years--because I don't want to hear it.

[Iverson]

43. Let's explore this.

You disagree with demonizing so much that you started a thread dedicated to exactly that?

And while we're ordering people about what they may and may not say, I suggest that you travel, read a few books, and generally get the kinds of broadening experiences that will help your invective be a little less foolish.

[NNN0LHI]

6. Don't know who the Nader, Dean, Kucinich or any candidate supporters are

It is just as logical that someone who says they will not vote for the Dem nominee could just be someone who is worried about losing their Bush tax cut for the rich than for any other reason. For instance someone making over 200 grand would not be too keen about having Kerry win in November and cancel their tax cut? May have bought a new house and are depending on using that tax cut to pay the note? We don't know? We are on an anonymous board so there is no way of knowing why someone would want Bush to win in November. Be nice if we could. But we just can't. Later...

Don

[RichM]

9. I won't support Kerry, but it's hardly to "spite" anyone. It's because

he's a two-faced Bush enabler, who talks a little prettier than Bush but offers only cosmetic improvements. So you shouldn't feel "threatened." You should merely feel disagreed with.

It isn't about who is kissing whose ass. Kerry supporters should realize that they are writing off the support of real progressives, by backing a war enabler.

[Evil_Dewers]

34. I won't support Kerry--he's a two-faced Bush enabler

Please tell me, oh enlightened one, who can beat Bush yet shares your "real progressive" principles.

Here's a clue: If both Kerry and Edwards voted against the House Joint Resolution on Iraq, Bush still would have invaded Iraq. The House Joint Resolution was not a declaration of war. BUSH WAS NOT FORCED TO INVADE IRAQ because of a congressional vote--BUSH CHOSE TO INVADE IRAQ. It was Bush's choice. Remember that. In fact, Bush would have invaded Iraq even if he had no House Joint Resolution. He would have created some hostilities as a pretext for invasion.

Do you think Gore would have invaded Iraq? Fuck no. But :puke: Nader lied on Russert's Meet the Whore and claimed that Gore would have invaded Iraq.

"Real progressives" like Nader and his 2.7% of the voters are the real Bush enablers. They have blood on their hands, so fuck them and their principles. They tried to force the party way left, and gave us Bush, a recession, 3 million lost jobs, $1 trillion in debt, three wars (Afghanistan, Iraq and the ubiquitous war on terror, the Patriot Acts, Enron and other corporate malfeasance, "Clean Skies" (more dirty air), "Forest Preservation" (cut down all the trees), 3 tax cuts for billionaires, 9/11 and 3000 Americans dead, thousands of civilians dead in Afghanistan and Iraq, and 650 dead American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Anybody who claims there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties is a fucking idiot.

[IrateCitizen]

10. As a "Kucitizen", my first inclination is to tell you...

... to go f*** yourself. But in the spirit of honest debate (which you appear to be eschewing for the purpose of embracing ad hominem invective) I will restrain my initial urge.

There are plenty of us on this despised "left" of which you speak who are capable of discussing differences rationally. Of course, there are also a fair number who will resort to their own kind of unyielding stances and resistance to rational discourse. I personally have as little patience for them as I do for the self-styled "moderates" who tell us all to fall in line, as if healthy debate is somehow anathema to successful politics. The problem evident in your post is that you have adopted the same kind of unbending, unyielding, UNWELCOMING stance that you accuse others of taking.

You describe yourself as a "grownup" with the clear implication that anyone who might disagree with you is somehow "childish". Well, I personally vigorously disagree with the direction that the DLC wants to take the nation and the party, and most of my disagreements are quite substansive, so does that make me somehow "childish" by comparison to their "grown-up" endorsement of imperial pursuits and corporate hegemony?

And for the purposes of brevity, let's examine just your last statement:
I don't share Lenin's and Nader's view that things need to get much worse before they get better. Things are already much worse right now. And the actions and views of the so-called progressives are helping to guarantee that our lives will not get any better--only worse.

I don't believe that somehow things "need to get worse before they get better" -- because such a course has real implications for real people. And I am a (GASP!) PROGRESSIVE, so I take SERIOUS umbrage at your attempt to tar all progressives with your broad brush of self-righteousness. But as a progressive, I also realize that solving our problems will require looking squarely at the root causes, rather than nibbling around the edges, and the acknowledgement of certain unpleasant truths. When I hear politicians refusing to acknowledge these root problems (like Kerry and Edwards skirting the edges of "free trade", for example), I get angry. Does this mean that I will spite myself by NOT voting for the candidate who realistically presents the lesser impediment to the eventual implimentation of progressive policies? No. But it also doesn't mean that I, as a progressive, am going to shut up and march lockstep in order to placate the so-called "grownups" who don't hesitate to harangue me in the manner that you did in this post.

[MR. ELECTABLE]

14. Well Said!

My thoughts exactly.

[revcarol]

11. Oh, we should be kissing your ass?

Buzz off, dude.I value my vote too much to kiss your ass.

the Democratic Party just wants our votes and money. It is obvious that the two front runners just want to tweak Bush's system. We don't have to like that.

[Evil_Dewers]

47. It is obvious that the two front runners just want to tweak Bush's system

Gee, I wish I could see things in black and white only like you and Ralph :puke: and George A Dubya Oh El do.

Us vs. them.

Good vs. evil.

Bush/Kerry vs. real reform (LOL).

The pity party already claimed there was zero difference between Gore and Bush. Still feel that way, schlubs?

[zulchzulu]

12. Don't worry about it

As long as everyone is somewhat open-minded about having political dialogue and are willing to look at opposing views (and views that seem impractical), then we'll all be OK.

There will always be views on issues that you may find incredulous. Instead of flailing back, bring your points to the table that may help educate calmly. I'm more impressed with someone who could explain with some authority about an issue that I may disagree with if they are doing it honestly and with a good degree of well thought out knowledge. That happens sometimes.

Like all walks of life, some people will not want to learn or remain stubborn or close-minded. So be it.

[Dhalgren]

17. Maybe you don't understand the way politics works.

We (the marginalized fags, pinkos, commies, fellow-travellers, nutcases and wingjobs?) are not represented by the Democrats at this point in time. The Democrats, however, want our votes, so a little "ass kissing" is in order. We (the above mentioned margos) don't have to kiss your ass, because we don't need you - we don't have a party, so you can't really help us. See how that works? You want our votes, you can't help us. It's really simple. Now you can say "Hey, nutjob, don't you want to get rid of Bush, too?" And I'd say sure and I will vote against him in Nov. What do you want? Well, you won't get it.

[BeyondGeography]

18. Well stated

I hope those of you who find that John Kerry does not live up to your ethereal standard of liberal beauty and nice-i-tude enjoy watching Kerry endlessly demonized as an out-of-the-mainstream Massachusetts liberal in the fall.

Of course, I fear even that won't be enough to bring many of you to your senses.

So, hang in there. DK will make sure all of his DU posters get a job in the Department of Peace, and he will fight like hell to make sure the DOP has the last pension plan standing.

[revcarol]

29. The fat lady hasn't sung yet.

DK is still an active candidate who has money for his campaign and is not going to implode from campaign debt.

I don't care about ethereal standards. I want a candidate who is for real peoplein the United States: people who have lost their jobs or will lose their jobs from Kerry's free trade votes;people who don't want multi-national corporations to rule our internal and foreign policies; people who need real health care, not insurance company profits and a tax credit at the end of the year, etc.

I want a candidate who is for real people in the world: who won't allow a trade agreement to stand that allows corporations to privatize a water supply; who doesn't believe in pre-emptive war except in imminent danger; who will promote cooperation without using our overwhelming power and imperialistic aims as a weapon.

Hey, that's not asking too much.So, even if Kerry is elected President, he will hear from me every time he tries to pull that imperialistic, care for the corporations,only tinker around the edges stuff.

DISSENT IS DEMOCRATIC, with a small 'd' and a big 'D.'

[jonnyblitz]

21. LMFAO

I didnt realize "progressives" red baited until I started hanging out at DU. I plan to support and vote for Kerry if he is the nominee IN SPITE of his supporters like you...It's going to be hard but I will do it to get rid of Bush.

[rucky]

23. That's so mature & levelheaded of you

why do you obsess on this?

[BradCKY]

24. One reason

The far left represents the vast majority of this board, and they cannot stand moderates speaking out on "their" board, which is supposed to be for all democrats and people on the left.

So they use these scare tactics to try to influence our vote and its a shame.

[jonnyblitz]

27. the originator of this thread is engaging in the exact thing

you deride us "far lefties" for doing by using redbaiting tactics to shame us into falling in line. I dont understand why people like you come in progressive discussion boards and complain that there are progressives here.

[BradCKY]

31. I came here because its the DEMOCRATIC underground

I despise Bush and will support the democratic nominee that is my reason for being here.

Moderates here are treated as traitors just because they have a difference of opinion. I don't see this as selling out, maybe they actually feel differently???

[maxanne]

32. while those who lean

to the left are embraced with open arms? The moderates have control of the asylum, Brad.

[IrateCitizen]

41. Perhaps the reason that progressives act that way here...

... is because we are marginalized in almost every other aspect of electoral politics? Do you feel that the Democratic Party, as a whole, marginalizes YOUR views on an almost continual basis?

I'm not saying that it justifies adoption of unyielding stances and refusal to listen to other points of view, but it might help explain it. :shrug:

[Polemonium]

25. Well that's easy

When you think about the political spectrum, and where the country is at right now, folks on the left side of the spectrum have watched the country shift further and further right for 20+ years. So the left feels least represented by government etc. I've heard that taxation with out representation upsets some people.

Why not set a place at your table for progressives. Boxing them about the ears does not appear to be having your desired result. Surely the tent of the Democratic Party is big enough to fit some folks from further left.

[BeyondGeography]

30. What is it about cleaner air, a more progressive tax system,

trade agreements with labor and environmental standards and a more responsible foreign policy that doesn't already give them a seat at the table?

And could it be that some of the things they're asking for (the outright elimination of NAFTA and the immediate withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq, to be replaced by an international organization that doesn't want to go there) aren't really good ideas to begin with?

[IrateCitizen]

39. It's because it's periphery vs. root causes

Let's take the environmental issue, for example. I will fully acknowledge that John Kerry has been one of the best environmental advocates in the United States Senate. His advocacy for investment in alternative energies is something that I fully support him on.

But when you couple his good work on environmental issues with his advocacy of "free" trade, you can't help but come away scratching your head. Ditto with his support of continued militarism.

Why? Because you CAN'T SEPARATE these issues. Militarism is not only a waste of life, it is a scourge on the environment. "Free" trade is little more than an enabler for corporations to pursue a "race to the bottom" in labor and environmental standards, for the sole purpose of maximizing profits.

Kerry likes to talk about the "side agreements" for NAFTA. The problem is, they're completely unenforcable due to the fact that they are not in the core agreement. Even if Kerry enforces them within the US, it means squat with regards to Mexico and Canada. If you listen closely to Kucinich's stance (and I don't even fully agree with his proposal to withdraw from the WTO), he always follows up the withdrawl from NAFTA with "and pursue bilateral trade agreements founded on environmental protections and human rights."

Even if Kerry doesn't agree with the same exact approach, this is the approach that I'd like to see him advocate. I want to hear that our trade deals will be founded on environmental protection and human rights. I don't think that's too much to ask. Because, if he's unwilling to do this, it will eventually cancel out any of the OTHER work he's trying to do on the environment.

And also, perhaps we're all just a little uneasy from remembering the "prime seat" at the table we got during the Clinton administration....

[Polemonium]

45. Hmmm an unchecked military industrial complex

Elitism - This country is in the hands of fewer and fewer of us. The rich get richer the poor grow in numbers and most of us have to work harder to eek out a living. It's great if your rediculously wealthy, but for the rest of us, well we can't even get some of our represetatives to listen to us.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

28. red-baiting progressives?

commie! lenin! oh brother, for a minute there I thought I was at Free Republic. try to win without us, okay?

[w4rma]

33. F.U. and your broad-brush, short-sighted statement. (n/t)

[waldenx]

35. Dont cry when Kerry stabs us in the back

I know you DLCers won't because you have to believe in something in order to be betrayed in the first place.

[no name no slogan]

40. Um, we're called "Kucitizens" :-) (nt)

[Moderator]

48. locked

inflamatory