Why are some of us obsessed with ideological purity in this election?

[mot78]

I've been hearing people claim that if their candidate isn't nominated they'll vote Green or for Nader. Why? We're trying to get rid of Bush* and some Democrats think that anyone to the right of their candidate is a PNAC-loving, Rove's ass-kissin' Repug-lite. The only one in this field who even deserves to be called that is Lieberman. But judging by his past voting record, he's still much better than the pResident we have now.
A lot of Repugs are furious with Bush* right now over immigration and spending and yet they'll stil hold their noses to vote for him in November, because they know that the Libertarian or Consitution Party candidate is not a realistic choice.

[IndianaGreen]

1. I don't know about "ideological purity"

but I do know that millions of independent antiwar voters will not vote for a Presidential candidate that supports the war and occupation of Iraq.

[arewethereyet]

2. I really doubt that there are millions of anti war voters

by that I mean those who will be single issue voters on that issue.

Lots of people who are against the war. They'll continue to vote D or R.

[IndianaGreen]

6. These voters also oppose US policies in Latin America

policies that have been carried out by Democratic and Republican administrations.

On a very close national election, which I suspect 2004 will turn out to be, it would be risky to alienate these voters. They may end up sitting out the election, which they have done before.

[mike_c]

20. very much so....

Thank you for bringing this up-- U.S. foreign policy is not just the invasion and occupation of Iraq....

[isbister]

5. But according to the polls...

...Howard Dean is leading the pack. If your theory were true, wouldn't Kucinich or Sharpton be leading?

[IndianaGreen]

7. They are no enough to win an election

but they are large enough in numbers to make a difference, particularly in a contested state in which every anti-Bush vote counts.

[mike_c]

19. I think that Dean built his momentum early by being...

...outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of Iraq at a time when many of the other candidates thought it politically unwise to oppose Bush* (and by running a successful grass-roots campaign, of course). By the time the other unquestionably anti-war candidates came into play, the Dean meme was already well established.

[sandnsea]

8. Then we'll lose

That's ideological purity. If you want Bush out, you better get behind a candidate who can beat him. The ONLY candidate who was against this war from the start is Kucinich. The rest said Saddam was a threat and disarming must happen by force if necessary.

It is time for people to look at each candidate's record and true ability to go into office and take us on a new path. There's no time for fooling around and making mistakes. Too much is at stake for us and the rest of the world.

[mike_c]

21. may I remind you that this election isn't just about beating Bush*...

...although I certainly hope to see him leave the Oval Office, preferably in handcuffs. Nonetheless, I'm equally concerned with either taking back the Democratic Party from the corporate whores and the DLC or establishing a new party that embraces progressive, traditionally Democratic ideals. I want to vote FOR someone who shares as many of my ideals as possible-- not waste my vote by simply voting AGAINST dumbya.

[sandnsea]

30. That's why I'm for Kerry

See, I want the guy who has actually supported traditional Democratic ideas consistently for thirty years. The guy who has worked incessantly on closing corporate loopholes and getting money out of campaigns. The guy who has never taken PAC money in 4 Senate races. The guy who didn't make a big bruhaha over campaign finance limits only to forego them, TWICE. I want somebody who has actually STOOD for all of this his whole life. Not some johnny-come-lately who changes his tune every two weeks depending on what part of the country he's in or who he's talking to or what his small band of supporters want this week. I want to KNOW what I'm buying and I'm not and never have been impressed with the newest "As Seen on TV" product of the month. Dean sucks and the only reason I could tell anybody to vote for him is he's not Bush.

[mike_c]

18. this is one of the primary "purity tests" for me....

This, and the other behavior of dem candidates during the Bush* regime-- were they opponents or enablers? Saying that anyone is better than Bush* is fine, but not necessarily assured if the candidates have a record of voting in favor of the most agregious parts of the shrub agenda. From my perspective the IWR is right up at the top.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. Your worries are unfounded.

I did a poll once, asked if policies stayed the same
Would people still feel they had "won."

It was about 75% "Hell yes."

With a few notable exceptions, I think most people realize that the election is not about policies, and certainly not principles or integrity.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

24. ok DTF!

I am not gonna let yet another brilliant dripping remark get by without acknowledgment!

:hi:

TWL

[dawgman]

4. We have an opportunity in this country right now to take a stand and to

make significant changes. We have a chance to raise the bar. We can nominate some WORTH nominating. We have a chance not seen since the days of FDR and the New Deal. Every time a centrist is nominated or elected the entire political paradigm shifts to the right and the republicans win or at the very least gain ground. Michael Moore and my father agree on one thing...the last Truly liberal president of this country was NIXON. I like Jimmy Carter as much as the next guy, but what does it say about the party of the liberal leftists when one of the most reviled men of his generation/party was more liberal than anyone we have offered up since the days of MAYBE Kennedy?

That's why I am concerned with ideology. Because I don't want to let this chance pass us by once and for all. We could start and end the revolution without a shot being fired or one person being killed over it.

[sandnsea]

10. That's why I support Kerry

A true liberal with the foreign policy and security credentials to beat the stuffing out of Bush. I want to go where he'll take us and if most liberals looked at Kerry's record, they would too.

[Printer70]

26. Yes- there is no victory in a pyrrhic victory

eom

[pasadenaboy]

9. the primary is a fine time for ideological purity

when picking one of nine candidates, you should pick the one who most matches your views.

However, the general election is not the time for that.

[lcordero]

11. why am I so obsessed?

With every NAFTA vote, WTO vote, GATT vote, Patriot Act vote, IWR vote, No child Left Behind vote, and so on I find that these people are stabbing Americans in the back just as bad as the Republicans are.

With these votes, these people showed on who's side they are on. These people showed their true colors.

[dawgman]

16. see my post above I agree totally the people must

be represented. Fuck the coporations and their treasonous lackeys. REAL change must be facilitated or soon things will get ugly. And I will lead the charge.

[Bucky]

12. That you would even ask that question shows that your are a PNAC clone

If you consider voting for anybody except my candidate, or even if you vote for my candidate but don't do so for the correct reasons, you are clearly a Re-ThuglaNazibot undercover IHOP MICPNAC agent bent on destroying DU, our last bastion of Democracy in the universe, and you don't deserve to hear my response to your so-called posting.

[mot78]

14. Okay

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Mairead]

13. It's not 'ideological purity' to want real change

What the hell is the point of voting for someone other than Bush if all we're going to get out of it is warmed-over Bush policies?

Why not save the time and effort and just sit out the election? Just admit that not enough USAians are smart enough or caring enough to be anti-fascist, and that we have to learn the same hard lesson the Germans learned 60 years ago because we're too damned stupid and arrogant to believe that it could ever happen to us?

Goddess forbid that we should demand enough 'ideological purity' to avoid the destruction of our nation!

[ThirdWheelLegend]

25. ooo watch it Mairead..

People are gonna call you Nader-lite!

:P

TWL

[poskonig]

15. Clark supporters will get this question.

When Clark entered the race, he said he wasn't sure if he was a Democrat or a Republican. In context of his history, people are somewhat suspicious of his recent embrace of liberal ideas and principles, while others are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[JVS]

17. I don't think it is an obsession. It is a legitimate desire for coherence

On almost any issue Democrats can be on either side of it. We even have a Senator who endorses Bush for President. Eventually, one must ask themselves what the defining characteristics of the party are. I don't mean defining ourselves relative to the republicans, as in we wan more healt care covereage, but rather in absolutes. What is it safe to say Democrats agree on? How would Democrats implement these goals? If one wishes to call the desire to have all Democrats be on the same page on most issues an obsession with ideological purity, so be it. But as Abraham Lincoln said "A house devided against itself cannot stand"

[DemBones DemBones]

22. Ideological purity? How about expecting a Democrat

to BE a Democrat, rather than just a more socially liberal Republican? Don't we have a right to that much "ideological purity"?


Zell Miller is regularly pilloried on these pages as a DINO. Yet the front runner at present, the man supported by many DUers, is Howard Dean, who was, I suspect, more conservative as a governor than Zell Miller was. It would be interesting for someone to do a formal comparison of Dean's and Miller's gubernatorial records.

I don't recall Zell ever pulling stunts here in Georgia like those Howard pulled in Vermont. It wasn't Zell Miller who cut budget items to help the elderly, disabled and/or mentally ill -- it was Howard Dean. And I don't recall Zell loosening state regulations to facilitate business or industry locating in Georgia. On the positive side, Zell set up some good educational programs, as I've posted before, and attempted to convince the legislature to change the state flag. Roy Barnes was following Zell's lead when he pushed that change through the legislature.

I'm wondering how this campaign would be going if Zell had decided to run for president and had hired Joe Trippi before Dean did. Think Zell's too much of a rube to hire Trippi and run a sophicticated race? He's the man who told Bill Clinton to hire Carville and Begala, because they'd worked on his (Zell's) gubernatorial campaign. He promised Clinton he'd help him win Georgia and he did.

Zell went DINO on us in Washington. Will Howard do the same?

Howard is an admitted fiscal conservative who intends to balance the budget in his second term. To do that, he'll be making cuts in his first term. He'll try to control Congress the way he controlled the Vermont legislature. Once he vetoed several bills just to show the legislature his power; he said they were "getting too big for their britches" (i.e., they didn't agree with him on every issue.)

On the basis of representing a real change from Bush policies, a change to progressive policies, my candidate, Dennis Kucinich, should be the nominee.

But I don't insist on Kucinich being the nominee. I do insist on a real Democrat being the nominee. Shouldn't all Democrats?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

28. "I do insist on a real Democrat being the nominee"

I have to agree there.

This does not sound Democratic to me:

Keeping the bloated Pentagon budget.
Keeping the Patriot Act.
Keeping NAFTA.
Being pro-death penalty.
Being for continued illegal occupation.

:shrug:

Is it just me?

TWL

[Mairead]

32. Nope, TWL, it ain't just you

Those are GOP positions, not Dem positions.

[stickdog]

23. Is that what you call folks who don't want to vote for a Kissinger

lobbyist?

[Printer70]

27. If "winning" means more militarism and corporatism, count me out

eom

[diamondsoul]

29. For many of us it isn't idealogical purity.

I explained in another thread, there are two things I want to see out of a candidate in this race- things we've been without for three long and utterly appalling years now.

1) Integrity- I mean real straightforward honesty plus as clean a campaign as they can manage. There are five that I see that in, and in order of the strength of their integrity so far-

Dennis Kucinich
Al Sharpton
Carol Mosley Braun
John Edwards
Joe Lieberman (Joe hasn't run the cleanest campaign if some of the allegations are true but when it comes to his positions you have to admit he's honest.)

Normally I'd have Clark in there too, except I don't think he's given me enough information to determine his integrity, if that makes sense. No offense to Clark supporters intended, I just believe he could have done better at kicking off his run than he has to date. I should say I personally believe in his integrity, but that's because of past contact with him so I don't feel it should apply to this assessment.

2) Real leadership even when that leadership is facing serious opposition.

Four candidates fit the second bill

Dennis Kucinich
Al Sharpton
John Kerry
Joe Lieberman

Yes people, "Holy Joe" has a pretty good track record if you look at it overall, and in this campaign he's come out strong and sure of his positions whether I agree with them or not. That's leadership.

You'll not the changes in the names which appear in each list, I'm sure. I'm unconvinced of Kerry's integrity at this time, again, no offense to Kerry supporters intended. At this point he and Clark are tied for my second choice, Edwards right behind them.

You'll also note the one name appearing on both my top criteria lists is the man I chose to support. I have second and third choices, however if none of them win, I'm undecided about what I'll do.

Why? Because electing the others won't change anything. Oh it might slow the progress of the disease the Bush administration has planted in the body of this country. Maybe. If we're lucky. But it isn't going to restore the limbs they've managed to amputate that connected us with the rest of the world. We've got more enemies now than we've ever had, by my estimate and without some serious changes, we're going to be walking around with targets on our backs for generations to come. You think the tales coming out of the ME are bad? Just wait and see.

Some of us don't focus on just ourselves or even our own country. Some of us are thinking about the future of the entire human race when we look at this election. You want to narrow your perspective, go right ahead, but please don't accuseme of not caring because I can't just fall in line when I know millions, indeed billions of other people are suffering because of the Resident in Thief, and when I know that probably won't change unless specific people are elected to lead us out of hell.

[nightperson]

31. Thank you for asking this question.

Loooong ago when I read this old article-http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0339/goldstein.php I said to myself "Phew, looks like this time nobody's gonna waste time with Naderesque B.S. that gets nobody anywhere in the long run (because how pure can you be if you and no one from your party is elected?)". The "Zilla the Gorilla" comment resonated. Silly me. What a horror show. Things have been so ridiculous I'm inured to the facts that Sharpton's still running and Ralph's bobbed up talkin' trash. Bush is very bad. He's also doing better than any of our candidates. Ideological purity is a luxury for a ruling party, it's our party's champagne dreams and caviar delights on an electoral food stamp budget. Apologies to Robin Leech. I can't say it enough: we can argue about whether to panic or not, but we definitely should not be splitting hairs.

[Iverson]

33. Oooh those darn pesky IDEAS.

Why can't those purists focus on Winnability, Electability, and Triumphability (WET). The all-WET strategy is the only permissible range of focus. Otherwise, you're not a liberal.

:puke: