"There's no difference between Democratic Candidate X and the Republicans"

[Sparkly]

Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion here, the Democratic candidates are not immensely different from each other on issues, especially the "top tier," and especially compared with the differences they all have with the Republican candidates. All have said they want to end the occupation of Iraq; all are committed to diplomacy; all would work with Democrats in Congress, form a Democratic-majority cabinet, and make Democratic-friendly judicial appointments.

In fact, on a range of issues, they are not as different from each other as they are different from Republicans. Given that the details would be worked out by Congress, they share much in common on issues such as (randomly off the top of my head):

Taxes
The environment
Reproductive freedom
GLBT rights
Civil rights
Veteran's care
Education
Housing/Urban Development
Children's programs
Job growth
Unions
Balanced budget
The arts
Social Security
Medicare
Health care
Mental health care
Religious freedom/diversity
Immigration
Equal opportunity
First responders/civic support
Infrastructure
Voting rights

But think about the Republican position on each of these. On every one, there IS a significant difference between Democratic candidates and Republican candidates.

That's because our party platforms themselves are different. Our candidates have all identified themselves with that platform, and it's been largely unchanged, on major principles, for years.

So, please -- can we agree at least that saying "There's no difference between Democratic Candidate X and the Republicans" is at best intellectually dishonest?

[skipos]

1. Or lets think back to the "Bush is the same as Gore" argument in 2000

How accurate was that? If Gore was sitting in the oval office all these years, would thousands be dead from Iraq, 9-11, Katrina? Would Alito and Roberts be Supreme Court justices? Would Gore have vetoed SCHIP?

Would Bush be getting nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental work?

[Sparkly]

2. Yup, it was just as ridiculous then. nt

[TwilightZone]

14. Ditto in '04. I'm sure that Kerry would have nominated John Roberts to the SC.

Right?

[depakid]

3. More people might thing so- and not just here- if:

The Democratic leadership and the Presidential candidates were out there fighting for those issues and proposing AND enacting or successfully defending policies that uphold traditional Democratic values.

Unfortunately, with few exceptions they haven't been- which is the major reason why Congress has such poor ratings, and why I constantly hear things IRL like the title in your post.

While I agree that there's often (though not always) a short term choice of evils to be made- the margin of that choice has grown far slimmer over the past 12 years, and, unfortunately that's a negative argument.

If candidates consistently show the electorate something to vote for if they take stands that further the interests of ordinary Americans and do it courageously, that brings people out and even gets them involved.

Why most Dems can't learn from the Republican example and stand up principles- as opposed to waffling and enabling the opposition is one of the more frustrating things I've watched and been involved with since Reagan took office. People see that, too- and that's why the meme has taken hold- because there's more than a grain of truth to it.

[Sparkly]

6. Heard of the fight over SCHIP this week?

How about the report on Blackwater, the Hate Crimes Bill, or the effort on Habeas Corpus?

Maybe people in general, with the help of the MSM, are too busy focusing on "cackles," cleavage, haircuts and hair-splittings to keep up.

Good site:
http://www.democrats.org

[depakid]

10. You'll get the occasional no brainer

Which further illustrates the problem. If the leadership stands up there- why can't or won't they do that on so many other things that are important to ordinary people?

On MOST issues that are popular among the electorate at large- and among constituencies in particular states and regions, a good 1/4 to 1/3 of the candidates and representatives are perfectly willing to sell out to entrenched, monied interests.

Whether that's because they want and "need" the corporate dollars- or they like hobnobbing with Beltway or Wall Street insiders- or whether its due to philosophy or character factors the result is the same.

And people see that. I often watch in dismay as people rationalize the actions Southern Dems or the likes of Ben Nelson but on many issues- it goes beyond the usual regions.

Dean had it right: people in the south (and elsewhere) they need health Care, education and clean water, clean air and unadulterated food, etc just like everybody else does. Give 'em a plan that makes good sense, protects their interests- one that they can understand, and they'll be behind you.

Yet (and this is but one of myriad examples) look how many Dems signed on to the Republican proposal to eliminate ALL state food labeling laws- federal preemption, which would have put in place unbelievably stupid standards- for utterly unjustifiable reasons.

On issue after issue- name the context and I'll find you one, this kind of thing has happened so often, it's damn hard to keep count.

Public perception thus tends towards two deleterious attitudes:

1. The Democrats (as a whole) don't care about us ordinary folks;

2. The Democrats care, but they're too cowardly or impotent to stand up and fight for us.

Hence we get the overall belief stated in your title.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Good Gawd. If all that's true, what a shame that all the outrage has been wasted.

And outrage is a terrible thing to waste. :sarcasm:

[ruggerson]

5. It's all true, I swear.

Just go into the next room and ask her. :)

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Actually ...... the weather's gorgeous today .....

..... its laptops on the deck.

I'm winkin' at her. :hi:

[Cameron27]

7. Of course it's intellectually dishonest,

but it doesn't stop many from using it to fan the flames around here.

K&R

[ruggerson]

8. When did intellectual honesty

become a prerequisite for debate around here?

k & r.

[sellitman]

11. Look at the big picture.

ANY of the DEMS are better than any of the Repukes.

By a landslide!

(ok...Al ..you can run now)

[Pushed To The Left]

12. K&R! Don't forget the biggest difference: The Supreme Court

If the right wing gets to choose any more justices, we can kiss civil rights in America goodbye. Not voting for the Democratic candidate in 2008 is a very anti-abortion, anti-gay and anti-civil rights stance to take. That may sound harsh or "black and white" to some, but it's reality. Remember who gave us Bush in 2000: The Supreme Court! The right wing gets it when it comes to this issue's importance, which is why many anti-choice, anti-gay and anti-civil-rights voters are getting behind Guiliani. They know the "pro-choice" Guiliani will give them the right wing Supreme Court they have always wanted. And if we have enough Democrats who are foolish enough to vote for Guiliani or foolish enough to not vote for the Democratic candidate, then the right wing will get their wish.

I live in California, so I know firsthand what can happen when Democrats refuse to support their party's candidate and/or they vote for a Republican they wrongly perceive as liberal. Even Bill Maher admitted to voting for Schwarzenegger!! I hope Democratic voters use their brains in 2008!

[TwilightZone]

13. Can I recommend this about twelve times?

Damn, only once.

The argument is indeed intellectually dishonest, and in my opinion, often intentionally so.

[ShortnFiery]

15. All those other issues will NOT figure into the equation when we realize WWIII. n/t

[Lerkfish]

16. no, the real point is that there isn't ENOUGH difference, and there is a disconnect

between the will of the people and the politician's career interests.

The people wanted a 180 degree turn around on the war, and in fact that was what Dem politicians promised before 2006, and at best we've gotten a one or two degree shift from current policy. Essentially the democratic majority has given the president every single thing he wanted, blocked him not at all, and allowed them to flip a finge to congress on being held accountable.

If anything here is intellectually dishonest, its setting up this false dichotomy: that you cannot look at the events (or lack thereof) since the 2006 election and express dismay without being labeled unpatriotic to the democratic party.

The current democratic leaders were elected on a promise and a mandate to get us out of Iraq. How'z that goin? And our top prez candidates keep rattling MORE sabers at Iran.

do you think that 's what democratic voters voted for?

there is a a canyon-wide gap between what the people want and what the candidates have actually delivered.

[Sparkly]

17. Wow.

1. You're still focusing on only one issue.

2. "The will of the people," according to polls, has not been an immediate and full withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

3. The Democratic majority is a slim one, can't override a filibuster nor a veto, and has little to do with my OP.

4. You certainly can express dismay without being "labeled unpatriotic."

5. The current Democratic leaders did not give "a promise" to "get us out of Iraq," and this has little to do with my OP.

6. "What the people want" vs. "what the candidates have actually delivered" -- the candidates aren't, all by themselves, able to "deliver." Some aren't even members of Congress.

7. My point -- which you seem to have overlooked to focus on the frustration that seems to prevent many from seeing anything else -- remains: There's commonality among the Democratic candidates, and major differences between them and the Republicans, on a range of issues.

[Lerkfish]

18. sure..

1. its the only issue that matters. This war will destroy the world and our economy if it is allowed to continue, and us as a country.

2. But the will of the people is that we withdraw. several of the top dem candidates say no withdrawal until 2013. That would make it a DECADE LONG WAR.

3. The republican party, in MINORITY, is getting through every legislation they want, and obstructing everything they don't. how are they MORE POWERFUL than the slim majority?

4. not according to some

5. The candidates did run on changing the status quo, which included the war. Its not directly related to your OP, in your view, but in my view it is related. To say there isa vast difference between republicans and democrats on the issue that means the most to me comes down to results.

6. Then if congress can't deliver, who can?

7. There is no range of issues, there are only a couple of issues, that encompasses all other issues: in case you're not noticing, Iraq, Iran, Torture, Halliburton, Corporate outsourcing, evaporation of civil liberties, elimination of Habeas Corpus, Blackwater, NSA domestic wiretapping, Katrina, Cronyism, ....its all INTERRELATED.
I"m not going to be distracted by differences between democrats and republicans on issues that don't affect that tangle of corruption.

My point is that there needs to be a GREATER DIFFERENCE between democratic and republican candidates, not just A difference.

[Odin2005]

19. DU has a bad infestation of Naderite trolls.

Their BS memes about the Dems being no different from the Pukes are based on the desire to sabotage the Democratic Party out of spite even if it leads to a Puke victory. These trolls must be countered repeatedly and consistently.

[Cameron27]

20. It sure seems that way sometimes.

[Lerkfish]

21. if this is in reference to MY post

I feel I have adequately laid out my reasons for why I feel there needs to be MORE of a difference between the parties.

Let me ask you this, are you HAPPY with the performance of congress in OPPOSING the republicans?

[Odin2005]

23. No, which is why we need to get an even bigger majority in 2008.

[Lerkfish]

26. we have a majority now and do nothing. a larger majority will just be a larger disappointment unless

there is a sea-change in attitude about doing the job they were elected to do instead of protecting their political careeer. I think they'll find the thing they seek most to save they will lose because they didn't do the job they were asked.

I realize you won't agree with me, but I'm telling you this is how I see it.

[sendero]

22. Nonsense..

... I was and am a major Nadir detractor.

The fact is, when HRC said she wasn't sure if we could be out of Iraq by 2012, that did it for me.

I agree with Lerkfish above. The war IS THE ISSUE. The remaining issues are reearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

I don't give a shit if HRC wins or not. I really don't care, and frankly I don't think she will. All of you deludinoids who cannot see that CHARACTER-WISE she is no better than a Republican, well that is your deficit. Nothing I can do about that.

[Odin2005]

24. I have a great distaste for "Single-Issue-ism"

One word: SCOTUS

[Lerkfish]

25. well, I can see that, especially if that one issue is not your candidate's strong suit

but as I explained, its the single issue that is entangled with all other issues.

[bryant69]

27. Great Post!

And dead on.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[leftist_not_liberal]

28. But when it comes to Imperialism on behalf of Capital

there is not one iota of difference and none of those other issues even hold a candle to imperialism.

Just sayin'