Deans Big Day

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean received the endorsement of Al Gore today. Dean’s campaign has been focusing on reaching out to the (increasingly very left-wing) democratic base contrary to modern political theorists who think winning elections is about reaching out to the swing voters.

I would like to know what you guys think. Has this worked do you support Dean and plan on voting for him? I realize some of you are underage of 18 so what about family member do they back the guy? Has Al Gore’s endorsement changed your perspective at all on Dean?

[DEPAVER]

41, and no, not a supporter of Dean.

Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate I could consider supporting.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Depaver what if Kucinich drops out and endorses Dean? Would that sway you, or would you just vote green party then?

Follow up question what do you like about Kucinich that you don't find in Dean?

[Se7en]

i'll vote for whichever democratic candidate gets the nomination...whatever it takes to get rid of bush. voting for the green party is rather useless. the US is a two party oligarchy and the green party will never have a chance at the presidential election.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Gore's endorsement of Dean means little to me. Dean has always struck me as a "New [read: conservative] Democrat." Gore, a New Dem himself, only reinforces this by choosing to support Dean.

For the record, I am 19 years old, and Kucinich and Sharpton are the only Dems I will consider voting for in 2004. Granted, I live in Nebraska. The GOP will without a doubt sweep up all of the electoral votes no matter how many progressives settle for the lesser of evils. Because of this, I will only vote for a candidate who I honestly think is not a bastard. That will probably mean a vote for a Green or a candidate from a socialist party.

[SonofRage]

I think Dean is more of a populist type then a DLC-style New Democrat. Gore has been moving in this direction since 2000 as well. What we are witnessing is a battle for control of the Democratic Party. The "Radical Middle" is trying to get control from the more "Squishy Moderate" types.

[Al Creed]

Originally posted by Se7en@Dec 9 2003, 01:53 PM
i'll vote for whichever democratic candidate gets the nomination...whatever it takes to get rid of bush. voting for the green party is rather useless. the US is a two party oligarchy and the green party will never have a chance at the presidential election.

So, you'd actually vote for Joe Liberman or Gepheart?

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Interesting post Nebraska

Gore's endorsement of Dean means little to me. Dean has always struck me as a "New [read: conservative] Democrat." Gore, a New Dem himself, only reinforces this by choosing to support Dean.

I’m curious why you think that Dean is New Democrat, its true that the Vice President was involved in the creation of the DLC but ever since the end of the 2000 campaign he has moved dramatically to the Left. I'm not sure I his current positions are inline I with that of the New Democrats I think Lieberman (also the only Dem I would support) is more their kind of man.

and I’ll ask you the same question I asked depaver what do you see in Kucinich and Sharpton that you don’t see in Dean?

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Wow I was literally writing my reply and then you posted SonofRage I agree with you on Gore’s shifting position.
I disagree that there is much of a battle going on the DLC has lost, when it was clear that Leiberman was going no where, Clinton and the DLC tried to push Clark

but I do have a question for you define “Radical Middle”?

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by Crusader 4 da truth@Dec 9 2003, 06:44 PM
what if Kucinich drops out and endorses Dean? Would that sway you, or would you just vote green party then?

Follow up question what do you like about Kucinich that you don't find in Dean?

I wouldn't support Dean under any circumstance, primarily because I think he goes back and forth and is unpredicable on the WTO and NAFTA.
He did attend the NAFTA signing party and has apparently openly supported the WTO.

He strikes me as being just another status quo guy, that in the end, will always side with the advancement of capital, and hence, aid in the destruction of the planet.

Kucinich seems like the only guy that's willing to call it like it is, although I can't get too excited about him, either.

The bottom line is I'm just not a traditionalist, and I believe the current duopoly is a real problem.

[Pete]

Originally posted by Se7en@Dec 9 2003, 01:53 PM
i'll vote for whichever democratic candidate gets the nomination...whatever it takes to get rid of bush. voting for the green party is rather useless. the US is a two party oligarchy and the green party will never have a chance at the presidential election.

Do you not think that people holding this attitude, such as yourself, only contribute to this problem and make it worse? You think it is wrong yet you comply with it. You are doing nothing to change it by not voting as you feel. That is the problem with North American democracy I believe.

I am Canadian by the way, and here similar things up here. 'Oh the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP are the only three parties that really matter, and then we all know the Liberals will win so I'll just vote for them instead of throwing my vote away on the CPC or Green Party.'

-Pete

[Se7en]

Originally posted by CrazyPete@Dec 9 2003, 10:45 PM

Do you not think that people holding this attitude, such as yourself, only contribute to this problem and make it worse? You think it is wrong yet you comply with it. You are doing nothing to change it by not voting as you feel. That is the problem with North American democracy I believe.

I am Canadian by the way, and here similar things up here. 'Oh the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP are the only three parties that really matter, and then we all know the Liberals will win so I'll just vote for them instead of throwing my vote away on the CPC or Green Party.'

-Pete

or should i feel responsible for leaving bush in office by taking votes away from the only viable competetor?

if i did not have a strong desire to remove the sitting president i would be infinitely more likely to vote for whomever i deemed fit for the position.

[Pete]

And that is how you can see the system is corrupt at its root...

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by CrazyPete@Dec 9 2003, 11:23 PM
And that is how you can see the system is corrupt at its root...

This is absolutely correct. Putting a Democrat in the White House won't make much difference.

The system is set up to make you believe there are differences (fewer bombs, but still bombs; more green spaces, but still a lot of development and pollution; more support for human rights, but still a lot of homelessness and hunger, etc.), but when it comes down to protecting and supporting the key issue, the advancement of capital, representatives of the two parties get right in line together.

Liberals, revolutionaries and activists must hold their ground, otherwise there will never be any change, and the Green party or any other party, for that matter, will never gain the necessary strength to gain a foothold.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

This is absolutely correct. Putting a Democrat in the White House won't make much difference.

would you vote for Bush then, Just for kicks?

[Alejandro C]

Originally posted by Crusader 4 da truth@Dec 10 2003, 04:16 PM


would you vote for Bush then, Just for kicks?

NO, would you

[Crusader 4 da truth]

No I don't believe the system is inherently corrupt and I take my civic responsibilities seriously I would not vote for anyone just for kicks Alejandro C. I believe in influencing the political process through debate and the free exchange of ideas not in a violent revolution.

That being said I would consider either Leiberman or Bush for president. But if the Dems nominate Dean then it’s an easy call for me.

[Alejandro C]

You said you liked lieberman or bush. that's ...different. dont you think it says something about the system that the system will decide for you. dean now has the endorsements of the trade unions and al gore. he will win the dem. nomination. you will not even be given a chance to vote for lieberman. also if you did vote for lieberman in the last election, do you realize that his ticket got the most votes. but we have dick in the VP office instead. dont some of these things worry you?

do you think we dont take politics seriously and would vote for bush just for kicks?

the point that you will and probably have heard over and over is that the election system is controlled by two parties that will not let anyone else in. these two parties over more than a century have ensured that it be nearly impossible for a third party to become influencial. The two parties really are acting as one party, and that one party is only interested in maintaining control. since we are looking at the presidential race look at the behavior of the presidents the last 20 years. every president has behaved nearly identically to his predecesor, with only minor and meaningless changes. there is one force in american politics and that force has been in power for over a hundred years. yet the overwhelming amount of the american public does not support either party. they are so disillusioned with the process that they have become apolitical. that's democracy. look at russia. same thing just happened there. russian democracy is barely 20 years old but their election last week yielded only a 40 percent turnout.

the only time when a change comes about in america is when the people become radical and demand change. then the government will give in. notice that no major change since the mid 1800's has been LED by the government. it took decades of the people pressuring the government for women to vote. it took years for the civil rights measures to be even considered for law. if the system worked then shouldn't the political leaders be LEADING. the so-called leaders are out of touch with the public and have been for a very long time now. the system does not work, nor is it designed to work.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

...different. dont you think it says something about the system that the system will decide for you.

If the far left democratic primary voters nominate dean that their choice I’m not a registered democrat anymore because I was concerned with their positions. I’m entirely comfortable with that dissection.

also if you did vote for lieberman in the last election,

No I voted for Ralf Nader in protest of what Bush did to win the primary. I had left the Democratic party by then and was a big McCain supporter. If the ticket was reversed Lieberman Gore then I would have voted for him. But as VP he really wouldn’t have much power to shape policy and I did not support Gore.

do you realize that his ticket got the most votes.

I think the whole country is aware of that, but Gore Lieberan ticket did not win the electoral college, and that how we choice our president.

dont some of these things worry you?

Nope, who ever the political parties nominate is their business. Because I no longer belong to any I can’t control or influence that process. As long as they adhere to the rule of law I’m completely comfortable.

do you think we dont take politics seriously and would vote for bush just for kicks?

Yes, although I suspect most won’t vote at all due to your fatalistic belief of the hopelessly corrupt system.

the point that you will and probably have heard over and over is that the election system is controlled by two parties that will not let anyone else in. these two parties over more than a century have ensured that it be nearly impossible for a third party to become influencial.

Your right I have heard this over and over mostly from far out left winger (but some libertarians as well) But now I don’t buy this argument, any one can run for office and a overabundance of political parties are on the ballots on most states (look at the recent Cali governors election), The right to life party, the Green, the libertarian, ect, ect, I think people use this argument because they have failed to persuade people on a grass rotes level that their ideas are valid they get frustrated and blame the “system” it’s a cop out for failure. Sometimes if you convince enough people third party canditates can win like Ventura, and Barry Sanders in vermont.

The two parties really are acting as one party, and that one party is only interested in maintaining control. since we are looking at the presidential race look at the behavior of the presidents the last 20 years. every president has behaved nearly identically to his predecesor, with only minor and meaningless changes.

I don’t believe that at all Jimmy Carter and Ronald Regain are night and day as are Bill Clinton and George W Bush, but that my point I think it is critically important and it matters especially this election cycle because of the geopolitical implications.

there is one force in american politics and that force has been in power for over a hundred years. yet the overwhelming amount of the american public does not support either party. they are so disillusioned with the process that they have become apolitical. that's democracy.

I agree with some of that but most people that become disillusioned don’t become apolitical they become radical in my experience they move the extreme right (libertinism or objectivism) or the extreme left (most people on this web page) A lot of people are apolitical because they don’t think that it effects their lives and they don’t care, I think that’s sad.

look at russia. same thing just happened there. russian democracy is barely 20 years old but their election last week yielded only a 40 percent turnout.

I’m not sure they have what I would consider a democracy I would call it a fledgling democracy voting alone does not make one a democracy. They don’t have an independent judiciary and the Kremlin had a heavy hand in the media during this cycle.

the only time when a change comes about in America is when the people become radical and demand change. then the government will give in. notice that no major change since the mid 1800's has been LED by the government.

I agree with this statement, the people drive all change in America.

it took decades of the people pressuring the government for women to vote. it took years for the civil rights measures to be even considered for law.

It took years because the people did not want that change It took a man like MLK and to press for civil rights and argue and debate the issue until the majority of Americans cam around in their political view points. He didn't call for a voilent revolution he used logic and worked within the system that’s democracy.

[Bolshevika]

I like Deans position on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Dean strikes me as pretty progressive in comparison with the other pigs (he is a criminal too, but not to the same degree as Bush). Please, people, voting for Green is stupid. Vote Dean, I don't really like him either, but he is better than 4 more years of Bush's dictatorship of the bourgeois.