blargblog

KevMo, baby. C'mon.

Really that was irrelevant. It just came to mind and sounded cooool.

Anyway.... you make good points. I don't have all that much to argue with except the BIG ONE. If progressive Dems are 100% sure that they are going to vote for whoever wins the Dem nomination in order to oust the Usurper......why does this matter? If you are going to vote for the Dem come 11/04, even if it's not YOUR candidate, why not vote for your guy or gal now? What does it matter? Look, Lieberman ain't going to win it. If it looks like he might, then toss yer vote to Mr. Electable. But don't fight it out now. You want to send a message to the Potty leadership that progressives are a strong voice among the Dems? Then vote for a fucking progressive in the primary. Even if "he's unelectable". What have you got to lose? Or am I missing something so obvious that it is now just there and I can't identify it? Stand up for your principles once in a while. If not in the primary, then where?

A lot can happen between now and the primary. Especially the Oregon primary, by which time the nomination could be locked up thanks to the absurdly early process. If that's the case, and Kucinich is still in the game, I might register the progressive vote. If he's not, and it's Kerry vs. Dean, as I predict it will be, I will lean Dean's way. But who knows right now? It is such an open field. A lot can change by December. A year ago this time it seemed like the Enron scandals and Bush secrecy on their war plans would tip the mid-term the Dems way. Then a month later, no way.

Dean's fire in the belly could always fizzle, too.

Kevin, I think you're learning that "It isn't easy being Dem" (sung, of course, to a tune made famous by someone else with the initial "K" whose greenness isn't in dispute).

"Fussing" is normal for Democrats. The GOP put up a united front, right out in front of God and everybody, and look where it got 'em: their party is now unrecognizable to its stalwarts from (even) the Reagan years, let alone old-time Republicans. Yes, intraparty squabbles are good. Uniting behind a candidate long before 11/2004 would also be good.

Jake, of course you're right, and your position also is a pretty good argument that Greens should join the DP and vote their consciences in those primaries. Making a strong statement in an empty room may feel good, but wouldn't it be better to make that same statement in a room full of people who have no choice but to listen to you if they want your help next November?

I do see these as politically exceptional times: we have, IMHO, exactly one more chance to get it right (left?), or face the possibility of one-party rule for the foreseeable future. Think I'm exaggerating? Look what's going on here in Texas. Hell, look what's going on not far south of you, where the clear result of the democratic process may well be overturned by a bought-and-paid-for recall. One's individual responsibilities are a bit different in times like these. We're not facing old-fashioned questions like, "Is Johnson more to be damned for the Vietnam War, or praised for the Civil Rights Act?" What we're facing is more like, "Will any semblance of free and fair elections, due process and public trials, climate stability, etc. survive the next few years, or do we all soon face summary incarceration for saying what we believe, shortly to be followed by nuclear annihilation?"

Someone recently quoted a bumper sticker they had seen, "Any Other Whore in 2004." That's about where I am right now. If Dean can do it, let it be Dean. If Kucinich... nah; won't happen. God, I hope it's not Lieberman; the man frequently offends me. But I stick by what I said... any other whore in '04.

Steve writes: "...your position also is a pretty good argument that Greens should join the DP and vote their consciences in those primaries."

Yes, for those who believe in invading another party. I've thought about it and I have no problem with others doing so. But I am not a Democrat. It is not up to me to decide who an opposing party should select as their candidate. I wouldn't like it if Dems invaded the Green Party and decided that the GP shouldn't run a candidate this time round. So I will not force my choice on the Dems. It is not my party and does not reflect my beliefs.

In the last 11 years I have voted for exactly 1 democrat. I will continue to vote for her as long as she continues to run because she DOES represent my beliefs & values. If the Dems start running people who reflect my beliefs and values (or at least come close enough in any given race) I will vote Dem. I will vote Rep or Lib or Soc if their candidate reflects my values.

But I cannot in good conscience vote for Bush, Kerry, Lieberman, Graham, Dean, Edwards or Moseley-Braun at this point. If you can, that is fine. Sharpton, Kucinich and possibly Gephardt (I need to research him more) could get my vote in a general election.

But we've heard all the arguments and if they haven't convinced us yet, I don't see why they'll convince us today.

I have a strongly held belief that it is my responsibility to vote (and I've voted in every single election since I turned 18) and to vote where *I* believe my vote should go. In races where there has been nobody I could vote for I have written in a name.

Having strongly stated my position, I continue to ask - If Kucinich,et al (name your favorite progressive) can't win the primary anyway and you are going to vote for anyone the Dems put up - why not vote for your candidate? Not the one you think will win? What good does that do? If, say, Lieberman gets it - what is his motivation to placate the Left in the party when it voted for a centrist (Dean, etc) anyway?

I say to Dems:
If you want my support (vote or monetary), change your party so that it represents my position. Until then, there are other parties that better reflect my politics. They may not win anytime soon (or ever), but they will proclaim beliefs and positions that match mine as loud as they are able. They will not belittle my positions and call me names as the Democratic Party currently does (and let me tell you - that does nothing to encourage me to vote for them). Do you really think the average American has moved to the right in the past decade? Or is it just that the Reps have better PR that softens the image of their move to the right? If the latter, why can't the Dems learn something and move back to the left?

Gaaaaaargh! My frustration is getting the better of me. I have not moved farther left in the last 15 years. But I no longer have a major party that is in the same area. It is not up to me to give up my core beliefs in order to prevent something worse than the slow destruction of what I see as the correct path. If you want my support you must give me something. The Dems have given me nothing in the last 15 years. They just haven't taken it away as fast.

You can pull apart my post position by position if you want to, but it will not do you any good. The Dems want something from me. I don't want anything from them. If they want my support, throw my a freaking bone. When I see some action, I'll be there. Until then, here I remain outside the mainstream. You know where to find me if you change your minds.

I lived in Texas when Bush was elected. I was terrified of his presidency. And I certainly had no idea it would be this bad. I had no reason at all to expect anything other than that his stupidity would cancel itself out - he'd try to do stupid things, but would be too stupid to make them happen. I haven't seen anything to change my mind about his abilities. I don't see how anyone could have predicted that Congress and the media would roll over like whining puppies for him like this, unless they expected a "crisis" like the one we're living through. I just don't see it.

"You can pull apart my post position by position if you want to, but it will not do you any good." - JS

Wow. Jake, where do I begin! It might be true that "it will not do [me] any good," but that rather assumes no one else is reading, doesn't it? I'm not even saying that you're wrong, and I don't see winning you over as the point. (<grin>"Never teach a Green to rant; it wastes your time and annoys the Green."</grin>) But in your frustration you have emitted quite a few statements that bear response...

"Yes, for those who believe in invading another party." - JS

Feel free to do so. I need all the left/progressive help I can get over here, not that there's a shortage of such help, but I'll never refuse more. In Houston, there is a separate Democratic organization, HCD, not part of the party though all of us are members of the party, formed and populated by the party's left wing. We have, as I recall, about 5,000 members. I've no idea where you live, but we could always use another motivated person. Your implication that the left of the DP has vanished is simply not grounded in fact.

"It is not up to me to decide who an opposing party should select as their candidate." - JS

"Kucinich,et al (name your favorite progressive) can't win the primary anyway and you are going to vote for anyone the Dems put up - why not vote for your candidate? Not the one you think will win?" - JS

WADR, your second statement belies your first, Jake. You are telling Dems how you would like them to vote. But that's fine; I do the same to Greens. I think the Green Party's stated principles are pretty cool, but I think Nader... oh, never mind.

I believe the implication that a vote according to one's conscience is necessarily a vote for the candidate most aligned with one's individual politics is specious. There are many legitimate reasons for voting for a candidate other than my "favorite progressive." All other things being equal, I will, of course, vote for that person... once I see him or her; IMHO, Kucinich and Dean are not exactly credentialed as progressives. (Hell, Nader isn't, either.) But if my highest progressive personal principles are best served by my strategically voting for a different candidate, I will do that. I would like to think that you would do the same. If democracy were a zero-sum game, progressives would all be sunk, anyway, and what you propose... always, always voting for your personal favorite individual candidate... would be the only rational course of action. But it isn't, and it isn't.

"I say to Dems:
If you want my support (vote or monetary), change your party so that it represents my position." - JS

Political parties, like almost all institutions, are most effectively changed from inside. And heaping calumny on the entire DP, as diverse and spread out across the political spectrum as it is, does not seem to me to be your best long-term strategy. You are wrong in saying "I don't want anything from [Dems]." If that were really true, you wouldn't unleash frustration-induced righteous rants. But you need Dems, even if only as a source of people to convert to your position and your party. (What? you're gonna get 'em from Republicans?)

Fortunately, I know quite a few Greens here who are willing to work, on some level, with left-leaning Dems like me, on issues if not on candidate campaigns. Perhaps you think those Greens tainted, impure traitors. But I believe they are simply thinking strategically, and I admire and appreciate that.

Steve, I appreciate this conversation. I think you misunderstood part of what I was trying to say re: voting in the primary. I am not saying always vote for who you like best (even if that is what I do). I am saying, given you will vote for whoever emerges from the Dem Primary, why not vote for the most progressive candidate - Sharpton even if that is who you think is most progressive? This doesn't determine who the Dem candidate is, but that seems to be secondary for you. But it does show progressive support within the party.

Really, I'm not telling Dems how to vote - I'm asking why they are voting in, what seems to me, a non-constructive manner in the Primary. I'm not going to get anybody to change their vote, I don't think. I'm trying to get a better understanding of why, in the case of the Primary (I think I've got a handle on the General Election), you are going to vote farther right than your personal politics.

I have worked on progressive Dem campaigns. Strangely, IME it's even more frustrating and hopeless than working on Green campaigns.

As to my need for Dems..... The rant is mostly fueled by the non-responsiveness or even outright hostility I receive from the Dem establishment. You'd be surprised how many converts ARE Reps. An awful lot are independents. Surely not as many as former Dems. But then again I was a former Dem before there was a Green Party that I knew about.

But here I am, still trying to work with Dems. I am stating clearly what I need in order to support them in the 2004 election. Now, it may be that my view is representative of many fewer people than they feel they can pick up with a "centrist" candidate and I will be ignored/designated as not worth the effort. And that's fine. Just don't yell at me when I don't vote for the "centrist" Dem and don't contribute to the campaign.

When the election is over, win or lose, come back and talk to me about issues or campaigns we can work on together. I'm open to it. But if you're going to hold a grudge because I didn't support your candidate, I must reconsider my willingness to work with the DP. I've approached Dems in off years to see how we could work together. But that's another long, frustrating story.

But mostly I would like Dems to understand that I am not a wayward Dem. I am currently a Green. I owe no allegiance to the DP, so don't get mad when I vote for a non-Dem. I didn't vote for the Rep either. Just because I don't vote for your people doesn't mean that we can't work together on things outside elective office campaigns (or even on certain elective office campaigns).

You did write: "Perhaps you think those Greens tainted, impure traitors."

Obviously I don't. But to put the glove on the other foot.....My experience shows that Dems think of Grns in those terms.

I don't for a moment believe that the Left in the DP has vanished. I do believe that they have continually comprimised their beliefs in order to *slow* the slide to the right. And I don't think that has been effective. I believe that has resulted in a loss of influence. But that is NOT a fact - it's my conclusion based on my observations. If that's not the case, somebody will surely point me to the facts that show otherwise.

But all of your positions are well stated and comprehensible. Which is apparently more than I can say for mine.

I understand the many valid reasons to decide how to vote. I don't think mine are any less valid than yours, nor the other way around. Nor am I trying to get you to vote in the manner that I do. What I am trying to do is get an understanding of how your method of vote decision applies, in your view, to the primary.

Jake, the Democratic Party *is* throwing you a bone, or rather, one gutsy part of it is. Dennis Kucinich could use your support and vote, but you're choosing to ignore his invitation, or to decline with the excuse that to accept would be "invading" the party.

Apparently you're going to wait until left Dems take over the party to the extent that we actually get a nominee you could support. Sorry, that's not going to happen in time to get your vote in 2004.

I voted Green in 2000. I loathe the DLC and am still bitterly angry at the spinelessness of mainstream Dems. But this election really does feel like a last chance at saving anytning resembling a democracy for this country. I wish we could count on your help.

With Dennis Kucinich's campaign apparently too enlightened and ahead of the curve for 2004, Democrats in Iowa and elsewhere have a choice: Either support Dean, or let a pro-war DLC Democrat get the nomination. I hope that you will support Kucinich if you still believe in your heart he has a chance, but if you are reconsidering, I hope Dean is your second choice. If you see things shaping up as I do, I hope you will urge people to support Dean.

Sincerely,
Mike Hersh

Why I'm for Dean

Mike Hersh Endorses Howard Dean and other Dean articles at MikeHersh.com.

"Dean is opening the possibility of transforming politics--shaking up the tired, timid old order, inviting plain-wrapper citizens back into an active role--and that's why so many people, myself included, are for him."

- William Greider, author of "Who Will Tell the People" and other insightful books.

Why I'm for Dean by William Greider - The Nation magazine, November 26, 2003

First, the rivals saw him as a McGovernite lefty from the 1960s. When that didn't take, they decided to depict him as a right-wing clone of Newt Gingrich who wants to dismantle Medicare and Social Security. Finally, opponents sold political reporters on the story of Mr. Malaprop, an oddball from tiny, liberal Vermont so insensitive to the nuances of American politics his mouth will destroy him.

Howard Dean surged ahead through all this. The other candidates and witting collaborators in the press got him wrong every time. Howard Dean is an odd duck, certainly, in the milieu of the contemporary Democratic Party. He is, I surmise, a tough and savvy politician of the old school--a shrewd, intuitive pol who develops his own sense of where the people are and where events are likely to take public opinion, then has the guts to act on his perceptions. That approach--leading, it's called--seems dangerously unscientific in this era of high-quality polling and focus groups.... [For Link to Complete Article]

HOWARD DEAN FOR PRESIDENT
Ted Rall Nov 23, 2003 - Key excerpts:

I don't regret voting for Ralph Nader in 2000. Given the information we had at the time.... Boy, was I wrong. To paraphrase National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, who could have imagined back then that a dozen maniacs would hijack our democracy, bankrupt the treasury and subvert our basic values?

I'm a charter member of the 2004 ABB (Anybody But Bush) society. Whether the nominee turns out to be a right-winger (Clark, Lieberman) or a colorless bore (Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt), I'll vote for him over Bush, in the same spirit with which the late Afghan warlord Ahmed Shah Massoud reportedly toasted a meeting of anti-Soviet factions during the '80s occupation: "First we kill the Russians. Then we kill each other." But I have a preference:

Howard Dean has the best chance to beat Bush. Dean's got lots more going for him, not the least of which is running as an insurgent small-state governor disliked by his own party's top leaders (the ex-governor thing casts him as even more of an outsider). Polls show Dean leading his nearest rival, John Kerry, 33 percent to 19 percent in the crucial New Hampshire primary. Coming out early and hard against the war in Iraq wins him major props with the liberal base and makes him seem ahead-of-the-curve to everyone else.

Most importantly, he's his own man. "He doesn't really owe his current standing to any of them, not to labor, not to minority groups, not environmental organizations, so he'll have more leeway as a nominee to follow his own course," says Darrel West, a political science professor at Cornell. But the rubber would really tear up the road at the presidential debates, where Dean's dry, sardonic Long Island wit would devastate the hapless Bush--and charm television viewers.

His natural pugnacity could help Dems deal more aggressively than usual with the nasty attack ads they can expect in the campaign ahead. Frankly, the other Democratic contenders don't have what it takes to stand up to Karl Rove's brutal war machine. [For Link to Complete Article]

======================

"I'm tired of my party being bullied by the right wing."
-- Howard Dean, Oct. 6, 2002 - Dean for America

MikeHersh.com

Nicely said...