It seems that the only thing Kerry could do to lose the vote on the SDMB is not turn into Bush.
Suppose that happened. Define “turning into Bush” any way you like - suppose Kerry announces tomorrow that if elected, he will invade Syria or something.
Who would you vote for? Is it really anyone the Democratic party picks? If they pick Nader, would you vote for him? How about Lieberman, or Sharpton? McCain? Would you try to draft someone?
I guess the question I am asking is, what if “anybody but Bush” isn’t an option from the Democratic nominee? Is there anyone you are really for?
Being FOR a particular candidate, as Arianna Huffington points out, is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The first thing we have to do is get the ship of state headed away from the icebergs by getting rid of our disaster of a captain, then we can worry about things like the most efficient route to our destination.
Yes he is notBush, and unless he became Bush many of us would still vote for him. But this is what I, as a definite “notBush” supporter, see as a problem with us coming up on 6 months til the election.
Kerry needs to get a message out there of what people are voting for. He’s got me and a bunch of others who would vote against Bush no matter who it was (barring Sharpton or Nader or some other total idiot … and even then it would be close) but there are large numbers who need something to vote for as well as against, and that message isn’t getting out there.
Against outsourcing overseas? A nonissue to me. A matter for Congress, not the Executive, and little they really can do anyway.
For more internationalism? Won’t rally the man in the street to his camp.
For seeing our way through Iraq now that we are in there? We shouldn’t be there but I agree with his position that since we are we are stuck with getting it back into a shape that we can hand off to the UN. But is this a rallying cry?
What gives you the impression that anybody here is voting for a little (D) next to the name on the ballot, and not for the general attitudes and principles that are associated with it? Surely you’re capable of giving those who disagree with you about those just a little credit, aren’t you?
Perhaps you’re confused by the existence of so many candidates that we can be “for” - it’s an embarrassment of riches that makes it difficult to choose, not a lack of options. Just among those who ran for the nomination, I’d have been happy to be “for” Clark, Edwards, or Dean, and there are many, many others who didn’t run who I also think would do a capable, responsible job of running the government. That by no means implies that I have real reservations about supporting Kerry - if there were only 1 good candidate in the party, the party would be in tough shape indeed.
Now what was that about “anybody but Bush” not being an option? Anybody other than Bush is an option. The names you listed were never realistic candidates; why did you pick them except perhaps for rhetorical purposes?
You should try reading the whole thread first, or at least work on comprehension. There are only 40 posts before yours - is that asking too much? There are many posts in this thread that list specific, realistic things that Kerry could do to lose votes.
Fair enough. I’m FOR a more multinational foreign policy and would like to see war treated as an absolute last resort. Any of the Democratic candidates except Lieberman held views that I consider compatible. Even John McCain or someone like Bob Dole could have my support. I’m FOR an honest budget that will someday get us back on the road to eliminating the national debt. Had Gore won, we’d still be heading in the right direction. I have no quarrel with Kerry’s views, and would have had no trouble with Dean or Edwards. I’m FOR helping the elderly with prescription drugs and consider the Bush bill, which seems to have been written by the drug companies, to be a failure. Again, any Democratic candidate would have been preferable.
I could support Edwards, or even Dean with no hesitation. Lieberman is too hawkish for my taste although I would vote for him over Bush based on what I perceive as his higher personal morality. A second run for Gore would have had my full support. I would even consider voting Republican IF they would get away from the Neocon wing. Like Clinton, I think Bob Dole would have made a better president than any of the other Republicans out there. John McCain would be another acceptable Republican- indeed I often wonder if he’s in the right party.
I could not vote for Nader, but would rather abstain. I could even very easily vote for Sharpton- in the primaries he often said the one liners that made me say “right on!” There are many worthy candidates, including the nominee John Kerry- who by the way is in no danger of announcing intentions to invade Syria. If he did- sure I’d want to draft Edwards.
Maybe it was all the posters mentioning that they would vote for a baby-rapist or a Nazi, if the Dems nominated one. Unless you are arguing that baby-rape and Nazism are core Democratic values. Even I wouldn’t go that far.
But almost none of the posters to this thread have mentioned that they are particularly “for” any of these allegedly strong candidates - even, or especially, Kerry. Most of the posts have been along the lines of “I’d vote for anyone at all if I thought he had a chance against Bush”. Which seems to me to amount to no more than exactly what has been agreed to throughout - the SDMB is going solidly for any Democrat at all. Not Nader - based, not on principle, but because he isn’t the Democratic nominee. Nader supporters get excoriated almost as badly as Bush supporters (both of us) on the SDMB. Because Nader wasn’t nominated by the Dems, and therefore is perceived as having no chance.
I don’t think it is a matter of giving anyone credit - most of you have been up front that you would vote for a monkey in a suit if that’s who the Dems picked.
I was trying to tease out if there was genuine support for any particular candidate. Apparently not - Kerry is the nominee, therefore the SDMB falls obediently into line behind him.
OK, put it this way. Tomorrow morning, Kerry comes out of a meeting with Bush at the White House. He announces that Bush has shown him sufficient secret evidence that the invasion of Iraq was completely justified, and that if elected, he will continue the Bush policies in the Middle East. In fact, he announces that he considers Syria to be a long-term threat to the interests of the US, and he intends to force Syria to accept a disarmament and inspection regime similar to Iraq’s.
The Democratic party, although surprised, decides that their best and only hope of regaining the White House is to stick with their presumptive nominee. Kerry is nominated at the convention, even with his new foreign policy.
I’m not sure the GD is the right forum for public fantasizing, Shodan.
“If GeeDubya shows up at his next fundraiser in a lacy pegnoir tastefully set off by a string of pearls, would that affect your vote?”
Do try to stay within the bounds of the remotely credible, won’t you, Shodan, old top? I realize, and regret, that this hinders your astonishing capacity for imagination and creativity.
“Secret evidence that the Iraqi war was justified?” Evidence withheld due to some refined scruples? Proof that would confound thier political enemies, but the Bushiviks are simply too ethical to reveal? Perhaps a damp cocktail napkin, with the word “Nuke!” written in what very well may be Saddam’s handwriting? The Protocols of the Elders of Baghdad? Qusay Husseins “Bio-war weapons” Eagle Scout merit badge?
Where is this assumption that we Democrats are obligated to nominate someone who promises “excitement”? Hasn’t the US of A had enough “excitement” the last four years? And does anyone on the other side honestly see GWB as exciting? Visionary? How many Pubbies are for Bush because he’s NotKerry?
And with regard to our apparent focus on Bush’s failures vs Kerry’s qualifications, isn’t any election basically a referendum on the incumbent? Shodan and some others seem to maintain that hatred for Bush isn’t the same as support for Kerry; while true in a general sense about the electorate, it isn’t the same for those of us here on the SDMB who waste time at work ranting about the weasel-headed idiot currently at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We don’t like Bush, we’ve decided, and that IS the same as “genuine support” for Kerry, notwithstanding the massively silly and distracting hypotheticals that Shodan subjected us to.
Look, if you want to make a case that Kerry hasn’t yet laid out his vision, that’s (IMHO) a fair charge–but this is a specious argument, given that the election** is still six months away.** There’s plenty of time for all voters to learn what a Kerry Presidency will be about. (Bush doesn’t get the same break because we’ve had four years to learn what his presidency is about.)
But if you want to argue that Kerry doesn’t have a vision, that’s presumptuous at best and dishonest at worst, unless you have some sort of insight into Kerry’s brain.
It’s the difference between deciding who your favorite team is, and deciding whether they have a chance to reach the Super Bowl. It’s early as hell, folks, and the election hasn’t really shaped up yet.
Accepting for the sake of argument your silly and pointless hypothetical about Kerry embracing Bush’s position on Iraq, EVEN THEN Kerry is the better candidate because he’s going to do better on the economy, he’ll protect a woman’s right to choose, and he won’t be for massively raping the environment. And he’s a LOT SMARTER than Bush. I’m not just voting against Bush, I’m voting for a Democratic administration run along Democratic principles which are, in bulk, much more agreeable to me than the voodoo neocon bullshit that Bush espouses. And I’m voting for a man who will see the cow pies BEFORE he steps in them, which is not true of Bush.
Cripes, can nothing distract you people from the Bush-bashing?
Look, put it this way. Kerry drops out of the race. Health issues, who knows - Kerry is gone.
Who would you like to see nominated instead, and why?
For the record - I am fully aware that you all hate Bush with a passion. Take that as a fucking given for once in your obsessive-compulsive lives, and talk about some kind of issues.
So far we have had two answers - BobLibDem’s, which was some kind of thoughtful response, and pretty much anybody else, who keep repeating “We don’t care. We don’t care. Bush bad. Bush bad.” Can we quit playing Dawn of the Dead-ocrats and see if there is anybody on earth who you people can talk about except George W. Bush?
What are the issues that somebody other than George Bush believes in, and why do you choose those as important?
I think Shodan’s actually right for once. At this point, I would pretty much vote for anybody the Democrats put up there. That’s how bad a president Bush is. If we had a president who I didn’t like, but wasn’t really destroying the country, maybe I could afford the luxury of voting for a third-party candidate and thereby probably taking a vote away from unseating the current president. But the stakes are too high now. Every MINUTE Bush is in office, he’s doing serious damage to the U.S.A.; the highest priority for many of us is to do our best to get rid of him. I wouldn’t vote for a monkey, but he’d have to be pretty close to a monkey before I could possibly consider Bush to be a better alternative.
Where Shodan’s wrong, though, is that it doesn’t mean I think Kerry’s a bad candidate. I actually voted for Kucinich in the primaries, but we don’t always get our first choice. Even so, I find myself in agreement with most of what Kerry is saying. The only major difference I’ve come across is that he doesn’t go far enough on the gay marriage issue. I just don’t see why, if you’re going to allow gay people to marry, that it should be called something different than marriage. That’s telling gay people that they are somehow a sub-class of people, and in my opinion that’s wrong. And I’m STILL more in agreement with Kerry than I am with Bush on the issue. Other than that, though, I don’t have a problem with Kerry. All the stuff about medal-throwing and Vietnam-bashing 30 years ago doesn’t interest me. That’s just standard pre-election bullshit, like all the absolute crap they flung at Al Gore. Doesn’t seem like a big deal to me; in fact I respect that he took a stand on something. Bush certainly did worse when he was young, and he got a pass on that.
You just sorta did. You still don’t get it, though - those comparisons are somewhat-hyperbolic ways of pointing out that Bush has been such a disaster as President, in both policy and execution, that that is the level to which one would have to sink to be worse.
What don’t you get about that? *Given * that almost any sentient being would be a better President than Bush, getting him out is the fundamental requirement. We’ll do better if he loses no matter what. Any further improvement upon that is gravy. You’re obfuscating the primary requirement, about which there is little disagreement, with all the secondary ones, about which there is much, the moderate and left branches being intellectually active. Yes, there were and are differences between the other candidates, but they don’t matter anymore. The primaries are over, and there’s nothing left to discuss about them. Kerry had the most support, by far, and won the nomination. The better candidate of the 2 who can win now is Kerry. So you wonder at the low level of superficial rah-rah enthusiasm? Making decisions on that basis is how you get disastrous nominees like Bush, isn’t it? There’s something deeper and more responsible going on than you’re acknowledging.
You’re getting closer. We want someone who can win, and only a major-party candidate can do that. Remember that primary requirement again.
You’re getting borderline insulting with that line. Kerry didn’t just happen to win, he got more votes than any other of the many acceptable candidates in almost every state. It isn’t “obedience”, it’s simple recognition of the real world’s and a willingness to work within it. We can’t afford fantasizing, especially not this year. But the level to which you have to resort to whimsical alternate-universe scenarios, such as this “secret evidence” wet-dream you laid out, to try to prove some point to yourself does show how much one has to fantasize to support Bush, unfortunately. It’s gotten all the serious response it deserves.
(By the way, that was more a response to Shodan’s previous posts, not this very last rant of his that popped in before mine posted. That was just sort of a meltdown for Shodan, so I won’t even respond to that.
(By the way, that was more a response to Shodan’s previous posts, not this very last rant of his that popped in before mine posted. That was just sort of a meltdown for Shodan, so I won’t even respond to that.)
Ok, I take this to mean that you would prefer Kucinich as the candidate.
Can you discuss why Kucinich is the better candidate? He goes further on gay marriage, and calls it that as opposed to civil unions. Other issues that you prefer his stand, and - if you’re willing - why?
(1) Kucinich has had a consistent stance against the Iraq war.
(2) I believe that Kucinich voted against the Patriot Act, although I may be wrong on that.
(3) While Bush is completely 100% owned by corporate special interests, Kerry is not but is still likely to be largely captive to them on quite a few issues. Kucinich does not seem too captive to them (although admittedly he would probably have to become so in order to get elected).
