Are Democrats REALLY That STUPID?

Published on February 18, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

I'm sorry, folks. I'm about to get a brain hemmhorage from beating my head against the wall here.

After reading the 5000th repetition of why I "wasted my vote" for voting for the candidate I believed in, I am astounded by the apparent stupidity of the Democrats who patronize this site. Now, I don't believe in the Republican Party platform, but as a rule, the Republicans and conservatives on this site have not made repeated ignorant attacks on me and my party.

For those who don't know, I am a Libertarian through and through. I believe in the party platform, believe in the candidates we put forth, and am even planning to make a run next year for city council to further advance the party.

As a Libertarian, I have seen at least 100 different arguments on why my position is "stupid", "ignorant", or a "wasted vote". I cannot help but conclude that, since those arguments have been made almost EXCLUSIVELY by Democrats and/or liberals, that it is a desperate attempt to try to shame myself and other third party supporters into rending our support to the DNC, no matter how inane or inept the candidates they present.

Until the Democrats decide to modify their platform into a platform that can support a wider diversity than their current ever narrowing platform, and until they can abandon the EXTREME negativity that is so characteristic of many of their members (check out the Democrat Underground for examples), they will continue to find themselves fractured and the support of their members waning. They have pretty much told their moderates "we don't need you", they've taken a similar position regarding the religious elements of their party by rallying around causes that all but the most liberal Christian finds themself having a hard time supporting. This is AT LEAST the tenth time I have stated this, and I have seen similar statements by many others, INCLUDING former Clinton advisor Dick Morris.

But it falls on deaf ears. Apparently, according to these folks, I should abandon my core principles and vote for a Democrat regardless of how much I disagree with their position. Makes sense, huh?

Comments (Page 1)

ParaTed2k

on Feb 18, 2005

abandon my core principles and vote for a Democrat

That should be a bumber sticker!! ;~D

Moderateman

on Feb 18, 2005

Insightful gid....until mainstream dems TAKE BACK the democratic party, they are doomed to repeat the same dumb shit errors over and over, america NEEDS a sane democratic party, not these left wing nut cases that are in power now.

liberalwithbackbone

on Feb 18, 2005

To answer the first question, No.
To begin to reply to this forum, here we go with stereotypes again. I'm a democrat, a liberal, a green (yes, it is possible to be democrat and green). I know dozens of good conservatives, and coincidentally, one of my family's best friends is a libertarian. Finally, I must say that I admire your unwillingness to sell out your party, Gideon. Bravo. (Really, I'm not being sarcastic. If someone that dedicated is willing to switch sides, we are a very seat-of-the-pants country).

fmfyguy

on Feb 19, 2005

I must assume that our Libertarian friend did not vote for Bush (could be wrong). After all, there is a vast range between Libertarian and darned-near Facist. Now, Bush probably doesn't know what a Facist is because he'd have to read a book to find out. But Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the so-called NeoCon bunch certainly do.
As an aging Liberal (turned Progressive), I am dismayed at the failure of most to either recall or understand history. We are on a crash course to pre-Depression America. In those days, them that had the gold made the rules. Since those days, most of us have had the good fortune to join the middle-class and experience a degree of upward mobility pre-Depression Americans could even dream about. Now that we're there ... we have "principles." Isn't that nice!
Lots is wrong in America today. I agree. Much should be changed ... or revisited to make it better. But, friends, when your house is burning, it's not the right time to start planning to redecorate. Your country; your democracy; and your status is under assault. It's a rat race and, at the moment, the rats are winning! Run the thieves out first and redecorate after that.

fmfyguy

on Feb 19, 2005

Let's see now ... left-wing nut cases. Interesting! Is that compared to right-wing nut cases? What's "left" wing?
It's all so simple when you say it that way. Social Security; Unemployment Insurance; FDIC savings insurance; Civil Rights; Equal Opportunity; environmental protection; minimum wage; electifying the entire middle of America; etc., etc., etc. That must be what you mean by "left"???
Or, is it "tax and spend" versus "borrow and spend" economics? Is it being opposed to teaching evolution or requiring that we teach religious mytholody in public schools?
I'd really like to know what you mean by your comment. I know I'm a bit sarcastic here but it's hard not to be. Help me so I can answer in more constructive way. No names. No pigeon holes. No generalizations. What is left? And, what is "nut case"?

fmfyguy

on Feb 19, 2005

stevendedalus

on Feb 19, 2005

I am dismayed at the failure of most to either recall or understand history. We are on a crash course to pre-Depression America. In those days, them that had the gold made the rules. Since those days, most of us have had the good fortune to join the middle-class and experience a degree of upward mobility pre-Depression Americans could even dream about. Now that we're there ... we have "principles." Isn't that nice!

I'm with you, partner. These strident critics of the Democratic Party, thinking it is filled with downright nut-case liberals, don't realize--indeed because of history unbenown to them--that what's liberal today, except for the few nut cases they love to harp on, was what in the old days was called Rockefeller Republicans. It'll take another depression to for them to think clearly.

Suspeckted

on Feb 19, 2005

not these left wing nut cases that are in power now.

I'd be much more inclined to vote for democrats if I thought they had some genuine liberal ideals in terms of human rights, environment, economics, ect.. But they don't. They're just a bunch of sellouts just like the repubes. Principals are sold to the highest bidder. When you support a third party as Gideon and myself do you don't run that risk to nearly the same degree. I'm not trying to speak for you Gideon, but I think all third parties have more in common with each other than they realize. At least for me, I'm seeking democracy...it's gotta be around here somewhere.

-suspeckted

Moderateman

on Feb 19, 2005

Reply By: stevendedalusPosted: Saturday, February 19, 20

These strident critics of the Democratic Party, thinking it is filled with downright nut-case liberals, don't realize--

not filled with even worse LEAD BY...

whoman69

on Feb 19, 2005

Let's take count now. We have a Libertarian calling Democrats extreme. They have a platform that the government should do nothing except promote inidividual freedoms. Its such a popular movement, they got almost 1% of the vote. If they could have only changed the minds of another 60 million people, they could have won. Darn so close. Tell me again why your vote for Bednarik was any more important than writing in Mickey Mouse? They had about an equal chance of winning.
We have the right on the board saying that the Democrats lost because they have gone too far left, and the left saying they left the party because they are not left enough. Everyone has an idea of what the Democrats should be. I say leave that up to the Democrats. It wasn't the message that lost us this election, it was the messenger. Reports of the demise of our party are premature. In 1964 the reports of a Republican demise were in the works as Democrats had won a landslide election, and increased their stranglehold over Congress. The Republicans won the White House four years later. 1976 was an election much like this last election with the Democrat winning a slight majority and off of the watergate backlash increased their lead in Congress. Republicans took back the White House in 1980. The Republicans are very vulnerable in 2008, with continued problems in Iraq, a balooning deficit and wages not equalling jobs lost. If they nominate a more moderate candidate, the right wing of the party could split or become disinterested. The Democrats need to nominate a better candidate who can get the message out.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 19, 2005

I, for one, don't think that the Democrat party is full of nutcases, however, those "few nut case they love to harp on" have emerged as the voice of, and leadership of the party. Since leadership decides the direction of any organization, how far from "nut case" do you think this new leadership can take the party?

Whoman69, you like to keep beating that drum, (and actually, you do a pretty good job with it), however, you forget that in the 1996 election in Utah, the Democrats were the 3rd party because Clinton took 3rd place with that state's popular vote.

stevendedalus

on Feb 20, 2005

"few nut case they love to harp on" have emerged as the voice of, and leadership of the party.

I suppose you mean that Ted Kennedy is the spokesman as Ann Coulter is the spokesperson for the repubs.

you forget that in the 1996 election in Utah,

Yeah, like Utah is the groundswell.

fmfyguy

on Feb 20, 2005

Someone once noted that all politics is local. If you really want to start a "successful" third party you have to work locally and work your way up. Congress is where things ultimately happen. If they go lock-step with the president like the Republicans are today, then it's one party dictatorship. It's interesting that we consider one party to be a dictatorship and two to be a democracy.
You will note that not a single nation that has ventured into democracy in the past century modelled thier system after the American system. Could you imagine George Bush standing in the docket debating the members of Congress and an oppostion party. He makes speeches in front of hand picked audiences.
I have been for the idea of a third party for some time. Money is killing American democracy. Big Govenment working hand in hand with Big Business is not democracy ... it's Facism. That said, now is the time to build locally and protect as best we can at the national level simultaneously. You can't get the latter by voting for Ralph Nader or any other third party candidates. What you get is what we got ... George Bush and his NeoCon fanatics.
Politics is a very pragmatic art form. Compromise is what ultimately makes it work at all. Don't compromise your "principles" but don't shoot yourself—and the rest of us—in the foot while your being true to your beliefs.

fmfyguy

on Feb 20, 2005

Define "true to liberal beliefs." Compared to what? NeoCons? Right-wing Conservatives? The "bring us back to good old middle-ages Religious Conservatives? I'm having a real problem with all of this chatter about how awful Democrats are.
In an ideal world you get to vote for two great candidates that who both want what's best for America and disagree about the best way to get to the same place. You don't have that and you're not getting it any time soon.
Yes the Democratic Party (members of Congress) let 60 years of domination corrupt them. They diserved to be voted out of power. And now, just maybe, they will move closer to the values and prinicples the party stood for.
The fact is you get a limited choice. You pick from that what is best for society. You work to either take over the party or mount a long haul strategy to launch a viable third party. The problem with any third party in the U.S. is that a candidate does not need 50+% in order to get elected. There's no runoff. As such, third party candidates wind up hurting someone. It's futile unless you in it for the long run. That's how the Conservatives took over the Republican Party. It took years to happen.
Stop living in la-la land. What is it you are trying to accomplish? Are you going to stick to your principles if Jeb Bush runs for president?

whoman69

on Feb 20, 2005

Your information is incorrect. In 1996 Clinton picked up 33% of the vote in Utah to finish 2nd. I think you were shooting for 1992. I could retort that in 1992 Bush finished 3rd in Maine, and in 1912 the Republicans finished 4th in Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi outpolled by even the Socialists and finished with only 8 electoral votes. I am sure that Nixon or Humphrey finshed 3rd in a few states in 1968 as well, but don't have that information. How many congressional seats did those 3rd parties win in those elections? If a 3rd party wants to have a following, they need to earn it. Otherwise they are a waste of space.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!