There’s a very strong anti-war sentiment amongst liberal bloggers these days. But in the 2004 primaries the emphasis was on defeating Bush, even if it meant electing somebody who wouldn’t take a clear anti-war stand.
Would we do the same thing again, knowing what we know now?
In the runup to the 2004 election, Democrats had several candidates to choose between. John Kerry ended up winning, after a struggle, and without ever clarifying his position on Iraq. But eliminated early in the contest was Dennis Kucinich, the only strongly anti-war candidate.
Knowing what you know now, which one of these two would you have voted for?
I’m ignoring the other seven or so candidates, because Kucinich was the only clearly anti-war candidate. Howard Dean came close, but not close enough for this test. So basically, in this poll, it’s “Kucinich versus Everybody Else.”
In my opinion we blew it based on invalid tactical arguments…
Since we were already in Iraq I still don’t feel that a completely AntiWar candidate would have still been my choice. I would have still chosen Dean because withdrawing our troops isn’t going to be easy and if not done properly could lead to even more deaths among them. They have a ton of equipment over there that has to come home and those convoys have to be protected all the way to Kuwait. Just being AntiWar for me isn’t the litmus test. Brains is my litmus test. Dean would have had us out of there. Clark would also have had us getting out of there though probably not so quickly. We certainly would have had the U.N. step up to the plate though then, and perhaps not have created another islamist state full of oil and murdering women for bad manners.
I am with you and your thoughts, Tracy. I would have liked to have seen a Dean president and maybe a Clark, DOD, if not a Vice President.
I actually voted for Clark when Dean dropped out.
I’m beginning to think that the people who don’t vote have the most intelligent response to our system. I’m tired of having to think about what other people are going to think.
My main concern at this time is that not only does the executive branch claim a royal dominance, but that each member of the House of Representatives represents over 600,000 people when the Constitution requires that it be limited to 30,000. That should be our main focus, rather than our figurehead. Taxation without representation.
Oh yeah, I supported Dennis all the way till he dropped out.
The very thing I love about your statement, Alice, is taxation without representation. I live in a state that I have felt that way for so very long.
The problem with not voting is that there is no such thing. If you are of voting age, you possess a vote, and the vote you do not cast is a de facto vote for whomever wins. Abstentions are symbolic, and only valuable when they are in a position to be recognized for their message. The message our lack of voter turn-out sends, in this country, is that we are disaffected, and that we are subject to whomever stakes a claim on power. The non-voter casts a symbolic vote for powerlessness.
while you may be absolutely right, try telling that to the 50+ percent of Americans who don’t see the point any more. I think most of them have already given up on the political process, and I’m pretty sure the last five years haven’t given them any reason to feel differently.
Actually, I hold the non-voters largely responsible for this mess. I will grant you that our elected officials are not terribly inspiring, but American apathy is one of the key factors in our domination by power mongers. Bushco should serve as a wake-up call. We are losing the republic, as Franklin warned. Democracy is not an entitlement. It’s a responsibility.
Apathy and stupidity…a woman who lives in my apt. complex(who is 47) says she won’t register to vote cause she doesn’t want to get a jury duty summons.(and has never voted)
So she obviously had never heard of motor/voter registration and I don’t think she believed me but what was funny was that several weeks later she got a jury summons.
Okay, but what I’m saying is – do you see democracy in action? does either party address the issues as the silent majority would like to see them addressed? are the Dems doing anything to differentiate themselves and get some of those people off their asses?
I can certainly see why many people don’t think so. The problem, to me, is actually that the vast majority of people understand what is hard for us political animals to believe – that the powers that be (mainly corporate interests) have the system gamed and that this so-called democracy is just a sham.
Simply telling those people that they are bad citizens isn’t going to get them to change. And, honestly, I agree with their analysis that electoral politics is by and large a waste of time. It certainly hasn’t changed much in this country in the past century. All the real change came from boycotts, protests and simple acts of defiance. The legislature and the executive branches are followers in this sense, not leaders.
Okay, but what I’m saying is – do you see democracy in action?
What I see is democracy squandered. I agree with you about how bad it is. I’m something of political animal and I’ve never had any illusions about how corrupted the process is. I had no doubt the last election would be stolen, but I still took time to go to the polls. Because, I knew that a large turn-out was our last, best hope in making it hard to steal. Protests are important. Boycotts are increasingly meaningless because everything is owned by mega-corporations. I disagree with you about electoral politics being a waste of time. If Bushco has taught us anything, it’s that it really does matter who sits in the White House. Part of the reason for the apathy, in this country, was the stability of the process. But, now we’ve seen what can happen when people say things like, there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, so who cares whether it’s George W. Bush or Al Gore. As it turns, there’s a pretty big difference, and it really did matter.
First off, yes I vote and will continue to do so, but do I think it really matters? Not with the current machines and counting tricks etc. I still vote on the off chance that when people seriously demand a recount or need the real number for an exit poll I’ll be of some use. I can understand people not wanting to keep banging their head against the wall though, it’s disheartening. To say the least. So I force myself through the motions and hope for the best.
I share your disgust at the vote theft issue. Frankly I’m despondent over the apathy over that issue among pols and citizens, alike. It’s another indicator of how completely we take our rights for granted — that people don’t even want to think about what that vote really means. Until Bush v. Gore, many Americans had no idea that there was an electoral college, in this country. Most Americans have no idea how the system works, in the first place, let alone, how broken it is. It’s hard not be disgusted, disgruntled, and just give up. But, here’s the problem with not voting, aside from the fact that it is giving up a seminal right that we have on paper, at least. Low voter turn-out sends the message to the powers that be, that we really are clueless sheep. It says, go ahead, walk all over me. Take away my rights. I probably won’t notice.
We can demonstrate. We can resist. We can complain. We can undertake civil disobedience. But, none of it matters one iota, if the powers that be don’t think that that they are accountable to us through the electoral process. Politicians are paying attention to Cindy Sheehan, because she influences public opinion. Public opinion only matters in a system that is accountable to an electorate. When you show up at the polls, you say as much through the action of participating in the process as you do with the vote itself. So, it matters. It matters whether or not Diebold is changing that vote. It says, I’m here. I’m watching. You people work for me.
My advice? Don’t. That’s basically an attempt to game the system – to choose a candidate that you think others will like. It means that successful candidates are those that can convince people that people will vote for them, not candidates that articulate a good position or govern well.
Vote for the candidate you want to vote for, especially in primaries. If other people think he’s a good candidate, they’ll vote for him. If they don’t, they won’t.
Couldn’t answer the poll because I neither voted for Kucinich nor AGAINST him..
I voted FOR someone else.
Although I do understand why so many did not vote in 2004, feeling what’s the use, they cheat anyway, I still hold the nonvoters responsible for our loss. Be the change you want. We must fix the voting system because it is very broken. I want a receipt for my vote. If they can give us a receipt at an ATM they certainly can prove to me that I voted.