A few folks in Michigan who used to work in the auto industry are actually believing Romney when he says those jobs can come back. Whats more, he says to do so the plants have to become more competitive. Do they not get that all that means are fewer full time positions, lower pay, and fewer benefits???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a really, really bad idea.

1) Voting should be a sacred act, one which involves thoughtful choices for the right reasons (ie, you like the candidate).

2) Mitt Romney could actually win Michigan, then gain cred which would lead to other wins. Then, gasp! he could win the nomination, and with enough swiftboating of the Dem candidate and Diebold voting machines he could win the Presidency. This would be intolerable because...

3) Mitt Romney scored the highest in totaliarianism in a questionnaire given to all the candidates by the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage. This means he is a neocon. The last thing we need is another neocon for a president.

What happened to playing/voting fair? Sticking it to the other side with a dirty trick is something Republicans do regularaly, not Democrats. I can't believe progressive Democrats are actually discussing it as a logical tactic. Goes to show how low our political discourse has sunk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is an opportunity to have your vote count in another way - vote for Kucinich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is an abysmal suggestion. Let us copy the corrupt tactics of the other fellows because they work? The absolute hell with that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A flip-flopping, slick-talking, back-stabbing phony with plastic hair. They're right! He's the perfect Democrat.

I laughed out loud at the lines about "...Che friggin' Guevara...Drunken frat boy..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm distressed by this suggestion, & further, dismayed that a lot of people will act on it.

This isn't a Goddamn "game".

It's this "game" obsession that's gotten us to the point we find ourselves in, where the fundamental act of casting a vote based on conscience & confidence can be blithely mocked. It's this "game" obsession that has castrated whatever Progressive element there was to the Democratic Party in the last 20-odd years. I won't be patronized for still believing in something, or someone, for that matter. I'm sorry so many people's thinking has become so screwed up, but that doesn't mean I'll line up to get infected, too.

Here we have a situation where a majority of Progressive voters are running around in circles trying to figure out which of the Top-Down "Choices" will screw our country over the least. In discussing this, again & again people state that Dennis Kucinich best represents what they truly want in a President, but that they have "no choice" but to vote for one of the Top Three. That's how we pragmatically play the "game".

Hasn't anyone noticed how this simply doesn't work?!? How this never-ending mantra of "patience, patience... Really, we'll beat them at their own game, this time" never fails but to deliver us near-useless public servants (at best) & stealth Neo-Conservatives in Dem clothing (at worst)?!?

I've got an idea, let's just get us some pistols & play Russian Roulette, instead.

Look, the only Democrats on the ballot in Michigan are Kucinich, Gravel & Clinton. Well, scratch Clinton. How about, instead of the predominant mode of cynical game-playing, instead of the politics of defeat (which, in my mind is exactly what this suggestion amounts to), we actually practice the politics of bravery. If you don't truly support Clinton (& I hope to God you don't!), cast your vote for one of the underdog candidates, preferably Kucinich. Give Clinton a scare, hell, an upset defeat. This would give a real boost to the repeatedly marginalized Kucinich campaign, even if he didn't win. It would give all the "2nd-besters" pause & show them that a real Progressive is electable. Most importantly, it would continue to keep the issues that Kucinich fights for in the spotlight. I don't know if you've noticed, but the Top Three are still awfully soft-focus on just about everything... Does that make anyone uncomfortable?

This cute little exercise in gamesmanship is absurdly risky, & reeks of the sort of callous bullshit we're supposed to set ourselves apart from.

We Progressives seem to be like a boxer spending hours in the gym practicing their bobbing & weaving...

But never bothering to learn how to friggin' punch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kucinich is the progressive choice. A Kucinich surprise would have more impact than a Romney continuation ... I agree that progressives should bravely vote Kucinich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AlterNet editors have the ethics of CryptoFascists for publishing a piece like this.

Told you so..............not a dimes worth of difference between the parties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Didn't Ms. McKinney lose an election because Repug lemmons crossed party lines and voted for her primary opponent? And in the process Repubbie Bob Barr, who himself was running for reelection, was sacrificed as a result. Did he think that was a good idea?

Voting is not what is used to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As so many have stated: bad idea!

Why can't we vote for Kucinich or Gravel? Why can't one of them become the Dem candidate? Why can't we support the best, most progressive candidate?

Look. If we would get behind someone with the fervor and passion that the wingnuts do, we could do it. Look at Huckabee! A nobody! Didn't have a prayer. Press ignored him - until Iowa. Now he's one of the top 3! Why can't we stop wringing our hands and do the same thing? Are we rank and file Democrats just as weak and waffling as the ones we put in Congress in the last election?

TO THE BARRICADES!!! Or the ballot boxes... ;-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Michigan democrats want to monkey-wrench the system they should vote for Ron Paul. Show the MSM they don't have total control over who gets elected. Certainly a more positive message than a vote for Romney will produce...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It sucks to see Alternet advocate vote-fixing.

I would never for a moment consider wasting my vote in favor of strategy in a primary.

This article gives the impression that there is not a real race happening in the Democratic party. Thanks to MSM like Alternet, John Edwards, the original and authentic candidate for change, has been nudged out of the picture.

Perhaps I should actually thank you, Mr. Howard, I'm about to lose my addiction to this site.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stan Goff recommends Ron Paul to all who oppose the multi-front war and occupation in his article, "Ron Paul's Revolution".

Goff writes, "When we are at the point in history where we cannot change the electoral system, then we need to think tactically about what we can do right now. What will a Paul victory in the primaries do?

"President Paul would close Guantanamo, halt CIA kidnappings, and gut the enforcement capacity for the PATRIOT Act.

"Nominee Paul would give 2008 voters a choice between a real anti-war candidate and a phony Democratic equivocator. The intensity of anti-war sentiment in the country already forced ex-war-hawk Edwards to adopt an out-in-nine-months position to left flank his Democratic opponents.

"Don't ask yourself 'what are the ideas?' If your toilet backs up, you can come up with a thousand ideas while shit-water cascades onto the floor. The question is not about ideas; it is, 'What will be the net effect?'

"Wanna throw a monkey wrench into a fixed electoral system? Here's a chance."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is wrong! Are you a Republican?
You know, that is how Joe McCarthy god elected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't fall for this folks. If you're going to vote for a Republican, vote for someone who absolutely can't possibly win.

At this point, there aren't any of them. Even Ron Paul has way too much populist support.

This is a bad strategy all around. I voted for Reagan in the Repub primary because I never thought America would go for the ancient obviously senile geezer.

Boy was I wrong.

No, unfortunately, this is only going to work for the NaziGOP this time, backing Obama to peel off Clinton's young American and black support. And working brilliantly, I might add.

There's just no parallel on the other side, unfortunately. Every last one of them are Nazis. Only Paul is anti-war, but he has too much right wing militia populist support to be a "safe" "can't-win" pick.

Only Obama falls into that category because of the endless boundless idiocy and racism of red state Amerikkka.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]