Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why Are Gore and Kerry Polling Worse Than Bush?

By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2006.


The big names in the Democratic Party have even lower numbers than Bush -- is that because everyone's ignoring the crisis in our politics?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jan Frel

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Be pragmatic. Take a good, long look at reality, and recognize that even though there isn't a Democrat in Washington who will admit that our political system is profoundly sick and obsolete, in the real world, the Democratic Party is currently all we have. So support it anyway.

That's what I've been telling myself, but boy can it be hard to swallow. Take, for example, the sea of problems Hillary Clinton poses to any political idealist. Hillary Clinton may represent many awful things -- Iraq, corporatism, insane military spending -- but the truth is, millions of Americans may well have health care if she becomes president, and they won't if she loses to a Republican in the next election.

I know it's good when Jack Abramoff sinks six congressmen and a senator; I know it's good when Bush's ratings hover in the 30s. I choke down my speeches about how both of these things are symptomatic of systemic problems and not due to the virtue of elected Democrats. And I am intrigued and hopeful at the prospect of Al Gore running for president, even though I think it's bizarre to engage in the dominant political language surrounding presidential contests -- where the every little move of one human being is treated as representative of the political desires of 300 million. Still, that's all there is. So I'm going with it.

This kind of "pragmatism" isn't any easier when the wider public thinks there's something deeply wrong as well. They clearly aren't buying "John Kerry" or "Al Gore" at this point. A recent New York Times poll has both of them ranking below the worst president in history. Kerry is at 26 percent, and former vice president and presidential candidate Gore is at 28 percent. George W. Bush is pulling in at 31 percent.

There are a lot of numbers in the recent poll that would normally give me cause for joy -- the public hates everything about Bush. Only 13 percent think he's done a good job addressing rising gas prices. Twenty-nine percent are still favorably shocked and awed by his performance on Iraq. The surface-level political analysis making the progressive rounds on Bush's bad poll numbers is that they will automatically translate into success for Democrats: takeovers in Congress in 2006, etc.

But if that were the case, it would be fair to expect that a guy like Al Gore would look like the shiniest red apple in the basket. But to repeat, the same poll has Gore polling below George Bush. The Times called Gore one of "Bush's more vocal critics." What does that mean? Let's be pragmatic.

For starters, it means that Al Gore and John Kerry are big losers in the public eye; they weren't the guys at the inauguration. Even though the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections have been contested and remain in dispute, the truth is that neither Gore nor Kerry ever commanded any kind of massive public support for their positions.

If they had, Kerry wouldn't be still grumbling about those 60,000 votes that he needed in Ohio. But this poll that has Gore and Kerry well below Bush is about more than their being losers. If that were true, we might expect to see an untested national-name Democrat, like say, Hillary Clinton, polling at a higher level -- at least in the 40s. But only 31 percent of Americans say they will definitely vote for her, according to the most recent Rassmussen poll.


Digg!

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
its tough
Posted by: evanrick on May 19, 2006 12:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its hard to step back to try and understand a partys political problems and its impact on America when you support it so much.
I think democrats do have an identiy crisis, but thats OK because they do try and represent everyone instead of catering to the wealthy.

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

» RE: its tough Posted by: Louisa
» RE: its tough Posted by: DoctorAndy
» Are you nuts? Or just sleeping? Posted by: Steven Wanzell
Could it be the MSM???
Posted by: HawkSpirit on May 19, 2006 2:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every damn news program or newspaper article states the Democrats do not have a backbone. How in the hell can you standup, if you do not get to go the secret meetings where hidden bills are written by their republican conterparts? Reporters and citizens are still being investigated, discenters are still being attacked by the Rove machine and/or even thrown into jail for protesting the war. There is no one MSM out there even giving them a chance and that goes for some progressive media too. It is so damn easy to sit at our computers and bitch about the Democrats, but just what you could do in their place? Things just do not make it TV or the press, like Russ Feingold walking out in protest yesterday. I am so tired of hearing this s--t and I start to tune out and even want to just give up. I know we cannot do that. This election is really it and if we fail good bye the land of the free and we the people for ever!!!!

Then too, everyone is focused on the Nov o6 elections and there is no point right now to get geared up for 08. I only have so much money to give to help elect a congress that might investigate this gang of criminals.

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

» RE: Could it be the MSM??? Posted by: American Reflections
They Were Losers
Posted by: ChristopherLL on May 19, 2006 3:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no doubt that the Democratic Party has the opportunity and organization to counter the Republican Party's politics based on power, wealth, militarism and religious dogma but Clinton, Gore and Kerry had their chance and can only be seen as losers. Hillary had her chance to change healthcare and failed, miserably, mostly becasue of her own sene of omnipotence and obvious ignorance of the whole issue of what is behind healthcare in this country. It is a business and makes money and those who control this industry are not about to lose their golden egg. Gore lost and is gone, Kerry lost and is gone. Going back in time and resurrecting losers is not the answer. What is needed is a vocal and comitted leader who actually listens to what those in this country are saying and offers real solutions, not rhetoric. Most people know the difference and that our problems cannot be solved overnight or with one momentous act. It is a new direction that is important. And that direction is simply to start taking care of those Americans who make this country work. It was not the generals or privates who returned from WWII to build this country rather the junior officers and NCO's (like my father) who learned how to get the job done and raise a family. So I am not concerned with the leaders or those who need to be told what to do but with those who are the foundation of this country.

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

» RE: They Were Losers Posted by: hoscot
» RE: They Were Losers Posted by: douglashoyt
» Hillary and Healthcare Posted by: blueneck
» They ARE Losers Posted by: Anyse
PULEEZE!!!
Posted by: brendastarr on May 19, 2006 4:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wake up!

The two party system is a delusion; and Hillary is a hawk.

The way things are now, neither side has a candidate with vision and "without vision the people perish."

Wake up to the fact that America has become the empire of the world and until we WAKE UP to the fact that we must share and care for this planet, the democrats will not/cannot save us.

We must save ourselves!!!

RISE UP/INTIFADA and grab your liberties or you will not have them.

WE THE PEOPLE are the government only if we are vigilent, speak out and hold all leaders accountable.

DO SOMETHING or nothing will change.
1,200 patriotic passionate spiritual progressives are doing something NOW in DC:
www.tikkun.org


Catch up on the birth of the social and spiritual movement in
Chapter 2: The Revolution has started now...
http://www.wearewideawake.org

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

Bipolar America
Posted by: bulbman on May 19, 2006 4:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much as it almost makes me choke to say so, I think Peggy Noonan is on to something. Americans are steeped in the twin mantras of "get-it-while-you-can" and "do-it-if-it-feels-good" as delivered by the commercial media, which conflicts with the strong streak of puritanism that runs like an underground stream in our collective subsconscious. We want it all, but feel guilty about it at the same time. In sum, the effect is that our culture is bipolar. I think that most Americans, whether right or left-leaning, view themselves as centrists. "Don't rock the boat" even if the boat is leaking. While we dislike politicians whose incompetance and superficial messianic willfulness courts national and international disaster, we loathe those that 1) suggest we change our ways and 2) lose elections. The "comeback kid" Bill Clinton succeeded in bouncing back after defeat because of his uncanny way of connecting with people (or seeming to) and his pragmatic - and decidedly centrist - approach to policy. While the majority of my fellow citizens collectively sense that change is needed in some amorphous way, they revolt at the suggestion that they individually must change their ways. I do not believe that centrist politics really provide any solution to the profound problems that are society is facing. Sadly, I don't see anyway out of this without some galvanizing situation akin to the Depression.

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

» RE: Bipolar America Posted by: COC
The 'Party System' is a sham
Posted by: inanaturallight on May 19, 2006 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I expect I will be somewhat of a cheerleader for the Democrats also, although I dread the thought of Hillary as President, she's done nothing for me or the US as my senator. I think the problem we have is not the Constitution- it could use some adjustments but all in all it's a pretty good plan- but rather this 'two-party system' that the politicians cooked up long ago to scam us all. It reflects some idea that things are either going to be black or white, one or the other, and disguises the fact that successful politicians become that way by pandering to the money that gets them elected. Those that stay just one side or the other of some magical line, defined by the rich and the rich corporations, are rewarded with success, and those that actually perceive, care, and act on their beliefs are ignored or sidelined- how many of the Democrats have actually gotten behind Feingold when he stood up for what is right? If people like him were the norm of the Democratic party I could have some faith, but most Democrats are just less conservative Republicans wearing donkey pins.
If we tossed this 'two-party' BS, and had politicians that stood alone on what they believed without some corporate financed machine propping them up as a group and pretending this group was better than that group, then maybe we could figure out which one was the best of the two or five running for a particular office and overall have representation that actually represented their constituents, not their party and the financial structure supporting it.

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

Growing sophistication of public re: MSM political manipulations? Time for a NEW Harvest King!!
Posted by: cry0fan on May 19, 2006 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are in essence referring to the extemely low poll numbers for the president AND congress.

Now, the poll numbers are quite low, historically low. And it is not just the war. I suspect there are several factors.
First, more and more of the general public are become more and more sophisticated with respect to seeing how the mass media, esp. TV news manipulates us in various ways when it comes to politically sensitive areas such as the war, taxes, immigration, the internet, etc. I have worked in network TV, albeit briefly, and it took me several years to figure out what was going on. But growing numbers of Americans are starting to figure it out. THis may be why the polls numbers are getting lower. First, the media had to sell us on Iraq, and they managed to do that. Then we were all exposed to their machinations during the 2004 campaign, and they sold us on the idea that Bush and Kerry were radically different.

Now they are selling us on the idea that mass immigration is good, and that we are evil if we try to stop it. And so forth.

And of course there is the ongoing selling of "free" trade.

I think this immigration selling campaign may have made some of America more aware of media manipulation. Here in Houston, the local news media is selling hard, and it is pretty obvious. Now, I am more sophisticated in the ways of media persuasion, but I think a certain percentage of Americans are starting to catch on.

Also, various subversive knowledge is starting to leak into the populace via the internet. Young people are QUITE adept at internet usage. They are all over it. And the internet has a lot of info about media propaganda, about how all these American wars are started the same way, and we have a few "radical middle" people like me on the Net throwing a monkey wrench into the whole deal.

These subversive perspectives may be starting to leak into some of the populace.
Also via the Net, more and more Americans are starting to have a growing awareness of European healthcare and social welfare state, etc., which causes some of them to look at our political debate and ask "WTF is going on here!?"

Now the politicians and the mass media and the neoliberal think tanks and business lobbies (a conglomeration I call CorpGovMedia) are well aware of this polling trend. So what they are doing is sacrificing Bush. THey are giving him up and setting the stage for a Dem president and Congress. Of course THEY will do the choosing of who will be in the game to win.

THis technique takes advantage of the old IndoEuropean redemptive-sacrificial man-god tradition, wherein the harvest king from last year is symbolically (or otherwise) sacrificed, and all the evil and bad goes with him (Mithra, Osiris, Jesus, etc). And the new Harvest King reigns and the spirit of the tribe is renewed.

The media is symbolically killing off the old harvest King (Bush) and thus purging the old, making way for a fresh, new, CorpGovMedia, neoliberal rebirth, and thus manipulating us into belleving in the system once more. It is an age old ritual -- "Eat of his body," etc etc etc. Well, via the media destruction of him, we are about to eat Bush.

Once the path is clear for the NEW, Democratic "Harvest King," CorpGovMedia can use race guilt propaganda to manufacture consent for more mass immigration and for a brand spanking new war built around the supposed genocide in Darfur.

Same as it ever was....

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

America is too conservative- Red State liberals please comment!
Posted by: medstudgeek on May 19, 2006 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just between lefties, that is the honest truth. America is a country far to the right of Europe for various historical reasons and we cannot expect the kind of success the Euros have. Sorry. There are a lot of good people in this country, but there were a lot of good people in Taliban-controlled Afghanista too.

Sure Fox News is a blight on humanity, but we never ask ourselves: why did it become popular? The MSM launches thousands of products that fail. It succeeded because, even though the MSM is fiscally conservative (i.e. a pro-corporate sycophant), it's socially liberal (supports tolerance for gays and lesbians), and people find themselves to the right of the MSM. those people found Fox News much to their liking. There is a vast benighted swath of land in the middle of the country that we have to win over somehow. Hillary as a Northeasterner couldn't do it; we need a red-stater. (I know she was from Arkansas but everyone sees her as a northerner now.) We also need someone with charisma. I'd rather go drinking with Al Gore than Bush any time of day but none of the electorate agrees with me, and they vote for people they like personally. Edwards is our best choice, though he's not perfect.

Unfortunately, we're seen as too weak on national security, so Hillary's warmongering might not be such a bad idea electorally speaking. Don't think I support the war; I don't. But don't fool yourselves into thinking the right-wing MSM has deceived a naturally good nation of lefties into voting for idiots. The MSM is a bunch of corporate lapdogs, but the country is far too right-wing anyway.

Out of pure curiosity, would any residents of red states care to comment? And I don't mean you lucky guys in Austin telling Bush jokes with Molly Ivins all day long, I mean
the guys and gals deep in enemy territory.

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

» I also wondered about that.... Posted by: fool-on-the-hill
» Straight party loyalty, I think. Posted by: medstudgeek
» Yup, that's it. Posted by: medstudgeek
we need someone
Posted by: rsaxto on May 19, 2006 5:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need someone to tell the whole truth to us about all the criminal Republicans and criminal CEOs and Republican lite so-called Democrats like Gore, Kerry and Hillary and about the exceedingly deadly proposed war of the USA against much of the rest of the world. Only the crazy Bushies want stupid Armageddon so all the rest of us need to gang up on the Bushies and totally get them out of office and replaced with real patriots, real Democrats, real survivalists and real environmentalists. The real future can be very good but only if all the criminals are flushed out of the government.

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

» RE: we need a radicaal change Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Gore-shmore Posted by: YogiBear
The answer isn't an old cliche
Posted by: Lincoln fan on May 19, 2006 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author is perfectly aware that the ship is sinking and then recommends rearranging the deck chairs. Our big problem is that both parties represent the corporate establishment. Neither party represents the people. Voting for the lesser evil will only perpetuate evil. The only way that we can break the control of both parties by the establishment is to take control ourselves.

There are four ways to do this:
First: Reform campaign financing and lobbying laws. This has been tried many times and failed.
Second: Organize a third party that represents us. This has been tried many times and failed.
Third: An armed revolt. This would be insane.
Fourth: Use the tried and often successful tactics of labor unions. That is to make your demands to management and threaten to not play their game. If the union is strong enough they win.

We can dictate the platforms of both parties before the election. We can force them both to represent us. To make "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" a reality, click on A new idea

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

» RE: The answer isn't an old cliche Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The answer isn't an old cliche Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The answer isn't an old cliche Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The answer isn't an old cliche Posted by: Lincoln fan
» A very good point. Posted by: Lincoln fan
Gore and Kerry didn't fight back when they had the chance in 2000 and 2004 respectively.
Posted by: NDnative on May 19, 2006 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To be doing it after they lost would be too little too late. That is the lingering pissed off anger in the minds of voters that keeps these fellows down low in the "polls".

Also, Gore did not run in 2004 when he had the perfect opportunity to fight to take back what was stolen from him. Whether or not he runs in 2008, the damage done to this country will have been beyond even a remote chance of repair.

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

Amen!
Posted by: riley on May 19, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The two-party system and the lobbying empire built in Washington need to go.

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

» RE: Amen! Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Amen! Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Amen! Posted by: harrysf
The problem is that they don't look like winners
Posted by: bookwoman on May 19, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al Gore inherited the right to run for President by serving as VP for eight years. That should not be the only thing on which to base a candidate. He was an unfortunate choice. John Kerry also was an unfortunate choice. He was chosen by coming out on top in the Chinese Fire Drill of eight or nine candidates which was the Democratic primary races. Even the Senior Senator from his own home state was reticent in his enthusiasm I think the Dems should have listened because Ted Kennedy's political instincts are very well honed.

Neither one of these men was a good choice to run against George Bush. I'm not saying "W" was a good choice, but he was made to look good by the image weavers in his party. Add to that the spin that he could protect us from anything (Mother Nature took care of that fantasy), and the election in 2004 was a done deal.

I don't think Hillary can win the Presidency, and I think the Dems would be mistaken to choose her. She is not Bill, who for all his personal peccadillos, (if they are any of our business), was a great President.

I think the Democrats had a winning candidate in 2004 except they put him in second place behind Kerry. I think they should take another look at John Edwards. The real wage rate in this country has fallen like a rock in spite of what we are told is a burgeoning economy. Edward's grasp of the pain in the lives of the average American could make him a winner.

I hope the Democrats don't make the same mistake in 2008 which they did in 2000 and 2004.

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

Trouble with the Democrats Is . . .
Posted by: cellis56 on May 19, 2006 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . there aren't any.

They stand for nothing. Nancy Pelosi's out there PROMISING not to impeach Bush.

For Christ's sakes, impeachment is a trial and she's promising not to try a man about whom the most conservative person, if he/she's honest, must say, well, there are sure some questions about the legality of what was done. And who is Nancy Pelosi to determne whether justice will be served in the name of millions of Americans who didn't vote for her and to whom she won't respond when they complain (Are you a voting member of my district??).

Pelosi and Barbara Lee are opposing anti-war Congressional candidates in order to consolidate votes behind pro-war Democrats. They imagine the rest of us care what happens to their Party. Precisely because of this lack of vision and focus, the Democratic Party is already dead. Only the dying spasms of the Republican Party can make them appear slightly less moribund.

When black Floridians were deprived of the vote in the previous "election," Kerry didn't stand up. Gore didn't stand up. Nobody spoke for the disenfranchised because nobody in politics speaks for anybody who isn't rich and powerful. These SOBs are nothing but fat cats adopting a few lame slogans that might fly in poorer neighborhoods.

Barbara Lee no longer speaks for me and neither do any of her co-conspirators. Damn them all.

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

I think the real point here
Posted by: sls1982 on May 19, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is that government has streched way beyone having a realistic understanding of American society. I believe that most Americans are extermely tired of hearing the same old rhetoric that does not apply to their lives. Its a matter of understanding your constituents and i hate to say it but both parties are completely out of touch and we know it and we're sick of it. We need a new type of grassroots leadership that understands American society and struggle; not a politician who is more concerned with keeping their job and making money. its that simple.

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

» I agree except--- Posted by: Lincoln fan
Someone mention the Depression-PAUL KRUGMAN in NYT say its is coming soon
Posted by: HawkSpirit on May 19, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am sorry NTY makes people pay to read Paul Krugman. His article "Coming Down to Earth" points out our reality of our great American debt going to hit like now or very soon from now. We will not long be able to borrow for other countries and we will not be able to afford to import cheap goods paid for selling and/or refinancing our houses that also will lose their value. Maybe those small mom and pop business will have to come back and as well manufacturing jobs, if we cannot afford to import goods and export jobs anymore. All we need now is public financed elections and then maybe we can once again be the land of the free and the brave.

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

» Reading Krugman Posted by: bettsoff
ah, what the hey
Posted by: karyse on May 19, 2006 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think Gore or Kerry can win, I won't vote for Hllary, and I, like many Americans have decided that voting is nothing but a legitimation exercise for the powers that be. I've been wracking my brain for a cadidate that can galvanize people.

Is there any reason Bill Clinton can't run again? At least that would be fun.

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

» RE: ah, what the hey Posted by: cellis56
» RE: ah, what the hey Posted by: Jeanne
» RE: ah, what the hey Posted by: Ellie1
Pragmatism vs. protest
Posted by: bettsoff on May 19, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not going to support a party that has its hands in my pockets, its mouth on the dick of corporations, and its head up its ass. I will, however, support candidates that I think do none of those things. Perhaps if everyone did the same down to the lowest levels, the Dems would become a party we'd enjoy supporting instead of the lesser of two evils that we bitch about.

Is Hillary getting my vote? HELL fuck no.

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

» RE: Pragmatism vs. protest Posted by: LeslieGem
» Amen! Posted by: Lincoln fan
What's the definition of insanity?
Posted by: LeslieGem on May 19, 2006 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh yeah -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

The attitude expressed in this article is what got us here in the first place. Why on earth would I support a political party and their candidates if I either don't agree with their positions or have been disappointed with their performance? I cringe to say this, but I have to hand it to "Dr." James Dobson -- what does he say to the people he elected who are now disappointing him? He treatens then on national T.V.!! What do we do -- "oh well, maybe next time it will work out better, let's give it a little more time, what other choice do we have..." Come on!!!!!! And we wonder why they're winning?!!?!

I'm putting my energy into the numerous 3rd parties who aren't afraid to call a spade a spade and actually have an agenda that I agree with. You know, this country didn't start out with these two parties -- whatever happened to the Whigs, etc.? They died from lack of support and competition from upstarts. That's the American way, isn't it? ; ) Let's unleash that power again and actually get something done.

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

» A vote for Honest Abe Posted by: Lincoln fan
New big names
Posted by: beetruetoyou on May 19, 2006 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Move over old big names in the Democratic party and make room for some new big names....John Warner (my exgovernor with the highest rating of any VA governor ever and won in a VERY RED state) and Barak...but only if Molly or Oprah don't run.

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

» RE: New big names Posted by: jnelson4765
THE END IS NEAR
Posted by: zoza on May 19, 2006 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This big bumbling oaf of a country is ambling it's way toward the precipice. There is no stopping it, so hunker down. That is the only solution for the somnabulistic Americans who sleep, or are more interested in who's going to take the American Idol prize, than whether or not their children can speak English.

A cataclysm of biblical proportion is the only remedy for awakening because the status quo has become so imbedded. We have an idiot for president and even more idiotic fools as his opposition. We have a public so stupid that they voted him in and think that god is the tooth fairy. We have a press that is only interested in the financial bottom line. We have a planet that is sick. This is indeed a ship of fools with a confederacy of dunces for a crew that has been idling away in the horse latitudes while some few of us are praying for a breeze and not even getting a whisper.

Hillary? Kerry? Gore? Polosi? Please! The wheels are coming off... and believe me, a Noonan fan I ain't. I am afraid that we are in too deep on both sides to be able to resolve this catastrophe with common sense. It will take a common disaster to slap us into our senses.

So save your breath and dig in.

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

» Attitude of a big-time loser Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Attitude of a big-time loser Posted by: Lincoln fan
You Are The Problem
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 19, 2006 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Be pragmatic. Take a good, long look at reality, and recognize that even though there isn't a Democrat in Washington who will admit that our political system is profoundly sick and obsolete, in the real world, the Democratic Party is currently all we have. So support it anyway..

That's like MLK saying that Jim Crow is a lamentable and cruel institution, but it's all we have. Like Ghandi saying the British are all we have. Like Havel & Walesa saying that the Soviets are all we have.

The same game is being played in the G.O.P. on it's base. Different issues, but with the same motivation and result. They give you lip service and then go on selling you out to their paymasters. As long as we stay trapped in this two party system things will not change in the aggregate. Elect a few Greens or Libertarians to Congress and see what happens in 2008.

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

» RE: You Are The Problem Posted by: Jan Frel
» RE: You Are The Problem Posted by: NoPCZone
» Pathetic Posted by: AlanSmithee
» RE: Pathetic Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Pathetic Posted by: ccbite
» RE: YOU Are The Problem Posted by: CounterCorp
Its the corporations stupid!
Posted by: gramps on May 19, 2006 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They own our culture, our politicians, our media, our military, and they have their greasy fingers in our brain. They are sociopathic robots with but one prime directive, the bottom line. Nobody owns them because they were made that way to seperate liability from ownership. Everyone in a corporation is an employee and the CEO is an employee hired to take the rap for any criminal activity.

While lobbying is a right of human beings, foreign governments and corporations should never be allowed to influence our government. Foreign countries have ambassadors and corporations can write letters. Corporations own the patents and are even patenting our genes. There is nothing wrong with the Democratic Party except that it too has been bought and paid for by the corporations.

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

The "Wheels Have Come Off" Because
Posted by: malcolmartin on May 19, 2006 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much like Charles Darwin’s immutable truths regarding of the origins and evolution of life, Karl Marx guided us through the reasons capitalism was born, why it would thrive and dominate for a time, and how its inherent contradictions condemn it to be replaced by a superior economic system. Problem is capitalism in its last throes, irrational and increasingly insane, is now armed with doomsday weapons and has created an immune system for itself. It influences culture and controls the mass media and education across a growing part of the world, places its servants in seats of political and military power, and creates philosophy and myth to glorify its own existence.

In the years ahead capitalism will take increasing advantage of war, disaster, disease, terror, and slavery to feed itself. It will seek to establish fascist regimes in the United States and other countries where bourgeois democracies have begun to hinder profits. Wholesale destruction and regime change will be visited on the oil producing states like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela. Millions will die when the United States, China, and the European Union fight the wars for control of world markets and access to resources.

Really only one question remains. Will humanity and the planet Earth survive the end of capitalism? To a great degree, our self-preservation depends on the building of an effective class-conscious resistance here at home, in the belly of the beast. What is to be done?

First, people who know better must stop deluding the American people. There will be no more real elections in this country. The mass media and the electoral machinery and both major political parties are now fully under the control of capital. Observe the impotent and clownish Democratic Party and one conclusion is unavoidable: elections that matter are a quaint feature of America’s past. A coup brought George Bush to power in 2000 and he was reinstalled in 2004 and as long as he remains a useful idiot of the ruling clique his public approval rating could drop to zero and he will still reside in the White House. At the same time Bush is expendable in the blink of an eye if he becomes a drag on profits. He would be replaced with another everyman, a new actor and a person better able to read the script and parrot the talking points. Political dog-and-pony show aside, capitalism’s minions will only release their grip on us if and when the system is confronted by a united and organized working class in open rebellion.

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

Look, EVERY politician is a whore to the Military-Corporate Offense Complex
Posted by: xbj on May 19, 2006 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, that says it all. EVERY POLITICIAN IS A WHORE TO THE MILITARY-CORPORATE-OFFENSE WAR INDUSTRY.

The point is, do you want a whore with at least a social conscience and SOME level of autonomy, or a whore that is a sociopathic psychopath mass-murderer and wannabe Nazi?

Elections have ALWAYS been about choosing the LESSER OF TWO EVILS. And so it ever shall be until someone somehow makes ALL corporate and political contributions from ALL ORGANIZATIONS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, WITH NO LOOPHOLES, and limits personal political contributions to $1000. PERIOD. Then you'd get good people into politics once again, instead of bastards and the occasional good person who merely transforms into a whore and bastard.

And polls... let me tell you something about polls. There is an entire INDUSTRY built around PRE-SCREENING people willing to be polled and supplying lists of so-called "random" people to whomever pays them.

Anyone can make a poll say anything they want, as long as they ask the "right" people the "right" questions.

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

Leave the Constitution alone
Posted by: jverner on May 19, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the only thing standing between us and rule by executive fiat. Even now, Bush says the Constitution does not apply to him when he thinks it shouldn't. As for the electoral process, take another look at the Constitution. It does not mandate just two political parties, and remember the Electoral College is really the entity that picks the president.

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

How about a new game
Posted by: solrev on May 19, 2006 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It probably does not matter which poll name you circulate the poll numbers will be low. The people have lost faith in politicians and the political process. Only 50% of the people ever had any faith in it to begin with. Personally, I am not going to waste my time playing “the lesser of two evils” game. This is what I need to hear if you want my participation.

1. We will be oil independent by 2020 is a sham. It is no longer good enough to reduce our pollution. If we let China follow the path we traveled, the planet will be dead by 2020. So, talk to me about producing fusion energy on the moon and providing it to every human being on this planet at low cost. If you like city water, you will love planet earth energy. How soon can you do that?

2. Stop outsourcing and insourcing my job. Make labor costs competitive in the US without destroying my standard of living. I did my part to increase productivity. So, talk to me about taking the health care costs off the back of my employer. Talk to me about universal health care. If you like city water you will love universal health care. How soon can you do that?

3. Stop pushing my grandchildren into debt with your ballooning debt. So, talk to me about being the tax and reduce the debt party. It is not good enough to balance the budget.

Do whatever it takes to accomplish these three goals and I will vote for you. Do it not and I will destroy you. The final solution – revolution.

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

» Don't tell us. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Don't tell us. Posted by: solrev
» RE: Don't tell us. Posted by: Lincoln fan
A work-around...
Posted by: kiatoa on May 19, 2006 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plurality voting is fundamentally broken. It creates a binary system: Republican or Democrat. Any solution must account for this. Given that the chances of reforming the voting system is essentially zero the only option left is to either take over one of the existing parties or to get a massive rallying behind a third party candidate. I created my web site www.kiatoa.com for this very purpose. The idea is an approval voting based poll combined with a mechanism that allows you to differentiate between the votes of people who are willing to think deeply and those who are not. So log in to kiatoa and help choose who we should rally behind. I'm working frantically to finish the site (it is still somewhat rough) but it is usable. If you know of a site where someone is already doing this please post here and let me know. Lets work together to choose who to vote for in the next election!

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

» RE: A work-around... Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: A work-around... Posted by: solrev
» RE: A work-around... Posted by: kiatoa
3rd Party is the only sane vote in Nov.
Posted by: AlanSmithee on May 19, 2006 10:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Pragmatism" is what got us the craptastic neoliberal '90s.

"Pragmatism" is why the neocons have full spectrum dominance today.

Screw "Pragmatism"

"Pragmatism" isn't the 3rd Way, it's the Coward's Way. "Pragmatistist" are spineless weasels afraid to do the right thing because it's too hard.

Pathetically wishing for tidbits from the corporate single party system is fine for whipped-dog democrats and hopeless party flacks, but the rest of us don't have that fucking luxury. To put it a way that even a mouthbreathing Clinton-toady like Randi Rhodes could understand:

WE CAN'T AFFORD YOU!!!

It's long past time to jettison the Whigs of the New Millennium and start building a new party. Hell, several new parties. DUMP THE DEMS. DUMP THE REPS. VOTE FOR CHANGE IN NOVEMBER.

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

practicality
Posted by: wakeup on May 19, 2006 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm at the point where I'm not voting for bad candidates.
This would include Hillary Clinton.
Is there some rule that sociopathology is a required attribute of political leaders?

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

» RE: practicality Posted by: kiatoa