"get rid of those Democrats who persist in betraying us"

[welshTerrier2]

without question, the Democratic Party has heard the anti-war message ... the good news, if there is any, is that by now they understand the political risks in plotting the "wrong" course on Iraq ... "walking a fine line" between in and out is not going to work ...

the choice before them is eminently clear ... one might argue that their decision should not be based on political considerations at all but it seems very likely it will be ... next year's midterms probably hang in the balance ... unfortunately, most Democrats are being given very little say in the direction their Party takes ... ultimately, that may be the measure that leads to failure ...

source = http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0929-27.htm

Defeat the War Demagogues, Right and Left

So the question is what do we, the majority, do? I can tell you right now from some experience in Washington that we have no influence on the Republican Party. We have some, but not decisive influence, on the Democratic Party. The only way to get these United States to cease and desist, in the specific instance of getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the more general but certainly no less important task of getting out of this militaristic, imperialistic, moralistic rut in which we are stuck, is to use our organizational skills and, most importantly, our votes, to make our influence in the Democratic Party decisive. The only way that this can be done is to unmask and get rid of those Democrats who persist in betraying us.

In 2004, it turned out that “Bush Lite” candidate Kerry was an ill-chosen alternative. In the congressional election next year and in the 2008 presidential election no candidate, Democrat or Republican who does not acknowledge both the folly, the unconstitutionality, and—most important—the immorality of the war in Iraq deserves any measure of your support.

Let them know it.

David MacMichael, US Marine Captain (ret. w/disability from Korea), Professor of History (University of Oregon), senior estimates officer (CIA), now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. We have the enemy on the run!

What else can we do other than to make a 180 degree turn and fire?

--p!
I know. Let's all discuss the dialectical implications of a rhetoric of revolutionary exegesis informed by Blind Lemon Pledge.

Either that, or we should order some sushi and not pay.

[welshTerrier2]

3. half-way measures?

why go only half way ... let's turn 360 degrees and fire ...

[Dogmudgeon]

5. I'm not sure you understood this

We have the neo-Cons on the run ... and you're advocating an internal party purge.

I understand your frustration well, but politics isn't a feel-good pursuit. If we decide to cleanse the movement of the running-dog lackeys blah blah blah, it will result in a mass internecine bloodletting. Maybe a different metaphor will illustrate what I was talking about -- it will be like a huge wave of samurai coming over the hill to destroy the evil Shogun and his retainers, when suddenly, they turn and begin to fight with themselves, turning the hills red with their blood and leaving no one to go after the evil Shogun.

The time for the Great All-Union Party Congress And Spanking Line is after we take back the country. And I'm not sure that the Captain's bourgeoise Stalinism will fly, either, but better in victory than during an unsettled war.

--p!

[welshTerrier2]

6. yes, i understood your post ...

we just disagree, that's all ...

my views do not eminate from frustration or "feel-good pursuits" ... i am no longer willing to put party ahead of my deeply held beliefs ... we are going to have this out here and now ... not "after we take back the country" ... if Democrats don't join the majority that calls for an end to the war, they run on a platform many of us will not support ...

i am done with enabling the enablers ... i am done with appeasing the appeasers ... when they come to speak to us and are willing to sit down and really listen and really negotiate, we can seek common ground ... i hope they do but see no evidence of a new openness in the Democratic Party ... if they fail to give voice to our movement, we remain at an impasse ... i, for one, will not cast my vote for those who vote for more madness in Iraq ...

the neo-cons are indeed the central target; but so are those who enable their imperialist agenda ... i truly hope unity in the Party can be achieved; it will not be achieved without progress on the war ...

[BayCityProgressive]

2. AMEN!

I already have a few candidates I will be supporting with my time and money next year. Some candidates are local, some state, and some national. NONE however, who support continuation of war and shy from universal healthcare. What is the point?? These are the two biggest issues facing America...if we can't take on those two issues there is really no point in us winning.

[shance]

4. Which means we must have citizen run elections and ban electronic voting.

And eliminate any business from taking any part in our election systems. That must be our goal. To rid the election process of any corporate or private business entity. Then and only then can we take back our elections.

[wisteria]

7. What is being suggested will not benefit us as a party nor as

individuals. What makes your opinions so right and everyone Else so wrong? Where do you think you will find the numbers to remove all those elected Representatives that don't see things your way. Most of America isn't so sure that a complete and immediate pull out is the right thing to do. As a matter of fact, more than 50% of the public think we should wait a little longer and try to bring this war to an end with a positive outcome.
And, an anti-war candidate would not have won the election last year. The anti-war crowd did not have the votes back then nor do they now to do what you are suggesting can be accomplished. Just consider Bush's poll numbers back then- he always polled high on the war and security issues.
Why don't you all get some sense, and try to work within the party instead of trying to remake it in your image. There wouldn't be much of a party if the only members were those who shared your one issue, narrow minded point of view.
Finally,John Kerry was never Bush lite. I can not think of two more polar opposite individuals. To lump him into this category simply because he voted to extend executive power to our president to allow him the freedom he said he needed in order to protect our country is simply unfair.
My reference to "most Americans" is meant to represent the Democratic voting public.

[Don1]

8. Who is the majority?

"What makes your opinions so right and everyone Else so wrong?"

Actually, welshterrier was speaking for the majority. So, you should rephrase your question like this:
"What makes wisteria's opinions so right and the majority so wrong?"

[welshTerrier2]

10. actually ...

perhaps an even better question is "why are so many elected Democrats ignoring the views of their base?"

even if we were not the majority, and i believe we are, a very large chunk of Democrats does not feel represented on this critical issue ...

when some ask why we don't plan to support certain Democrats, i ask why certain Democrats don't plan to support us ... i'm sick and tired of this top down approach to democracy ... it's time elitist Senators and Congressman started a real dialog with their constituents ...

[wisteria]

13. I believe the base is divided on this issue.

You want immediate pull out and some view that as too extreme. I for one am not for immediate pull out. I also hate this war and despise Bush for involving us in his folly. I will also always feel we were lied to, not mislead about this war and Bush should be held accountable for this lie.

[welshTerrier2]

15. in your own words ...

"don't concern yourself with the consequences and the other camp"

many of us, i believe a majority, see the consequences of US occupation everyday ... more dead Americans, more dead Iraqis and a failed policy whose only real objective was bush's push for imperial power in Iraq and control of Iraqi oil ... and we do not feel elected Democrats have listened at all or shown any concern for the views in the "other camp" ...

do you really believe only those who think the occupation should continue are concerned with the consequences of the US Iraq policy ??? just as you are concerned (as am i, btw) with immediate withdrawal, many of us are concerned about continued occupation ... to use the phrase "don't concern yourself with the consequences" fails to understand the very legitimate, deeply held beliefs many of us hold ...

[wisteria]

11. I do not believe my opinions are so right- I'm expressing what

the polls say about a majority of people's thoughts on the war. I like to know how you can consider yourself to be a majority when your opinion is to pull out immediately and a majority of people do not feel that way. How do you expect to achieve your goal of ridding the party of any opposing points of view when you don't have the numbers to do that.Seems to me we have at least two separate Anti-war camps here- Pull out immediately and don't concern yourself with the consequences and the other camp that is uncomfortable with the immediate pull-out and worries about how that would affect the the Iraqi's and the Middle East.

[welshTerrier2]

14. your stats aren't right

source: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20050917_poll/20050917_poll_results.pdf

90. Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if that takes a long time, or should U.S. troops leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?

.......... Stay as long as it takes Leave ASAP DK/NA
9/9-13/05 ............42 ................52..... 6

and far more importantly than the exact percentage and whether the anti-war, immediate withdrawal block is or is not a majority, is the point that whatever size this large block is they are not being represented by the Democratic Party ... the Party, thus far, has shown no desire to find any kind of common ground ...

the Party is "shoving this war down our throats" and they will reap what they sow if they continue on this path ... all i can do is ask them to negotiate ... they make the decision about whether they are willing to listen to opposing views and i'll make the decision about how i'll vote ...

[paulk]

18. the Democratic Party is shoving the war down our throats???

you are completely looking in the wrong direction

what is this constant obsession with blaming the Democratic Party???

when are you going to do a thread that blames Republicans for this war??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[welshTerrier2]

19. see if this makes you feel better ...

the republican party, supported by almost every elected Democrat who keeps voting for more funding against the wishes of a majority of their constituents, is shoving the war down our throats ...

is that better ????

the reason my post only refers to Democrats is due to my agreement with this line from the article quoted in the BP: "I can tell you right now from some experience in Washington that we have no influence on the Republican Party. We have some, but not decisive influence, on the Democratic Party."

added on edit: btw, in another post in this thread, i did say "a failed policy whose only real objective was bush's push for imperial power in Iraq and control of Iraqi oil" ... do you actually think i don't hold the republicans responsible for Iraq??

[Don1]

17. Huh?

First, there are actually 4 "camps." Pull out immediately (which leader represents this group?). Pull out later/Develop an exit strategy in Congress for relatively soon whatever that means. (Woolsey) Stay the course. (Dean) Get even crazier by adding more troops. (Hillary Clinton)

Second, you sound like you want to debate the merits of the Iraqi war. You put in a little side comment of "Pull out immediately and don't concern yourself with the consequences." That's a completely false characterization of the pull-out-immediately perspective. The pull-out-immediately perspective says that (1) the consequences of staying are too great and (2) we have no right to be there in the first place since the vast democratic majority of Iraqis do not want us there.

The Iraqis do not want us there. 69% of Shi'ites and 84% of Sunnis want us out. Why do you and Bush think you have a right to supersede Iraqi citizens' rights to determine their own democracy in favor of a capitalist republic at the end of a gun barrel?

Staying in Iraq has cost way more than 50,000 childrens' deaths. Why do you want to kill more kids?
http://www.yourtaxdollaratwork.com

[welshTerrier2]

9. well, let's just take a deep breath here ...

first of all, i made no statement about my opinions being "so right and 'everyone else so wrong'" ... in fact, what i called for above is to have elected Democrats sitting down and really listening and really negotiating with those who don't agree with their views ... the goal is to find common ground; what is unacceptable is to expect that votes will be provided "just because they are Democrats" ... your comment is not based on what i wrote ...

secondly, a recent NY TIMES/CBS poll showed that 52% of Americans, let alone Democrats, called for an "immediate withdrawal" from Iraq ... so before we argue about what the "public thinks", why not acknowledge that even without significant voices representing the anti-war movement in the MSM, the public still has had enough of the war?? and the trend is strongly moving towards greater and greater opposition ...

and finally, i posted an extract from an article that i thought made some good points ... i did not refer to Kerry as "Bush lite"; the article did ... i included that paragraph because it raises an important caution to Democrats about ignoring the anti-war movement ... i suppose i could cut out the reference to Kerry ... in fact, if it's not too late to edit the post, i will (on edit: nope, too late to edit the BP)... it was not my intent to comment on him at all ...

what those with views similar to yours seem to refuse to understand is that a very significant portion of Democrats are fed up with the war ... i won't elaborate on the reasons here ... you need to understand that demanding loyalty to the Party is NOT going to be effective ... many of us did that last year with Kerry even though we were very unhappy with him as a candidate ... either the Party is going to sit down with the anti-war crowd and find common ground or they are not ... what you're calling for is going nowhere ... what you should be calling for is a more democrat process in the Party ...

i don't demand that everything be done exactly my way ... but i do demand consideration and representation ... if the Party does not represent my views on key issues, i will not vote a straight party line ... fear not though, there are still progressive Democrats i will strongly support ... if the Party remains in denial about the war, the possibilities many of us see for next year will not be realized ... i'm sure we both hope that does not come to pass ...

[Dr Fate]

12. I'd rather get most of them to change their minds than boot them all.

Who knows?- mabye we can make it happen.

[welshTerrier2]

16. couldn't agree more ...

that's exactly what i'm trying to do ...

but i do think that we have to be prepared to fight for our beliefs IF we are unable to make any progress ... and that might well mean supporting progressives, be they Democrats or third party candidates if necessary, who run against those who continue to support continued occupation ...

"just go along" voting died last year ...