If dems don't draw the line at a candidate who supported a bogus war,

[zoeyfong]

where do they draw the line? I really hate to continue crashing the party here, but this is a serious question. If a candidate's support for the most disastrous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam, for an insane, ideologically driven crusade that millions around the world saw through from day one doesn't disqualify that candidate from being the democratic presidential nominee, I would really like to know what does. What if a democratic candidate was anti-choice, or wanted to put prayer back in the schools and a ten-commandments plaque in every courtroom, or lock up all gays in insane asylums, or reverse the last 30 years of civil rights legislation, how many here would still vote for that candidate? Right now we have a presumptive nominee who lent his support to a war that has cost thousands of innocent lives, over 800 American military lives, increased terrorism and other threats to America's national security, and done incalculable damage to America's standing and credibility in the world, to the extent that it will probably take at least a decade to recover from.

Every day i hear top democrats who gave this war their blessing ripping George Bush up and down over its disastrous course, all the while lavishing praise on Kerry, who also supported the war, and i am thinking that i must have slipped into some bizzaro world where political memories have finally shrunken to absolute zero, and our 'leaders' feel free to assert the most blatant reversals of reality they please.

I realize that this issue is water under the bridge at this point, unless the nominating convention should have some miraculous conversion and decide to reclaim the soul of this party at the last moment, but it appears to me that the presumptive nominee has no clothes. In any case, i would really like to know what issue, if any, would cause the ABBers here to withhold their support for a candidate.

[Dookus]

1. Then...

vote for Bush.

edit:

You're selling the typical republican line, and using senate votes to imply that Kerry would've done the same thing as Bush. That's bullshit.

Kerry would not have led us into this war. Kerry did NOT support a unilateral invasion of Iraq.

But I repeat - if you don't like Kerry, then vote for Bush. Those are your only reasonable choices.

[Democat]

2. Kerry did not start the war, he made a mistake by trusting Bush

Don't confuse the two.

He made a mistake, he trusted Bush. It was stupid.

He did not start the Iraq attack, that was Bush.

One of them is going to win in November.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. He thought Bush was an honorable, prudent man

He figured that Bush wouldn't use the war powers entrusted to him unless it was really necessary. A lot of us who were out on the streets felt this was a mistake, but on Kerry's part it was an honest one. Any other president we've had would have lived up to the trust the Senate gave him. Remember after 9/11, how people rallied around Bush? Remember that the vote in the Senate was taken in that spirit.

As for pulling out now-to my mind, that's like walking away from a train wreck with propane tanker cars set to blow and take out a town. Kerry didn't make the mess, but he has to deal with it in a sane manner. I don't envy him the task, and pray the world will help him once he is elected.

[AntiCoup2K4]

91. Kerry thought Bush was an honorable prudent man??

Now how can that possibly be true?

The Kerry cheerleaders on this site like to point out on a daily basis how Kerry was "singlehandedly exposing the Bush Criminal Empire" for all of their many crimes. How then, could he possibly trust Bush? I've known about these criminal bastards for a long time, and I never gave Junior the benefit of the doubt. Not for a second.

Kerry acted either out of political expediency, or because he actually believes in this neocon bullshit. We shouldn't accept either one.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

112. I have yet to see an adequate resolution of those two POV's.

It was PE.

[He loved Big Brother]

94. Anyone who could not tell from the start

that Bush was NOT an honorable, prudent man, just might be a little daft.

I don't know how anybody who couldn't even see through Bush can possibly think they deserve to run for an even higher office. That too, seems a little odd.

[pretzel4gore]

19. i wish...

trust? i just do not believe that 'trust' was a factor.....all our debates have habit of forgetting the 800 pound guerrilla, the whoremedia..... which dominates everything in sight while escaping notice. BUT! Kerry et al NOTICE it damn right they do...lookit james hatfield, mel carnahan, paul wellstone, 30k dead iraqis etc.
much like bill clinton and al gore were always judged w/out considering their families and 'threats' to them that they (and ONLY THEY) were aware of, we tic-tac-toe kerry's actions based upon cnn/foxnews bs worldview of cartoon characters....
i have just spent 5 minutes time refuting notion kerry 'trusted' geebush ....sheeesh
:-(

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

85. kerry knew damn well what that vote meant-imminent war

if millions of us worldwide were taking to the streets and could see through bush's BS, then why couldn't kerry? if college students like me knew the vote meant imminent war, then why couldn't kerry, a veteran and long-serving senator?

this 'i was misled' excuse is pure bullshit. kerry voted for the war because he thought he wouldn't have a chance in a presidential race if he didn't. that was the conventional wisdom at the time among the Establishment pundits-remember this was before dean came along.

it was a self-centered vote that cost thousands their lives.

[saracat]

3. This is not helping us.

We need to win. This is yesterday's news. We are already in Iraq. I don't like it but I can't make it unhappen.I didn't agree with Kerry's vote. and I told him so personally. He explained his reasons and I said not good enough.But he is NOT george Bush. And he is a liberal and he is pro choice and pro union. You don't always get exactly what you want. I will vote for Kerry in November.He is our nominee and I voted for him in the primary because he is the best man for the job.There are NO longer any other issues that I disagree with him on so why should I or any other ABBER withold our vote? Who do you want to win? Bush?Hello.No one else (who counts) is running!

[RafterMan]

4. Kerry voted for the war

but made cautionary arguments against it as it took shape. He's made plenty of statements over time that lead me to believe he really does understand the magnitude of the blunder. Given that other Democratic candidates were unapologetically pro-war, and that his opponent is the Tyrant, I guess that's just going to have to do.

Now if he picks a true hawk as VP and struts around the country saying what a great idea it was, he might well push me back over the line.

[greatauntoftriplets]

27. Dennis Kucinich was pro-war????

n/t

[RafterMan]

44. *Other*, not *All other*.

Meaning, it could have been worse.

[Hippo_Tron]

127. Yea Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, and even Edwards I think...

I'm not sure about Edwards but I remember him in one of the late debates saying that he would've gone into Iraq as president.

[GOPBasher]

5. You made my argument for me.

I like this part: "What if a democratic candidate was anti-choice, or wanted to put prayer back in the schools and a ten-commandments plaque in every courtroom, or lock up all gays in insane asylums, or reverse the last 30 years of civil rights legislation," and you ask, "Would you still vote for that candidate?" Of course not. That's exactly what I'm trying to prevent. If we don't support Dems, the GOP will remain in power, and *THAT* -- what you described in your post and I rewrote above -- will be an accurate description of our country within a few years. So, don't vote for Kerry, vote for Nader or something, but within a few years, when homosexuals are locked up in insane asylums and non-christians are being persecuted, please blame yourself.

[JHBowden]

78. Well put.

:yourock:

[GOPBasher]

181. Thanks :-)

cheers :toast:

[JI7]

6. it's your opinion he supported a bogus war

many don't see the iwr as a black and white issue. as for war or against war. just as the united nations resolutions wasn't for war or against it. they involved process and other things.

it reminds me of republicans who point out some senate votes kerry made on weapons systems and claiming a vote against them was a vote against defending america. things aren't so simple.

but as someone else said. if you want don't want to vote for kerry based on iwr then don't vote for him. even ralph nader doesn't have a problem with the iwr vote as both of his choices for vp candidates for kerry voted for iwr. so even nader doesn't see the vote as a black/white , for war/against war issue. if he did then i guess one would assume he was for it or has no problem with it.

[Gore1FL]

8. When did Kerry support a bogus war?

He did vote to give authority for military action as a last resort, however it was Bush, not Kerry, who went to war as a first resort.

To blame Kerry for Bush's overreach of power and then to formulate that into a reason to not vote for Kerry (which ultimately leads to Bush staying) is illogical.

I didn't agree with Kerry's vote, BTW, but I respect the decisionj making process that went on behind it. I also trust Kerry's characterization of his vote more than I trust Bush's characterization of his vote (which you repeat here).

You are using the words and logic of the Bush Campaign as an excuse to not support Kerry, essentially because of Bush's abuse of the authority given to him.

While I am not comparing Huitler to Bush or Kerry to Chamberlain, your logic when applied to that pre-WWII scenario would blame Chamberlain, not Hitler, for the Holocaust.

Lets put the blame where the blame belongs rather than hijack the Kerry campaign over one (albeit questionable) vote when the true monster is the one who abused the power granted in that vote.

[mzmolly]

12. Excellent post!

:toast:

[LSK]

38. I agree

CONGRESS voted to give authority for military action as a last resort. It was to give Bush more bargaining power with the UN.

Please get your facts straight before you flame Kerry on something you only know what the media tells you.

And please find a quote by Kerry saying "We need to invade Iraq now".

[zoeyfong]

47. Okay, no one can prove what kerry "really" thought when he voted yes

on IWR, but even *if* he truly believed that GEORGE W. BUSH for cripes sake, would not go to war without UN permission, that only proves that he is so dangerously foolish that he has no business being anywhere near the button. Please tell me, how is it that most of the WORLD knew what bush was up to, but kerry didn't have a clue? It makes a mockery of the democratic party to have such a simpleton at its head, if in fact kerry was duped by the Bush cartel's transparent con job. Moreover, it makes a mockery of democratic voters if they pretend to believe kerry's fabrication.

[Gore1FL]

53. One would think

the media and the citizenry would have held Bush to the standards of the bill. We all failed.

Should Kerry not vote at all due to the necessity to mistrust Bush?

I agree the vote was a mistake. I thought so at the time. I think so now. I don't, however, believe it to be unbecoming a U.S. Senator to expect a President, any president, to violate the spirit of such a measure. It is not the job of a U.S. Sentaor to constantly second guess the honesty and/or future actions the executive branch may or may not take.

[TLDHOME99]

119. okay, I give up. Vote for Bush.

What are you really trying to accomplish with this thread? Please tell me, I really want to know.

Can you be pragmatic and say to yourself that Kerry was duped but better Kerry than Bush, who did the duping? Why is it so hard to believe that Kerry can reverse his position? Have you ever reversed a position, or do you always stubbornly hold onto your original positions, even when they turn out to be wrong?

If you were Kerry, and had voted for something that you realized in retrospect was stupid, would you then just retire from politics and bury your head in the sand, or would you try to right the wrong?

Whether we like it or not, whether Kerry is our first choice or not, he is the presumptive nominee and our other choice is Bush.

Why don't you write Kerry a letter and tell him he needs to apologize for being a dupe? Tell him that he needs to turn back the clock and vote NO. He'll hop right in his time machine and do that for you, I'm sure.

If you can't come up with a better solution than to get Bush out of office by voting for Kerry, why bother with DU? Run for office yourself. See if you can get elected president.

[JI7]

9. it's not really about trusting Bush

bush could/would have done what he did without any vote. if it was about whether one should trust bush then they shouldn't have voted or cooperated with bush on anything including attacking afghanistan which bush has fucked up also.

[rpannier]

18. Afghanistan

the US was attacked first. i have voted democrat in every presidential election (I first voted for president in 84) and have voted for every democrat except for four since 82, the first election I was eligible to vote in. If any of my representatives voted against the war in Afghanistan, I would have voted for the other guy without hesitation.

[pretzel4gore]

21. bushamerica attacked america....

i think that's been proven....
As afghanistan was governed by gangsters installed by US/Britain, it's kinda creepy we attack their civilians etc....
And as saddam was championed by the cia (his first act as prez iraq was attack iran, which the US was at odds with) again who's guilty here?
It's not just 'what's good for us' only! there should be global perpective that includes the land, air, water, truth and human honesty etc iow liberal democratic as opposed to neocon bushevikism.
btw if NewYawker99 missed welcoming you to DU or congrats for 200 nearly 300 posts, then to paraphrase capt kirk 'make it so!'
:)

[rpannier]

22. THank You Much n/t

[dkf]

10. Kerry doesn't give a darn that so many Dems are against the war

He knows we dislike Bush so much that our votes are automatically his.

So we should just shut up and swallow this because we have no choice.

And it is in Kerry's interest that we have no choice other than him or Bush. That is why all panicked Dems are putting every roadblock known to man in front of Ralph Nader, because they don't want us to have a chance to vote for someone who shares our views on Iraq.

Face it, Kerry could care less about what we feel. He's looking for the swing vote, because he knows he has yours regardless of what he says or does.

[union_maid]

13. If you like..

I don't believe that. I believe that Kerry has been pretty consistent over a long career in making good choices, or the best choices possible at a given time. Issues didn't begin with the IWR and they don't end there. I believe that John Kerry has the stuff to make one of our best presidents and I don't expect to agree with him 100% of the time. He'll have to govern the whole country, not just people who think exactly as I do. However, you're right. We have no choice. It's an emergency and defeating Bush should be paramount to any other consideration. Bush is without question the worst and most dangerous president this country has had. We have absolutely nothing to lose by replacing him and a lot to gain. If he were replaced by someone who was merely a bad president we'd be better off. It's a no brainer.

[dkf]

25. The Iraq War will have been the issue of our generation

It is the issue that will have spent billions of our children's money on an ill conceived venture.

It will be the issue that will have sent hundreds and maybe thousands of our men and women to their deaths.

It will be the cause of unending hatred of the United States in the Middle East, causing terrorism galore.

It will be the cause of the loss of our good reputation.

Congress declares war, not the President. This is in our constitution. Kerry's pleas of "didn't know" and "where was the planning" run hollow. It was Kerry's responsibility as a Senator to make sure that those goons in the administration acted responsibility and he was derelict, as were all our congressmen and women who voted for this war.

It is nice that so many can minimize this debacle as just one error in a glorious career as Senator. Well, I'm happy that some can think this way and ease their conscience, but I can't.

I'm calling a spade a spade because I will not be an apologist for all those complicit in this idiocy.

[JI7]

14. Ralph Nader likes candidates who voted for IWR

nader said edwards and gephardt are the best vp choices. and many democrats voted for kerry because they WANTED TO . he won the primary. there were 10 candidates and he beat them all. the one who did the second best was one who voted for iwr also. many of us who supported kerry knows he wouldn't have gone into iraq as bush did. just as clinton's intervention in serbia didn't result in the mess that has been created in afghanistan and iraq. so i'm not sure who you are talking about when you say "us".

democrats voted in the primary. they had many to vote from and kerry won most of the contests. they could easily have voted for someone else but they didn't want to.

[rpannier]

17. I'm not sure that's totally true.

Bush is conservative and in 2000 he made eforts to appeal to moderates. He had homosexuals in his group, who had worked for him when he was governor in Texas, he had sounded out that he was open to many issues that were "the heart and soul" of the far right. But, deep down the far right believed in bush. He didn't need to gear his campaign towards them. bush won enough states to be elected. kerry is certainly less liberal than most people at DU, but the bulk of his voting record has been to the left. to WIN an election you have to get the support of the swing vote. and let's not forget, the swing voters (moderates, whatever you want to call them) are part of the United States. Their vote counts as much as ours. If Kerry doesn't speak to them, they will probably vote bush and we'll be stuck with four more years of bush.
As to nader -- his day has come and gone. he doesn't have the broad enough appeal and background to convince enough people in this country that he would be an effective president. you can blame all the dems you want for putting up roadblocks, but he chose NOT to try and get the democratic nomination. it is the job of the DNC to put up roadblocks against ALL candidates who are a threat to the Democratic Nominee.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. And apperently many Dems didn't give a damn that Kerry voted for the war

Democratic primary voters had the chance to vote for candidates who opposed the war. They chose Kerry.

[zoeyfong]

37. My point exactly. So far no one has answered the question. Is there

*anything* that would cause you to refuse to support a particular democratic candidate?

[Gore1FL]

54. Yes

But it would involve more than one spun issue and a competent alternative.

So far I have seen neither of the above criterion met.

[mzmolly]

11. Thanks for the lecture.

I have a small lecture/question of my own:

When will so called progressives wake up to the fact that our choices are Bush and Kerry?!

Hmmm, Bush or Kerry??? :freak: "eenie meeine meinie mo..."

I am reminded of a story after reading this thread.

One time when I was about three, I wanted a red lolly pop. Mom said "the red ones are gone, you'll have to choose between the gray one and the lemon yellow..." Man, I had a hell of a tantrum when the red lollies were all gone. "WHY!?" I screamed, "HOW COULD THIS BE?!" After all, the gray lollies were disgusting, and the yellow were not nearly as good as the red!

I banged my head, and stomped my feet till I was red in the face and the entire family was stressed. Boy, I must of cried and carried on for a good 30 minutes.

I Eventually came to realize that no amount of head banging would bring about a red lolly pop. And, I learned that when my choices are narrow I have to settle for lifes "yellow lollies." :(

The moral of the story.

BUSH IS DANGEROUS, Kerry is IMPERFECT.

Choose the imperfect over the dangerous, and remember ... the rest of the world is counting on us!

[Sparkly]

30. So did you blindly walk in lockstep with your yellow lollipop

like a young sheep, following in the evil ways of "gray-lite?"

Or did you keep fussing until everybody around you was cursing those lollipops too, boycotting the store, basking in the feeling of superior wisdom and moral fortitude and railing against the unfairness of it all?

It seems the latter is more fulfilling for some. It's just that I *expect* it from three-year-olds... ;)

[rpannier]

15. Considering

the war is one of many issues plaguing this country, I have to look at the whole package. The war has happened, it's aftermath has been a monumental mess and that is the focus now. The "war" is essentially over -- in the sense that we took Baghdad and Hussein is gone. The problem most people are having is the pitiful way this admin has handled the post-war rebuilding. Kerry is a better choice to deal with this mess than bush is.
For me, the make-or-break issues has been, and will be, the economy. I have too many friends who are unemployed, or underemployed. Who lost their health insurance, who are trying to find ways to pay bills that were not an issue before.
As for abortion, prayer in schools and anti-gay democrats, we got them, they're in the senate and in the house and we survive as a party.
Would I support someone for president who believed in prayer in the schools, you'd have to show me who they're running against. A Lowell Weicker-type republican, or third party candidate -- no I would not vote for the dem. But against bush -- yes, I'd vote for the democrat.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Once again....

there is is this confusion over affirming the President's authority to go to war as a last resort and actually encouraging him to go to war. The dynamics of how the Senate reaches is coonsensus on such things is far from simple black and white arguments.

There is also some confusion over just what the "soul" of the Democratic party is. The Democratic Party I grew up with was largely downtown hacks and corrupt machines or Southern segregationists.

As far as I'm concerned, remembering how it was Republicans who tipped the scales to get us things like the EPA and civil rights laws, it is only recently that the Dixiecrats turned Republican and the machines have lost much of their power and the Democratic party is finding its soul.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. He's our candidate now

and we have no other choice but to support him if we want the chimp out in Nov. It's that simple. In THIS election, we cannot withhold our vote for Kerry. We HAVE to get the chimp out. Period. Our country depends on it.

I agree with you about the war vote. That bothers the hell out of me. The Patriot Act vote sucks too. :( It's all I can do to vote for Kerry, but I have to if I want the chimp out in Nov....:shrug:

[Padraig18]

23. Why beat a dead horse?

I'm a long-time Deaniac, but my guy lost. We have our presumptive nominee in Sen. Kerry, and absolutely no viable alternative. makes the decision easy enough for me.

:shrug:

[Sparkly]

24. Exactly. The primary debates are over, we have a nominee,

he's got a staunchly liberal Senate record, and while nobody will agree with everything he's said or done 100% (true of any candidate), the job now is to get him elected.

[dkf]

26. What does this have to do with who we supported?

I can't stand Repubs who follow Bush blindly no matter what he does and I kind of dislike it when Dems do the same. I find it rather repulsive frankly.

[Padraig18]

28. There's nothing 'blind' in my support of Sen. Kerry.

I still have significant disagreements with him but, as I stated previously, there is no viable alternative in the upcoming election--- none.

[dkf]

55. So if there is no viable alternative

then aren't you saying you'd vote for Kerry pretty much no matter what he does? How is that not blind?

Where would the line be drawn for you? Draft? Cuz I think whoever stays in Iraq will need to draft, whether it's Kerry or Bush.

That is a big problem I have with Kerry...inability to be realistic with voters.

We simply do not have the manpower to stay there without a draft and the Iraqis are going to make a strategy out of kidnapping and killing foreigners which makes it pretty darn difficult to find volunteers from other countries.

Face it, we're in this alone and we are undermanned. That screams draft to me.

[JI7]

56. uh, he IS paying attention to Kerry

he has said before that Kerry has EARNED his respect and support.

and Kerry has already said he wont be bringing the draft. those who try to claim the draft will be an issue with kerry are those who arne't paying attention or don't want to and are intent on attacking the candidate.

and dean never called for pulling out of iraq and he never called for a draft either. so was dean not being realistic then ?

[sangh0]

72. dkf has already clearly stated he will do anything to defeat Kerry

on that other board

[JI7]

84. oh, yes, i have seen it at the other place

this person also kept claiming Kerry cheated on his wife. and i have seen the many posts from this person on that other board. this person always claims kerry doesn't have support yet ignores any post which shows the opposite such as results of the primary elections.

[sangha]

98. The poster distorts Kerry's position

in a thread s/he started. The poster claims that Kerry thinks that a draft is not needed "at this time" and relies on an article that doesn't quote Kerry.

[realcountrymusic]

73. Exactly right: stop insulting our intelligence

The perfect is the enemy of the good. In this case, the good is the enemy of the absolutely evil. How dare you imply that those of us who can *reasonably* prefer a staunchly liberal war hero who offers what is almost certainly our best hope of reversing the fascist death grip on our country and the entire world are "blind" in our loyalties? Pragmatic ain't blind. The position *you* express is blind -- to reality.

Raving idealists who would prefer to stimulate infighting within the left and cost us yet another election at a moment in history when we are called as never before to do the right thing are as crazy as the Christian righties who won't vote for anyone who ever expressed support for Roe v. Wade, or as the LaRouchies. The whole damn lot of you -- Naderites, Larouchies, Christian brownshirts -- should start your own country (take Mississippi, please) to tear each other to shreds in. Most Americans are moderates, and no party will ever win a national election by running to either extreme. Kerry is the most exciting candidate for a serious liberal like myself since McGovern, and at least Kerry has a chance of actually winning. A damn good chance, especially if the chihuahuas in his own party stop nipping at his heels.

Or would you seriously prefer Bush*? You probably would. Some people prefer to stand at the margins in splendid isolation, sneering at everyone on the dance floor. Bush* is good for loony lefties and loony righties alike. I want a president who is good for average Americans.

And get this straight: we ARE in Iraq. For us to simply pull out cold right now would be as serious a war crime as any Bush* and co. has committed to date. We would doom millions of average Iraqis to a brutal and vicious civil war. Chaos, even genocide might ensue. World oil supplies might be interrupted, raising the cost of everything average *Americans* rely on to live. Terrorism would finally find a real home in what remained of "Iraq." Powell WAS right, after all. We broke it, and we bought it. Let's elect someone who cares about getting it fixed, and not buying another one of these busted countries any time soon. Kerry has *grown* in stature in my eyes with his refusal to kowtow to the "withdraw immediately" voices in our party. When he is elected, he will have the support of many countries who cannot and will not assist the Bush* regime, and we will have at least some restored legitimacy to work with. This is more important than narcissistic pacifist drivel spouted in between volvo trips to whole foods for more tofu.

Kerry is a good man. He ain't perfect. But neither is anyone else. If you do find someone who is, and who has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected (and it ain't Dennis "open source for everyone" Kucinich, btw) do please be sure to let us know.

Sorry to rant. But if talk like this costs Kerry the election, I'm going to become a Republican and work to build the moderate wing of THAT party, having finally determined that the left does not know HOW to win or govern. Say it ain't so.

RealCountry

"Buzzard's gotta eat, same as a worm." - Clint Eastwood, *The Outlaw Josey Wales*

[Padraig18]

77. Bravo, realcountrymusic! WELL said!

*wild applause and foot-stomping*

:D

[realcountrymusic]

82. Thanks! n/t

n/t

[zoeyfong]

93. I'm no pacifist, Mr./Ms. Country.

I'm going to have to respond to this point by point:

>>>>>The perfect is the enemy of the good. In this case, the good is the enemy of the absolutely evil.

Does the "good" lend the absolutely evil a hand in his evil endeavors? I doubt it. I think you greatly overstate the goodness of kerry, vis a vis the war. I will give kerry a lot more credit on domestic issues, but this post is primarily about the war, and once a person makes a calculated decision to join such a murderous, hubristic blunder they can no longer be referred to as 'good.' It is the absolutely evil vs. the slightly less evil. Whether or not kerry loves children and got some roads built in Mass. doesn't make a whole lot of difference.


>>>>How dare you imply that those of us who can *reasonably* prefer a staunchly liberal war hero

Notice the war hero part appeals to you more than the war *protester* part, that could explain a lot. You probably think it's impolite to dwell on mistaken wars.


>>>>>who offers what is almost certainly our best hope of reversing the fascist death grip on our country and the entire world are "blind" in our loyalties? Pragmatic ain't blind. The position *you* express is blind -- to reality.

Reality is this: it is going to be hard for kerry to reverse what he and other dems have helped to bring about. Blaming repugs is easy. facing the reality that dems are part of the problem is harder, but even more necessary.


>>>>>Raving idealists who would prefer to stimulate infighting within the left and cost us yet another election

I am far from being a raving idealist. I voted for gore in 2000, and if dems lose this year, they will have only themselves to blame. But some will always prefer to blame others.


>>>>>in. Most Americans are moderates, and no party will ever win a national election by running to either extreme.

Repugs manage to keep their base happy and still win; in fact they figured out that they can't win *without* their base. Btw, i am willing to and have let many issues slide in past elections; i am not looking for the 'perfect' candidate. My point is that apparently this party has decided that there is *never* a time to take a stand. It appears to me that if you were facing an election choice between Hitler and Stalin, you would seriously be trying to decide which was the 'lesser of two evils.'


>>>>>And get this straight: we ARE in Iraq. For us to simply pull out cold right now would be as serious a war crime as any Bush* and co. has committed to date. We would doom millions of average Iraqis to a brutal and vicious civil war. Chaos, even genocide might ensue. World oil supplies might be interrupted, raising the cost of everything average *Americans* rely on to live. Terrorism would finally find a real home in what remained of "Iraq." Powell WAS right, after all. We broke it, and we bought it. Let's elect someone who cares about getting it fixed, and not buying another one of these busted countries any time soon.


Let me tell you this, my record being right on Iraq is whole lot better than your boy kerry's, and probably yours, if think kerry has a clue. I speak a fair amount of Arabic and i have been following Arab public opinion since well before the war started, and i saw this fiasco coming from a mile away. This is what i wrote to my local paper a couple days after the war started:

"We are beginning a never ending guerrilla war in Iraq, in which Americans will be
taking casualties every day that we remain there. After a while, when the bills and
the body count have mounted, we'll bail out and leave the country in chaos, and
the whole thing will have been a giant waste of lives, money, and America's
reputation."

And this was written at a time when war support was around 70%. Now we are told that 'no one could have predicted the resistance we're facing.' I'd laugh if it wasn't so tragic. Anyway, let me correct your misunderstanding of the present situation in Iraq: The eventual outcome of iraq will be determined only after we leave. It doesn't matter if we stay another day, month, or 10 years. Any government we leave behind with our fingerprints anywhere near it will not last 6 months after we leave. I don't know for sure what will happen after we leave, but i do know that we are only forestalling the inevitable and causing more death with our continued presence. We broke it, but no amount of money can buy it. We would do best to just go and sin no more.


>>>> Kerry has *grown* in stature in my eyes with his refusal to kowtow to the "withdraw immediately" voices in our party. When he is elected, he will have the support of many countries who cannot and will not assist the Bush* regime, and we will have at least some restored legitimacy to work with. This is more important than narcissistic pacifist drivel spouted in between volvo trips to whole foods for more tofu.

My friend, i'm no pacifist, and anybody who knows me would never make that mistake; however, i suggest you investigate the difference between a wise, just use of force and the opposite. Btw, my favorite cars are my '68 Datsun pickup and my '63 Ford Falcon, and I live in western SD, which isn't exactly Seattle or San Francisco.


>>>>>Sorry to rant. But if talk like this costs Kerry the election, I'm going to become a Republican and work to build the moderate wing of THAT party, having finally determined that the left does not know HOW to win or govern. Say it ain't so.

I think that speaks for itself; blaming anybody but the democratic party itself, and threatening to turn republican. At least i'm only threatening to go independent.

[realcountrymusic]

96. It's Mr., but you can call me "Real"

OK, point-by-point rebuttal:

Zoeyfrog wrote:
>Does the "good" lend the absolutely evil a hand in his evil endeavors? I doubt it. I think you greatly overstate the goodness of kerry, vis a vis the war. I will give kerry a lot more credit on domestic issues, but this post is primarily about the war, and once a person makes a calculated decision to join such a murderous, hubristic blunder they can no longer be referred to as 'good.' It is the absolutely evil vs. the slightly less evil. Whether or not kerry loves children and got some roads built in Mass. doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

Reply:
Might as well throw in the towel, then, since the vast majority of the US Congress voted for IWR and Patriot Act, and many other abhorrent things. It's called realpolitik, and it's the way the world works. Last I checked, the Dalai Lama wasn't on the ballot.

Zoeyfrog wrote:
>Notice the war hero part appeals to you more than the war *protester* part, that could explain a lot. You probably think it's impolite to dwell on mistaken wars.

Reply:
Sigh. Such black and white thinking. To me, Kerry is a war "hero" *precisely* because he answered the call to serve, served with relative honor and bravery, and returned with his understanding changed and a committment to ending the war upon which he acted with passion. A man who serves and learns -- sounds like presidential material to me. As for "impolite to dwell on mistaken wars," in my forthcoming book (out this summer) I "dwell" at length on both Vietnam and Gulf War I and their costs for working class Americans who were propagandized into supporting those wars. I "dwell" on them for a part of my living. Don't presume to know me, and I'll return the favor.


Zoeyfrog wrote:
>Reality is this: it is going to be hard for kerry to reverse what he and other dems have helped to bring about. Blaming repugs is easy. facing the reality that dems are part of the problem is harder, but even more necessary.

Reply:
Hard to clean up, but I hope not impossible. Under Bush* it will be impossible. We have only two real choices. Of course dems are part of the problem. Sir, or madam?, you and I are also part of the problem. We have to act realistically to be part of the solution.

Zoeyfrog wrote:
>I am far from being a raving idealist. I voted for gore in 2000, and if dems lose this year, they will have only themselves to blame. But some will always prefer to blame others.

Reply:
Who(m) to blame is irrelevant. We'll be too busy dealing with a global state of emergency for four more years. And how could you vote for Gore? Did he never support military action or a weapons program? Do you think he would have voted against IWR if he had been in the senate.

Zoeyfrog wrote:
>Repugs manage to keep their base happy and still win; in fact they figured out that they can't win *without* their base.

Reply:
Actually, sorta my point. the repug base is strategically smart about supporting a range of candidates who advance portions of their agenda. But frankly, I think the democrats would be better off *without* a base that is not committed to winning.

Zoeyfrog wrote:
> Btw, i am willing to and have let many issues slide in past elections; i am not looking for the 'perfect' candidate. My point is that apparently this party has decided that there is *never* a time to take a stand.

Reply:
Hardly so. It's impossible to take a stand if that stand costs you a seat at the table. Better to sit and fight than "stand" and run. Had Kerry not voted for IWR and Patriot, his electoral chances would be slim. He now has nuanced but strong positions against both bills, based on the criminal ways they have been implemented by the executive branch.

Zoeyfrog wrote:
>It appears to me that if you were facing an election choice between Hitler and Stalin, you would seriously be trying to decide which was the 'lesser of two evils.'

Reply:
That's absurd and insulting. Neither of the two candidates in this election has anything on Hitler or Stalin, and such rhetoric trivializes the debate. Isn't there an old rule of 'net debate that says the first to call her/his opponent a Nazi loses?

Zoeyfrog wrote:
>Let me tell you this, my record being right on Iraq is whole lot better than your boy kerry's, and probably yours, if think kerry has a clue. I speak a fair amount of Arabic and i have been following Arab public opinion since well before the war started, and i saw >this fiasco coming from a mile away. This is what i wrote to my local paper a couple days after the war started:

Reply:
You wouldn't have any reason to know what my views are, and Kerry is not my "boy," but my candidate. Anyone can claim anything on the 'net,, so my counterclaim is that I happen to teach Arabic culture at the university level (music and art, but it requires knowing Arabic and the history of the Middle East pretty well). Your premonitions about the war's risks were of course correct. I shared them, from the beginning. Kerry did not start the war. As about 50 other posters on this thread have noted, he authorized the president to use force *if necessary.* And to do so rationally. That Bush* did not do so is not Kerry's fault. Kerry also has changed his position on the war as it has proceeded so disastrously, for which Ifor one give him high marks. Far from flip-flopping, this is a guy who lets reason trump ideology.


Oh, and since you claim to know Arabic, let's see if you can tell me the precise source of this transliterated text (hint: anyone who knows the first thing about Arabic culture should get it in a few moments, even with only a modicum of the language. Alhamdullah):

Alhamdu lillahi rabbi al-AA-alameena
Alrrahmani al-rraheemi
Maliki yawmi alddeeni
Iyyaka na-AA-budu wa-iyyaka nasta-AA-eenu
Ihdina alssirata al-mustaqeema
Sirata allatheena an-AA-amta AAalayhim ghayri
al-maghdoobi AAalayhim wala alddalleena

Impress me. It should be easy. Like I said, people can claim anything on the 'net.

Zoeyfrog wrote:
>Anyway, let me correct your misunderstanding of the present situation in Iraq: The eventual outcome of iraq will be determined only after we leave. It doesn't matter if we stay another day, month, or 10 years. Any government we leave behind with our fingerprints anywhere near it will not last 6 months after we leave.

Reply:
I happen to disagree, as do many scholars with expertise on the subject, including a substantial number of Arab intellectuals. But it's possible you are right. Of course, it's possible I am right. I favor splitting the difference and internationalizing peacekeeping and nation-building work in the country, which is only possible when Bush* is gone and we have some basis for a renewed relationship with the Araqb League, Western Europe, and moderate voices in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Zoeyfrog wrote:
>My friend, i'm no pacifist, and anybody who knows me would never make that mistake; however, i suggest you investigate the difference between a wise, just use of force and the opposite. Btw, my favorite cars are my '68 Datsun pickup and my '63 Ford Falcon, and I live in western SD, which isn't exactly Seattle or San Francisco.

Reply:
Not sure we're on a "my friend" basis yet, but OK, my friend.

I was being polemical and not speaking of you in particular with what I admit was an overly snide comment about lifestyle choices. On the other hand, where you live doesn't make you better than me. I live in Harlem. About as far from SD as you can get culturally. I no longer own a car, but my favorite of the last decade was a 1988 Mazda B2000 that went 180K on one clutch (I was a road musician, so that was a lot of highway miles, including some in SD). Back when I lived in Austin, I recall many yuppies liked to drive vintage rice-burner trucks down to Whole Foods for tofu. A lot of them had Nader stickers and bumper stickers with self-righteous screeds about people who drive SUVs, like it's somehow better to drive a badly tuned old pickup. Falcon's a nice car, but the pollution, oy veh. Must be nice to have so many cars that you can have two favorites.

Zoeyfrog wrote:
>I think that speaks for itself; blaming anybody but the democratic party itself, and threatening to turn republican. At least i'm only threatening to go independent.

Reply:
I already am an independent, and have been for a decade. I'm a pragmatist, and want to see sane, rational, moderate people who learn from history and from books in charge of this country again.


Sorry if I got a bit snide in my first reply. I didn't actually mean to characterize you personally, as you did me in your subsequent reply, but since you did, I guess that's how you took it. My apologies. I was characterizing a certain kind of absolutist perspective that could cost us (meaning reasonable people, not democrats) this election. The basic point of disagreement remains: it's Kerry or Bush* for president of the US for the next four years. If it's Bush,* the democratic party and the USA and the world are in *deep deep shit.* We have an obligation to be pragmatic and realistic and to drive a criminal regime from office. Bottom line. No flame war, please. But if you do get that Arabic, I'd be slightly impressed.

Good debating you.

RealCountryMusic

[zoeyfong]

106. Better to move the table than be at it.

>>>>>I'm going to keep this rebuttal short, or this could get out of hand...

Reply:
Might as well throw in the towel, then, since the vast majority of the US Congress voted for IWR and Patriot Act, and many other abhorrent things. It's called realpolitik, and it's the way the world works. Last I checked, the Dalai Lama wasn't on the ballot.

>>>>>>Actually, i *am* about ready to throw in the towel. Realpolitik operates in a world of individual human beings and every individual is reponsible for doing the right thing, regardless of what everybody else is doing. I AM a realist, but i do believe there is a point where you have to say "no more." That that people are so willing to excuse and go along is the problem. Byw, my name is zoeyFONG (Ms.), but maybe you knew that, Mr.Real.

Reply:
Sigh. Such black and white thinking. To me, Kerry is a war "hero" *precisely* because he answered the call to serve, served with relative honor and bravery, and returned with his understanding changed and a committment to ending the war upon which he acted with passion. A man who serves and learns -- sounds like presidential material to me. As for "impolite to dwell on mistaken wars," in my forthcoming book (out this summer) I "dwell" at length on both Vietnam and Gulf War I and their costs for working class Americans who were propagandized into supporting those wars. I "dwell" on them for a part of my living. Don't presume to know me, and I'll return the favor.

>>>>>1. I really don't mean to be too harsh, but he should have known the war was a mistake *before* he left, and while i appreciate the service of every veteran, kerry's offering to go to vietnam and help dig us in deeper was probably not the best use of his talents. 2.And if you study/write about this stuff, for christ's sake, doesn't it make you want to scream that kerry of all people couldn't see where Iraqmire would end up???


Reply:
Who(m) to blame is irrelevant. We'll be too busy dealing with a global state of emergency for four more years. And how could you vote for Gore? Did he never support military action or a weapons program? Do you think he would have voted against IWR if he had been in the senate.

>>>>>>As i said, i'm not a pacifist; i supported the first gulf war.

Reply:
Actually, sorta my point. the repug base is strategically smart about supporting a range of candidates who advance portions of their agenda. But frankly, I think the democrats would be better off *without* a base that is not committed to winning.

>>>>>The *base* it what makes the party. Yes, it's always difficult to win both the base and enough of the middle to win a national election, but i firmly believe that it can be done. Problem is, dem leaders are so weak and such poor salespeople that most people get their ideas about the dem party from repug talking heads.


Reply:
Hardly so. It's impossible to take a stand if that stand costs you a seat at the table. Better to sit and fight than "stand" and run. Had Kerry not voted for IWR and Patriot, his electoral chances would be slim. He now has nuanced but strong positions against both bills, based on the criminal ways they have been implemented by the executive branch.

>>>>>>On the other hand, who wants a seat at the table, if the table is in freaking Siberia? IMO, it's actually more important to move the table than than to have a seat at it, if you get my meaning. I would be happy if dems never won another election, but were successful in a grass-roots, leftward revolution of public thought in America, which would end up with future repugs being farther left than current dems. Seems to me we're so busy chasing a seat at the table, that we don't notice that repugs keep moving the table further and further right.


Reply:
That's absurd and insulting. Neither of the two candidates in this election has anything on Hitler or Stalin, and such rhetoric trivializes the debate. Isn't there an old rule of 'net debate that says the first to call her/his opponent a Nazi loses?

>>>>>>I wasn't comparing either one to hitler, i was just saying that at *some point* it doesn't matter anymore, and for me, that point is now.


Reply:
You wouldn't have any reason to know what my views are, and Kerry is not my "boy," but my candidate.

>>>>>>>I was assuming yours were in line with his.

Anyone can claim anything on the 'net,, so my counterclaim is that I happen to teach Arabic culture at the university level (music and art, but it requires knowing Arabic and the history of the Middle East pretty well). Your premonitions about the war's risks were of course correct. I shared them, from the beginning. Kerry did not start the war. As about 50 other posters on this thread have noted, he authorized the president to use force *if necessary.* And to do so rationally. That Bush* did not do so is not Kerry's fault. Kerry also has changed his position on the war as it has proceeded so disastrously, for which Ifor one give him high marks. Far from flip-flopping, this is a guy who lets reason trump ideology.

>>>>>>>>I just don't buy that, "Kerry only gave him permission to go to the UN" bit. I think kerry knew full well what that reolution was about. Okay, no one can prove what was in his mind, but, as has been said many, many times, if kerry believed bush wasn't going to war without a UN permission slip, he is so foolish, he has no business being president. And if you knew what was going to happen in the course of a war (like me and a zillion other people), how can you possibly give Kerry a pass on putting his name on *anything* that had a 1% chance of getting us into this nightmare???



Oh, and since you claim to know Arabic, let's see if you can tell me the precise source of this transliterated text (hint: anyone who knows the first thing about Arabic culture should get it in a few moments, even with only a modicum of the language. Alhamdullah):

Alhamdu lillahi rabbi al-AA-alameena
Alrrahmani al-rraheemi
Maliki yawmi alddeeni
Iyyaka na-AA-budu wa-iyyaka nasta-AA-eenu
Ihdina alssirata al-mustaqeema
Sirata allatheena an-AA-amta AAalayhim ghayri
al-maghdoobi AAalayhim wala alddalleena

Impress me. It should be easy. Like I said, people can claim anything on the 'net.


>>>>>>Uhhhh, lemme see.... Hmmm, could it be the Opening surah of the Quran? Back at ya on those claims. :) I'm no expert in Arabic, but i get by on the internet chat rooms, and based on my reading, we were walking right into Intefada II in Iraq. I'm also an atheist, but i enjoy studying religion and listening to the occaissional Quran recitation.



Reply:
I happen to disagree, as do many scholars with expertise on the subject, including a substantial number of Arab intellectuals. But it's possible you are right. Of course, it's possible I am right. I favor splitting the difference and internationalizing peacekeeping and nation-building work in the country, which is only possible when Bush* is gone and we have some basis for a renewed relationship with the Araqb League, Western Europe, and moderate voices in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.


>>>>>>"Internationalizing" is all well and good, by my guess is that nobody is going to join us in this, with kerry as president or not. I also believe that even if we do get other countries to join, it won't make any difference. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen when we leave.

Reply:
Not sure we're on a "my friend" basis yet, but OK, my friend.

I was being polemical and not speaking of you in particular with what I admit was an overly snide comment about lifestyle choices. On the other hand, where you live doesn't make you better than me. I live in Harlem. About as far from SD as you can get culturally. I no longer own a car, but my favorite of the last decade was a 1988 Mazda B2000 that went 180K on one clutch (I was a road musician, so that was a lot of highway miles, including some in SD). Back when I lived in Austin, I recall many yuppies liked to drive vintage rice-burner trucks down to Whole Foods for tofu. A lot of them had Nader stickers and bumper stickers with self-righteous screeds about people who drive SUVs, like it's somehow better to drive a badly tuned old pickup. Falcon's a nice car, but the pollution, oy veh. Must be nice to have so many cars that you can have two favorites.

>>>>>>Wasn't suggesting i was better than you, just wanted you to change your mental picture. And yeah, i've got a few cars (5). I'm trying to unload a couple. Drove one of those B2000's once; it was kind of a dog. :)

Reply:
I already am an independent, and have been for a decade. I'm a pragmatist, and want to see sane, rational, moderate people who learn from history and from books in charge of this country again.

>>>>>>What i have learned from history is that persistant application of strength, intelligence, integrity, and an appeal to our better natures has moved mountains.


Sorry if I got a bit snide in my first reply. I didn't actually mean to characterize you personally, as you did me in your subsequent reply, but since you did, I guess that's how you took it. My apologies. I was characterizing a certain kind of absolutist perspective that could cost us (meaning reasonable people, not democrats) this election. The basic point of disagreement remains: it's Kerry or Bush* for president of the US for the next four years. If it's Bush,* the democratic party and the USA and the world are in *deep deep shit.* We have an obligation to be pragmatic and realistic and to drive a criminal regime from office. Bottom line. No flame war, please. But if you do get that Arabic, I'd be slightly impressed.

>>>>>>>I give you credit for the substantive reply, but lastly, as i said, i believe it's actually more important to move the table left than to be at it, so i guess that's the main point of contention.

Good debating you.
>>>>>>Ditto.

[realcountrymusic]

110. OK, I am suitably impressed

Zoeyfong wrote:
>>>>>>Actually, i *am* about ready to throw in the towel. Realpolitik operates in a world of individual human beings and every individual is reponsible for doing the right thing, regardless of what everybody else is doing. I AM a realist, but i do believe there is a point where you have to say "no more." That that people are so willing to excuse and go along is the problem. Byw, my name is zoeyFONG (Ms.), but maybe you knew that, Mr.Real.

Reply:
First, a genuine whoops on the name. I read it wrong in haste. But I detect in your anger a note of resignation. Throwing in the towel is simply not an option this time around, or at least that's my contention. The point to say "no more" is now, when the "more" we face is 4 "more" years of an absolutely insane, criminally ignorant and messianic administration. Kerry doesn't strike me as a warmonger, far from it. His support for IWR puts him in the same company with lots of politicians I respect. I'm sure most of them regret it. But if you seriously reflect on the mood of the country post-9/11, it would have been political suicide to oppose IWR or the patriot act. But I'd give most of the congresspersons who supported these mistaken bills even more credit: I think as a nation most of us had no idea what was right or possible or appropriate in scale. So maybe it's disappointing that Kerry (like every other reliably liberal democrat in congress who had any chance of influencing the national debate going forward) voted with the herd. We disagree on a basic point of philosophy which can't really be disputed, except that I would maintain that you are NOT being realistic because there is simply NO other option save 4 more years of hell or the possibility that things could start to improve under a presidency of some intellectual depth, international legitimacy, and emotional maturity. Kucinich and Nader won't win, and they each have flaws quite as serious to me as Kerry's. Voting for them won't "move the table to the left." It will send the left off to bed without any dinner -- for the next four years and very likely longer. Kerry has a 20+ year history of supporting socially progressive causes, expertise in foreign affairs, and a strong anti-corruption stance in congress. He's *far* more progressive than Al Gore in the broader picture (at least the realpolitik DLC Gore who ran for president -- i like the new one a whole lot better). And most importantly he can *WIN* this thing if we come together AS a base for once. As many have said, if you truly want to move the table I think the best we can do - and it's a lot -- is come out in force for Kerry *as* a progressive, liberal, anti-war base. A strong showing matters for his mandate, and to develop his administration's sense of obligation to that base. There's a good reason Bushco* will do nothing to alienate the evangelical Xtian loony right -- they show up on election days and hold his feet to the fire in between. We should try it sometime.

Zoeyfong wrote:
>>>>>1. I really don't mean to be too harsh, but he should have known the war was a mistake *before* he left, and while i appreciate the service of every veteran, kerry's offering to go to vietnam and help dig us in deeper was probably not the best use of his talents. 2.And if you study/write about this stuff, for christ's sake, doesn't it make you want to scream that kerry of all people couldn't see where Iraqmire would end up???

Reply:
That's (#1) just unfair. Whether he thought the war was wrong or right before he left, several hundred thousand working-class kids in this country had no such luxury to decide, and unlike nearly every other person of similar social privilege in our current governing elite, Kerry enlisted, fought, and spilled his own blue blood. He made a principled and honorable decision to fight, and he saved the lives of fellow American soldiers. Shoot, he may have saved the life of the person who would have fought in his place, some cop's son from Framingham perhaps. Hindsight may be 20/20 proverbially, but it usually strikes me as blind. As for 2, no, my scholarly work (on American working-class music, culture and politics) leads me inexorably to the conclusion that the American left makes its biggest mistake when it puts on elitist airs and acts smarter than average working-class people. Which in fact is the basis for my respect for what Kerry did in Vietnam, as discussed above.

By even suggesting that some people were too smart to get suckered into fighting in Vietnam (or supporting the Iraq war) you risk insulting the intelligence and good will of people whose support we need, who were presumably too "stupid" (when in fact they were often either too powerless or simply had a different but equally honorable ethical mandate to serve when asked). Clinton's almost-fatal flaw as a candidate was his avoidance of the draft, made both worse and better by the fact that he actually came from humble origins. Damn, was he charismatic, though. So he got it over. Bush* and co. sell, as we all know, a faux patriotic militarism rooted in cyncism and belied by their own lack of service. Kerry compels me because he allows that fact to be confronted, which promises nothing less than a transformation of the entire propagandistic equation of corporate conservatism with patriotism if we can make this election a mandate for a truly honorable candidate.

Zoeyfong wrote:
>>>>>>As i said, i'm not a pacifist; i supported the first gulf war.

Reply:
This makes little sense to me. That was was as much -- if not more of -- a crock as this one, sold like a blue-light special to boost corporate profits, take care of special friends and interests, test and market new weapons systems, and propagandize average Americans in order to shore up the right's political fortunes. "Liberating" Kuwait had nothing to do with it (read the history -- we allowed SH to take Kuwait quite on purpose as a pretext for war, and Kuwait wasn't any more worth going to war for than South Vietnam). Arguably, that war crystallized the Arab animosity that produced Bin Laden and the conditions for this war.

Zoeyfong wrote:
>>>>>The *base* it what makes the party. Yes, it's always difficult to win both the base and enough of the middle to win a national election, but i firmly believe that it can be done. Problem is, dem leaders are so weak and such poor salespeople that most people get their ideas about the dem party from repug talking heads.

Reply:
It's not only that Dems are weak. The right and its patrons in the corporate and media elites are very, very strong, and ruthless. And I keep coming back to the question: who do you have in mind whose stronger and a better salesperson and, by the way, on the ballot in about 5 months? How on earth can we win this without running to the middle, the way *every* national election has been won in modern history?

Zoeyfong wrote:
>>>>>>On the other hand, who wants a seat at the table, if the table is in freaking Siberia? IMO, it's actually more important to move the table than than to have a seat at it, if you get my meaning. I would be happy if dems never won another election, but were successful in a grass-roots, leftward revolution of public thought in America, which would end up with future repugs being farther left than current dems. Seems to me we're so busy chasing a seat at the table, that we don't notice that repugs keep moving the table further and further right.

Reply:
Gotta call a pipe dream a pipe dream ( :. A future "leftward revolution of public thought" at the grass roots? You must live in South Dakota, in a little house on the prairie without access to major media. ( ; How on earth, in practical terms, is that going to happen without a decent run of progressive administrations and congresses that can show results in improving conditions of existence for American voters? Public opinion neither forms nor operates in a vacuum from the day-to-day sausage-making muck of real political work. The table ain't in Siberia. It's in the Oval Office, and unless we can take a seat at the head of it, we're REALLY going to be in political Siberia. Captain, the ship is tilting right. Forget the damn iceberg. We already hit it.

Zoeyfong wrote:
>>>>>>I wasn't comparing either one to hitler, i was just saying that at *some point* it doesn't matter anymore, and for me, that point is now.

Reply:
You said, to paraphrase, that in an election between Hitler and Stalin I'd be looking for the lesser of two evils. Them's mighty strong words. Even Bush, who does display fascist tendencies and has committed war crimes leading to several thousand deaths, in my opinion, has nothing on either one of those two -- best numbers I've heard put Hitler at about 15 million dead and Stalin at over 20 million. What I'd like to see us avoid is recreating the conditions under which such monster flourish -- namely a world of instability, rampant nationalism, corrupt politics, and endless war. To suggest that I would do anything but resist such monsters with all my might and by every available means is really quite insulting. But I take it that you did not mean it that way. We have one shining opportunity to head off such a future at the ballot box -- and I am *utterly* serious in my belief that we may not have another such opportunity if these creeps get another 4 years to work their mayhem on the world. Hell, like some at DU I'm not entirely certain they'd yield to the will of the electorate, or allow an honest election *this* time (as we all know, they certainly didn't *last* time, and for me we've been living in a state of coup d'etat for almost four years). So yeah, Kerry is definitely the lesser of two evils. I also happen to think he's not evil at all, but fairly good. I hope he gets a fair chance to win. And I sure as hell hope the rational left and center in this country can focus on how important it is that he get a strong mandate that cannot be overturned by a mickey mouse court ruling.

Zoeyfong wrote:
>>>>>>Uhhhh, lemme see.... Hmmm, could it be the Opening surah of the Quran? Back at ya on those claims. :) I'm no expert in Arabic, but i get by on the internet chat rooms, and based on my reading, we were walking right into Intefada II in Iraq. I'm also an atheist, but i enjoy studying religion and listening to the occaissional Quran recitation.

Reply:
Ding ding ding! Precisely, minus the opening couplet, which would have made an easy one a dead giveaway. As I say in the subject line, I am suitably impressed, though not surprised. DU seems like an inhospitable place for the usual BS artistry one sees on other less, um, exclusive forums. I happen to be a passionate atheist, believing that God has been the source of more trouble than good in this world since day 1. But it must be something about atheism, since like you I have a lifelong fascination with religion, and (ironically), a respect for some kinds of truly religious people. Amidst all the Arab and Muslim bashing of the last few years, Americans have not heard much in defense of what is truly wondrous about Arabic art, science, poetry, music, and the basic earthly goodness of the Koran simply as a "guide to living ethically." Most Muslims I know, like most people I know, are basically good. My fantasy is that one day we will be able to creat a country, perhaps on another planet, called Fanatica, where all the idealists and never-yielders can live and tear each other to shreds and leave decent, normal human beings in peace.


Zoeyfong wrote:
>>>>>>"Internationalizing" is all well and good, by my guess is that nobody is going to join us in this, with kerry as president or not. I also believe that even if we do get other countries to join, it won't make any difference. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen when we leave.

Reply:
Again, I think this is cynical and despairing. We can leave with some semblance of a security apparatus, ideally run by Iraqis (I favor giving Kurds total independence, however, in the North), but backed up by UN forces *we* pay for, with the oil industry up and running and its revenues flowing into development projects that benefit a broad swath of Iraqi people, and we FORCE Israel and the Palestinians to go back to the table, as in no more money or arms for anyone until an agreement is signed and the UN guards the peace. Sure, it's going to be hard. We should have approached it this way from the beginning but Bush* did not do so, and now it will be MUCH harder. But the upside of all of this is that Bush himself has become so much the personification of American arrogance and abuse that his departure will, I firmly believe, create an opening for Kerry to seek a new global legitimacy and renewed alliances. Optimism is our only option. Leaving "cold turkey" will lead to a bloodbath, and we will be (correctly) held accountable for that by the entire world.

Zoeyfong wrote:
>>>>>>Wasn't suggesting i was better than you, just wanted you to change your mental picture. And yeah, i've got a few cars (5). I'm trying to unload a couple. Drove one of those B2000's once; it was kind of a dog. :)

Reply:
Mental picture of an Arabic-reading South Dakotan posting to DU, confusing enough. Seriously, my Mazda (code named "Loretta," for Ms. Lynn) was the truck that would not die. 180K on one clutch, no motor problems, and the only reasons Loretta went to pasture is becase a tree fell on her and crushed her flat in Seattle (took out a nice Twin Reverb in the camper too). Hated the Northwest ever since. Damn I loved that truck.

Zoeyfong wrote:
>>>>>>What i have learned from history is that persistant application of strength, intelligence, integrity, and an appeal to our better natures has moved mountains.

Reply:
Then we simply disagree on the content of such a view, for I would argue nothing less as my own stance. At this point in history, we need to be strong, intelligent, and good and move a mountain called the presidency of the United States. If we don't, we all must share the blame to the extent that any of us did not work toward the common goal. We can dispute abstract principles AFTER the election.

Regards, and a pleasure

Alhamdullah

RealCountryMusic

[zoeyfong]

115. !!

Reply:
The point to say "no more" is now, when the "more" we face is 4 "more" years of an absolutely insane, criminally ignorant and messianic administration.

>>>>>>If the Bush administration is that bad, then why did so many dems go along with it? I agree that Bush is bad, but I can not stomach the bush bashing from dems who were accomplices in the worst of his crimes.


Kerry doesn't strike me as a warmonger, far from it. His support for IWR puts him in the same company with lots of politicians I respect. I'm sure most of them regret it. But if you seriously reflect on the mood of the country post-9/11, it would have been political suicide to oppose IWR or the patriot act.

>>>>>>Don't think so. I don't think any of the people who voted against IWR lost in 2002. In any case, this is where character and integrity come in. I have quit jobs over principles far less weighty than war and peace, and my livelihood depends on my job. From what i hear, Kerry is pretty well set for life, and he could certainly have afforded to go down with dignity. As i asked originally, if a person doesn't take a stand here, then where? Only a couple people actually answered and mentioned some priciple that they would not sacrifice.

Anyway, yes, it was a crazy time, and many succumbed to the temptation to jump on the hysterical 'national security' badwagon, but many others saw the madness for what is was from the very beginning. I myself saw it, and i tell you, i have never been more disappointed in *America* (not just Bush) than i have been since 9-11. You will never, ever convince me that any one should be excused for going along with this mass hysteria and paranoid, national self-destruction. History does not remember kindly those who silently acquiesce under such circumstances; it remembers those who stand resolutely, unmistakeably against the madness.


I would maintain that you are NOT being realistic because there is simply NO other option save 4 more years of hell or the possibility

>>>>i'm not disagreeing with that, but i'm saying that short term gains from this strategy come at the expense of, or in the place of, more necessary, far-reaching, long-term gains.


that things could start to improve under a presidency of some intellectual depth, international legitimacy, and emotional maturity. Kucinich and Nader won't win, and they each have flaws quite as serious to me as Kerry's. Voting for them won't "move the table to the left."

>>>>>>>I ask you, if we elect a candidate on platform X, why should we then expect that candidate to govern on platform X+left (further to the left)? Candidates tend to stick with the strategy that got them elected. Repugs are smart; they do the work on the ground to move public opinion their way, then they are able to elect candidates who are more to their base's liking. Dems are trying to put the cart before the horse. They think they can elect candidates who would rather die than be called liberal, and they imagine that these people are going to move left *after* they get elected.


There's a good reason Bushco* will do nothing to alienate the evangelical Xtian loony right -- they show up on election days and hold his feet to the fire in between. We should try it sometime.

>>>>>>They show up *because* repugs deliver. Remember what happened to Jimmy carter? They dumped him because he wasn't carrying their water, and they found themselves a candidate who would. (May he rest in peace).


Reply:
That's (#1) just unfair. Whether he thought the war was wrong or right before he left, several hundred thousand working-class kids in this country had no such luxury to decide, and unlike nearly every other person of similar social privilege in our current governing elite, Kerry enlisted, fought, and spilled his own blue blood. He made a principled and honorable decision to fight,

>>>>>>No!!!!!! The war was wrong!!!!!! If a person was drafted, that's one thing, but to *choose* to go join a losing, immoral war; that is a big mistake, and individual acts of heroism do not change that. Take the case of our civil war - no doubt many southern soldiers fought honorably and valiently, and sacrificed greatly; but the cause they were fighting for was wrong!, therefore no one should have *volunteered* to fight on behalf of that cause. People have got to think about what they are doing, not just rush blindly in with the rest of the herd!! I'm sorry, but i think that there is a real worship of war in this country (and a few others), and it makes it very hard to offer completely rational and necessary criticism of it. That's part of what got us into the present war.

As for 2, no, my scholarly work (on American working-class music, culture and politics) leads me inexorably to the conclusion that the American left makes its biggest mistake when it puts on elitist airs and acts smarter than average working-class people. Which in fact is the basis for my respect for what Kerry did in Vietnam, as discussed above.

>>>>>OMG!!!! (Sorry, i'm getting a little agitated here. :) ) What the heck are people (left or right) supposed to do when the see America entering in to a mistaken war? Pretend they don't see it and say "Praise god and pass the ammunition"???? (or whatever that expression is). No way. Talk about throwing in the towel.



Clinton's almost-fatal flaw as a candidate was his avoidance of the draft, made both worse and better by the fact that he actually came from humble origins. Damn, was he charismatic, though. So he got it over. Bush* and co. sell, as we all know, a faux patriotic militarism rooted in cyncism and belied by their own lack of service.

>>>>>>I don't know why clinton avoided the draft, but you know, the war was wrong, and as i said before, IMO, that fact takes precedence over the virtue of 'service,' so i definitely don't hold anything against Clinton. If i was drafted into a war that i believed was wrong, i suspect i'd be packing my bags for canada. I could not and would not suspend my conscience in the name of service; and if there were to be a judgement day (which of course we both know there won't be :) ), the judgement would come down on my head, and my head alone. Uncle Sam could not bear my guilt.

Reply:
It's not only that Dems are weak. The right and its patrons in the corporate and media elites are very, very strong, and ruthless. And I keep coming back to the question: who do you have in mind whose stronger and a better salesperson and, by the way, on the ballot in about 5 months? How on earth can we win this without running to the middle, the way *every* national election has been won in modern history?

>>>>>>>>Never said we can't get/don't need the middle. I think dems are right on most issues, and polls show that most americans agree with us; that's why we need dems out there standing up for us, not rolling over for the Rove slander machine.

Reply:
Gotta call a pipe dream a pipe dream ( :. A future "leftward revolution of public thought" at the grass roots? You must live in South Dakota, in a little house on the prairie without access to major media. ( ; How on earth, in practical terms, is that going to happen without a decent run of progressive administrations and congresses that can show results in improving conditions of existence for American voters? Public opinion neither forms nor operates in a vacuum from the day-to-day sausage-making muck of real political work. The table ain't in Siberia. It's in the Oval Office, and unless we can take a seat at the head of it, we're REALLY going to be in political Siberia. Captain, the ship is tilting right. Forget the damn iceberg. We already hit it.

>>>>>>Ohhhh, oh contraire, mon frere; or should i say, bal9ks, axy. (pardon my french and my transliteration). It is the realest of realities. Contrary to what campaign billboards say, politicians do not lead, they follow. Public opinion always comes first. The "table" is right here in my little town, and on your front steps, and at the workplace water cooler, and so on and so on. Unfortunately, the media largely forms public opinion, then public opinion forms political opinion. We have got to get control of the news media, but in the meantime, i am trying to change one mind at a a time.



To suggest that I would do anything but resist such monsters with all my might and by every available means is really quite insulting.

>>>>>>I was not suggesting any such thing; i was pointing to the error in your logic, i.e., that choosing the lesser of two evils is an all-occaission election strategy.

I happen to be a passionate atheist, believing that God has been the source of more trouble than good in this world since day 1. But it must be something about atheism, since like you I have a lifelong fascination with religion, and (ironically), a respect for some kinds of truly religious people. Amidst all the Arab and Muslim bashing of the last few years, Americans have not heard much in defense of what is truly wondrous about Arabic art, science, poetry, music, and the basic earthly goodness of the Koran simply as a "guide to living ethically."

>>>>>>Well, there's good in both the bible and the quran, but there's also a whole lotta bad. In the big three traditions, the words of jesus are what i most agree with.


Most Muslims I know, like most people I know, are basically good. My fantasy is that one day we will be able to creat a country, perhaps on another planet, called Fanatica, where all the idealists and never-yielders can live and tear each other to shreds and leave decent, normal human beings in peace.

>>>>>>I don't think 'idealism' is the problem per se; i think it is the *willingness to use violence* to force one's ideals on others that is the problem. That is why i am such a strong proponent of using the most careful, studied judgement before committing our troops to war. There's no free lunch, and there's no free violence.


Optimism is our only option. Leaving "cold turkey" will lead to a bloodbath, and we will be (correctly) held accountable for that by the entire world.

>>>>It's *already* a blood bath. No one can say for sure what will happen, my guess is that we're going to declare victory and bail pretty soon anyway, so we'll find out.

Later.

[Uzybone]

97. Excellent!

this was a masterful post. Well said.

[curse10]

125. Padraig is the last DUer to be following Kerry blindly

I remember going a few rounds with him during the primary season over Kerry.

But, unlike some of his counterparts, Padraig is smart enough to realize that there are bigger things at stake here.

[Padraig18]

161. Thanks!

Aye, I've not lost sight of the forest for the trees. :hi:

[TLDHOME99]

118. well said, Padraig

:toast:

[WI_DEM]

29. you're right, of course

which is why I supported Dean. The only reason I will vote for Kerry in November is because of the Supreme Court--and hope his judgement on this issue is better than it was on Iraq.

[clicketyrick]

31. WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE

You nailed it, Zo. At what point did the Democrat bosses decide that we were going to out-Bush Bush on this war? So far the only difference I can find between Bush and Kerry are that Kerry would call Chirac and Schroder before bombing Iraq (or Syria or North Korea or Iran or Iraq again when we don't like whose in charge there in two years). And if he REALLY wants to bomb somebody, all he has to say is "I won't give a veto to France over our national security" <just search that speech for "veto" and check out the proof!> and he can hit the button. Hell, Kerry's already said he won't pull our soldiers out of that mess. He's not even Bush Lite on this. He's just Bush.

But unlike the antichoicers, WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE here. June 5 is the Platform Committee's meeting on ***NATIONAL SECURITY.*** It's in Baton Rogue. We need to start NOW and let the DNC know that our party isn't just going to become DICK Cheney's mouthpiece. Start calling them at 202-863-8000.

This party is run by the DNC NOT THE DLC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's not let Terry Mcauliff forget that this is a DEMOCRATIC party.

[newyawker99]

35. Hi clicketyrick!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[zoeyfong]

46. Yes, the value of victory is diminished when it comes through compromising

the integrity of the party.

[dkamin]

32. that's stupid

The main question here ought to be: would President Kerry have invaded Iraq, knowing what Bush knew?

This is the same tired BS that Nader supporters were spinning in 2000- "Gore is the same as Bush".

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

39. Excellent point

Of course he wouldn't have invaded. But the anti-Kerry crowd pretends not to understand this.

[CTLawGuy]

60. but he DID

allow Bush to invade Iraq...


Let me know HOW he tried to stop him, post-IWR, once he knew Bush was going to invade without the UN?

He didn't do shit! Because the war was popular and Kerry is a DLC shill.

Don't tell me there's nothing he could do. He could have supported Kennedy's repeal of IWR bill. He could have introduced one of his own. I understand it couldnt have been expected to work, but the gesture would have been in the right place.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

64. As you said, he could have made a futile gesture

And he did not. I agree.

Despite this extraordinarily huge, hyper-monumental blunder, I still cling to the notion that Kerry will be a much better president than Bush.

Feel free to disagree.

[CTLawGuy]

75. I dont disagree,

but he should have at least TRIED to stop Bush. At least, then we would know that he was on our side.

[zoeyfong]

48. Kerry knew all he needed to know. There was such an obvious pattern

of deception and exaggeration from the bush admin leading up to the war, that alone should have caused kerry to withhold his support. You don't follow a known liar into war based on information that he claims only he has. As many have pointed out, if half the world knew this war was a disastrous fraud in the making, why didn't kerry know???!!!!

[troublemaker]

34. In answer to your question

"what issue, if any, would cause the ABBers here to withhold their support for a candidate."

No issue I know of unless you just want to play games... Kerry will require everyone to eat live babies, etc..

If you accept that a failure to vote for Kerry is operationally the same as voting for Bush then your question should be: "What issue could make you vote for Bush." That a much simpler way of phrasing your question, and the answer is NOTHING. There is no conceivable action or statement that could make me vote for Bush.

If you *do not* accept that failing to vote for Kerry is de facto voting for Bush then our disagreement lies there, not with any issue.

[zoeyfong]

50. If not voting for kerry is voting for bush, then isn't not voting for bush

actually voting for kerry?

[LoZoccolo]

57. No.

There's your answer.

[CTLawGuy]

62. Ok,

Ill tell my repub friend that he'll actually have to vote for Bush to get him elected then, thanks :eyes:

[JVS]

143. Your statement is logically correct.

[DerekG]

36. The line would be drawn at a pro-life stance...

I'm voting for Kerry because I fear the dispensationalist theology of Bush. But my disgust for the future nominee is comparable.

The unfortunate thing about the Democrat partisans is that their candidate can be complicit in unleashing a war that has killed and deformed THOUSANDS of human beings, who insists that we "stay the course", but they draw the line at Roe v. Wade. That is their litmus test.

Hey folks, put down your copies of the Handmaid's Tale and start reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X--he makes a wonderful wolf/fox analogy regarding the '64 race between Goldwater and Johnson. Of course, he was proven correct.

Just you watch, zoeyfong. By this time next year, President Kerry will preside over mounting troop casualties, and the loyalists here will scramble to defend him.

It will be a pathetic sight.

[sangh0]

40. Anyone who needs a "line" drawn for them

should be given a lesson in how to think for themselves.

[zoeyfong]

45. I notice you didn't answer the question. Maybe you need to learn to

think for yourself, and after that you could move on to developing some morals and a conscience. Since you didn't answer the question, are we to conclude that there is nothing a democrat could do that would cause you not to vote for them (other than switching their party registration)?

If the only thing dems stand for is being slightly less bad than republicans, then what happens if republicans get worse and worse and move farther and farther right? Will dems just trail along behind them, all the while smugly claiming "Hey, at least we're better than them?" I am far from being a starry-eyed idealist, but as i said, if dems don't draw the line at support for Iraqmire, where do they draw it?

And what if, in order to acheive each future "victory," we choose to sacrafice one more fundamental principle? What will we have in the end? Wouldn't it be better to take principled stands and do the work to advocate for their eventual success, even if it meant losses in the short term?

Btw Sang0, why don't you spare us the personal insults in the future.

[sangh0]

65. I'm not a single-issue voter

There is no one issue on which I demand compliance. Instead, I look at the totality of a candidates record and policies. I don't need any "magic formula" for deciding if I should support a candidate. I evaluate each and every one by considering ALL of the relevant facts.

Btw Sang0, why don't you spare us the personal insults in the future.

Since it was directed at no specific individual, I suggest you review the definiton of "personal insult"

[zoeyfong]

92. If you give up a 'single issue' of this magnitude every 4 years, pretty

soon there won't be a whole lot of 'issues' left. As i said, what if repugs keep moving farther and farther right, and dem politicians know they can always count on dem votes as long as our candidate is 'better than the alternative?' Then what? Jeezus H. Christ, is there nothing you will take a stand on? I mean it's one thing if you supported the war so you agree with kerry's decision, but its another if you opposed it and just his war support slide. What's next? A republican runnning mate? Oh yeah, they already tried that. And if McCain had said yes, you know full well he'd be on the ticket right now.

[sangha]

99. It's the single-issue voters who are surrendering

They, and you, give up consideration of every issue but their one.

And if McCain had said yes, you know full well he'd be on the ticket right now.

I find this bald-faced lie typical of your posting style. You have no idea what I know, but that won't stop you from claiming you do.

[zoeyfong]

104. I think you misunderstand.

What i was saying was that if we elect dems who give up a *major* issue, even if it's just a 'single issue,' if we do that every four years, there won't be much point in being a democrat (or an American) after a while.

Let's say this year we let the war slide; then in 2008 kerry decides he really doesn't support abortion rights (and since we don't want to be 'single-issue' voters, we go ahead and re-elect him); there goes abortion rights. In 2012, the VP runs, and he decides that since america is a 'judeo-christian' country, there's nothing wrong with (christian) prayer in the schools and public funding of christian churches. But again, we don't want to be 'single-issue' voters, so we elect him. There goes religious freedom. In 2016 he runs for re-election on a platform of repealing the civil rights act of 1964; again we figure it would be silly to refuse to vote democrat because of this one little thing, so we send him back for another term, and civil rights go out the door. And so on, and so on.

Far-fetched? Maybe, but my whole point is that *somewhere, sometime* you have to draw the line and say "No more. I will not support this candidate." And if the time is not now, then i say "When?"

[sangh0]

148. NO, you misunderstand due to your ideological blinders

You seem to think that if one CHOOSES to not focus on a specific issue (such as war) in a certain year (say 2004), that one can never change their minds later on, and decide to speak up about it.

You also seem to think that refusing to make it a "hot button" issue also means that one must completely stop caring about the issue at all.

So your whole idea about the accumulation of forgotten issues is not "far-fetched"; It's just plain ole' delusional. It has no basis in reality.

[zoeyfong]

150. Whatever. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[sangh0]

152. I suggest taking your meds

You're getting incoherent.

[zoeyfong]

158. Ooooh, ridicule. You still haven't named *one* principle that you

would not sacrifice in the name of winning. That pretty much makes my point.

[sangh0]

162. You will sacrifice EVERY issue but one

I sacrifice NONE.

And it's obvious that the only line you've drawn is "voting for Kerry". You would sacrifice everything to keep people from voting for Kerry.

[AmyStrange]

167. YOU've obviously sacrificed logic...

where is the rockbed of logic that helps you reach the conclusion that
the thread starter, "would sacrifice everything to keep people from voting for Kerry"?

I hope this type of "non-logic" isn't an example of the technique you are using to get people fired up about voting for Kerry?

I don't think it's going to work.

Repeat after me:
Ignorance is bliss but won't help get Kerry into the White House in January.

Now get out there and really help get Kerry elected and quit fooling around!!!! hahahahahahahahaha

d

[Tarheel_Dem]

168. well, you obviously sacrificed logic as well......

that is...if you backed another "democratic" candidate. where is he/she now? obviously, people weren't buying what you were selling either. ;(

[AmyStrange]

169. Nope, wrong again...

(EDITED out emoticon)

I never ridiculed or insulted or harrassed anyone to vote for my guy (gal). That's what I think is just plain illogical and won't help convert anyone to your way of thinking, but that's what many people here do thinking that will get people to vote for Kerry ;(

I personally think they do it not to convert, but because they are just plain mean,

d

[TLDHOME99]

117. zoeyfong, please read my post # 111

What is so hard for people to figure out? :shrug: Kerry had no way of knowing that Bush would use the resolution to go straight to war. He thought Bush would do as he said he would do, and exhaust all other alternatives first.

[zoeyfong]

142. Can we please put the "Kerry trusted Bush" cannard to rest?

First of all, there's no way this can be proven, one way or the other, and i just don't buy it. Just as Bush had demonstrated a pattern of deception leading up the IWR vote which should have caused Kerry to be very skeptical, so Kerry has demonstrated a pattern of trying to have it all ways on every issue, and this causes me to believe that his vote was a little more calculated than you suggest.

Secondly, *millions of people* around the world saw what Bush was up to from day one. How could Kerry *not* have known????!!!!! There were so many credible sources from within the intelligence communities speaking out and saying that the pro-war case is being greatly spun up and exaggerated (Joe Wilson, anyone?), such that john kerry should have approached that vote with *maximum skepticism,* anything less is a dereliction of his duty to his country.

Thirdly, the resolution leaves it up to Bush to decide when the UN route has been exhausted, and again, it was known to the whole world that Bush held the UN in contempt, and there was no way he was going to let the UN stop him from doing what he wanted to do. And as we know, kerry has tried to make a campaign selling point of his position that he will not give the UN 'veto power' over US national security (as if the other dems would), so why did he expect Bush to let the UN decide whether we went to war? *And* the vote was taken against a backdrop of troops being put on notice to prepare for moblization, and with increasing hostile activity occurring in the no-fly zone. The writing was on the wall in letters big enough to be seen from outer space.

Lastly, will someone who seriously believes that kerry was 'misled' please tell me why a man this dangerously naieve should be trusted to run this country?

[TLDHOME99]

144. Oh, I think you'd rather see Bush run the country

Why else would you stubbornly cling to a belief that Kerry acted disingenuously?

You a closet Repug, Zoey?

What really gives here? 'Cause I don't buy that you are that convinced that Kerry was in collusion with Bush.

I am a pretty smart lady, and when the resolution came about, I didn't think we would go to war either. I wasn't privy to the discussions that took place in Bush cabinet meetings within days of taking office, when he said from the get-go he wanted Iraq on a silver platter. No doubt neither was Kerry.

So I was naive enough to believe that there were WMD, and that there was good reason to go to war (after all other alternatives were exhausted). Was I in collusion with Bush too?

Either let it go, chalk it up to a mistake, or vote for Bush. What choice do you have? Still want Dean as president? Not gonna Happen. Kucinich? Not gonna happen. So it is Kerry or Bush. Take your pick.

Why don't you tell me, please, what is the real reason for this tirade of yours? I don't want to believe that you diss Kerry in order to have all of us turn against him at the polls over principle. That does not make logical sense.

Please present a viable alternative to Kerry, or darlin, pipe down.

If you can't come up with a solution to the problem, why continue this thread. Just to have something to argue about? I really wanna know.

[blm]

41. The IWR didn't start the war. Bush did.

Only Bush enablers blame the IWR because it prevents the truth being known that Bush didn't IMPLEMENT the IWR honestly. If he had, the use of force would have been unnecessary.

Bush skates because too many of the naive blame the IWR and those who voted for it as a distraction from his dishonest deviation from the actual IWR.

[incapsulated]

42. Exactly.

What blm said.

Do I wish that Kerry and the rest of the Dems that voted for the IWR had not? Of course. Do I think that Kerry realizes his mistake? Yes. And I believe he will do his best to redeem himself if he is elected.

[CTLawGuy]

61. then where was the accountability

for Bush's supposed "violation" of IWR? Why didnt Kerry or anyone else try to hold him accountable. It WAS the law after all. Doesn't the president have to obey the law?

[blm]

63. Kerry called for an investigation into the Iraq intel in June 2003.

Right before the Wilson editorial. Surely you must have noticed.

[CTLawGuy]

76. that was about the time

the war was starting to go badly...

What was Kerry doing in March 2003, as Fox News was covering the explosions of US bombs in Baghdad?

[ACK]

157. Silly ... he was saying Regime change begins at home

And being widely criticized for it, smart ass.

[sangh0]

66. Election Day 2004

for a politician, Election Day is the day of accountability

[flpoljunkie]

67. Never better put! And all the while insisting, "War is my last resort."

The most damnable flip-flopping broken promise of them all!

[zoeyfong]

86. You two really just fell off the turnip truck, didn't you.

[sangha]

100. IMO, the one who can't refute the point, and only uses name-calling

is the one who fell off the turnip truck

[Tarheel_Dem]

113. didn't you just excoriate sangh0...

for allegedly insulting people? really...."turnip truck"? :wtf:

see post #45.

[AmyStrange]

129. What's wrong with turnips?

Edit:
Why are you implying that falling off a turnip truck is an insult?

And, what exactly are you saying about all the people that grow, sell, and eat the stuff? I love turnips and the people who bring them to my table especially the one's driving those turnip trucks,






sig:
"The Truth knows no master" - AmyStrange said to me in a dream

10) And best of all, check these out:

the "First Seven Days Underground" by Skinner:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/01/010127_7days.html
mirror pages:
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-1.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-2.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-3.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-4.html


the best "unofficial" DU slang Dictionary in the world:
http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org /





Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person related news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org /


Serious serial killer news and
discussion at the "Serial Killer Cafe":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe /

[Tarheel_Dem]

139. really amy........

i'll make this short & sweet; i don't know you, but judging from prior posts, i'm sure i'm not missing much. you're dismissed.

[AmyStrange]

155. hahahahaha...

good idea. Ignorance sure is bliss ain't it,

d

[sangh0]

156. We wouldn't know

We'll just have to take your word on that

[AmyStrange]

166. Thanks for proving my point...

By the way, how's your technique for getting folks to vote for Kerry working? I'm sure Kerry's already got the moving vans packed for when he moves into the White House this January because of it...

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

d

[sangh0]

170. SInce Kerry is leading Bush*

I'd say that if I had anything to do with it, that means my technique is working fine, and if not, then my technique certainly isn't hurting the effort.

[AmyStrange]

171. Not in ALL polls....

but of course if you want to ignore polls that don't favor Kerry...

Ignorance certainly is bliss,

d

[sangh0]

173. In ALL polls

Kerry's #'s have been increasing from where they were before the IA primaries.

[AmyStrange]

175. Wrong again...

Not ALL polls. Again you ignore the facts.

d

[sangha]

182. In ALL polls

Kerry's #'s have increased since before the IA caucus.

And I'm not surprised that a dialogue with you has devolved into "No it's not. Yes it is"

[AmyStrange]

189. Not in ALL THESE polls...

that are listed here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

and if you'll notice, he actually has been going down in some of the polls since IA. Those are the real facts and not MADE-UP facts,

d

(edited THESE to ALL THESE)

[bushwakker]

43. If Kerry were elected president in 2000 we would not be in Iraq

Voting to give the POTUS the authority to go to war does not mean Kerry would have invaded Iraq. Please go away.

[Dr Fate]

49. I dont blame Kerry's vote- this was the George Bush show...

...now is not the time to blame DEMS...

[zoeyfong]

51. So if one gang member says "Hey, let's beat up that old lady," and the

other ones go along, the ones who went along shouldn't be blamed because it was the first guy's idea? Jeezus H. Christ, that kind of thinking is exactly what got us into this mess. Congress sensed a mob-mentality brewing among the people, and the morally weak among them decided that the "safe" decision was to go along, because even if the war went bad they knew they would not be held responsible.

[Dr Fate]

52. I'm voting straight Democratic in November...

...you do what you want.

[CTLawGuy]

58. good post

If we're all supposed to trust the president, then lets get rid of democracy and have a dictatorship, or at least get rid of Congress.


the worst part of this, is that if Kerry is successful, then the dems will do it AGAIN next time an IWR comes up. They will support it without hesitation, because they know it will not cost them with us, the base.

Congress needs to start acting like a co-equal branch of government and not a rubber stamp. Acting like a co-equal branch means MAKING SURE the president uses our military properly, NOT giving him the authority to use the military whenever he wants and hoping he does it right. As a member of the minority party, Kerry had a duty to vote against the resolution unless he truly believed that Bush was right to use force.

[IA_Young_Dem]

59. The problem with the war is how Bush is handling it,

not how kerry voted.

[Guaranteed]

108. Nuh uh. nt

[sampsonblk]

68. I agree

But I am going to vote for Kerry anyway. He's right. We don't count for shit, because we can't vote for Bush. We are stuck. What really sucks is that we are the majority of the Dem party! But we don't count for shit.

[Sparkly]

69. "This is the song that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends,

some people started singing it not knowing what it was,
and they'll contine singing it forever just because this is the song that never ends..."

Yes, the IWR vote is "water under the bridge." No, there's nothing that can be done about it now. Yes, Kerry will be the party's nominee. No, there's nothing that can be done about it now.

So when will threads on these same themes ever end?

[robbedvoter]

70. Would you settle for 1/2 a ticket anti-war? I would because I think

in terms of 16 years. First, clean up after W, then set off in the right direction.

[dolstein]

71. Are you a Democrat?

Sorry, but I couldn't help but wonder. If you were a Democrat, you'd know that John Kerry was the overwhelming choice of rank and file Democrats who participated in primaries and caucuses against the country. Hey, I didn't get my first choice either. I wanted Edwards. But I'm not about to throw my vote away on a third party candidate simply because I don't agree with Kerry on every issue. You may think he's too much of a hawk. Personally, I think Kerry's too liberal. But I'll still vote for him, for the simple reason that American cannot afford another four years of Bush, and Kerry is the only candidate in a position to defeat him.

[robbedvoter]

83. You wanted Lieberman! And the poster has a point.

Although in the end we'll all vote the Dem nominee - the process is not even formally closed.

[dolstein]

95. I voted for Edwards! And you've missed the point!

Would I have preferred Lieberman to Kerry? Damn right I would! But I voted for Edwards, and, if you had bothered to read any of my countless pro-Edwards posts, I had decided well before Lieberman dropped out of the race that Edwards was the strongest candidate in the field.

And for the record, I would have preferred Clark and Gephardt to Kerry as well. Kerry was, at best, my fifth choice.

And sorry, your post completely missed the point -- which is that some DU'ers will NOT vote for Kerry because he isn't as antiwar as they want him to be. These litmus test left-wingers will once again throw their vote away on Nadir and help re-elect Bush. Sorry, but as a moderate Democrat who considers voting for Kerry to be a huge compromise, and will end up voting for him nonetheless, I'll call it as I see it -- these people are nothing more than a bunch of spoiled brats who won't be happy unless the Democrats nominate someone who is completely unelectable.

[zoeyfong]

87. I have been a democrat all my life, but i'm seriously thinking about

switching to independent. Experience is on the verge of triumphing over hope.

[dolstein]

101. What's the point of switching to independent?

At least in certain states, being an independent means that you won't be able to vote in the Democratic primaries. Which means you won't be able to influence the selection of Democratic candidates.

[zoeyfong]

105. Well, i'd have to look into that.

[bushgottago]

74. Well - Dean was my first choice ....

But - Kerry = Not BUSH!

[JHBowden]

79. You guys said the same shit about Gore.

Now it is being done to Kerry. :mad:

[CTLawGuy]

80. Gore never did anything

that comes remotely close to voting for IWR... which was the height of cowardice, or stupidity...

[zoeyfong]

88. Not. I voted for Gore, and i'd love to vote for him again.

[kiahzero]

81. What should Kerry have done?

Of his options, I stand by my analysis that he chose the best option available.

Many of you have forgotten - Bush was saying that he didn't need authorization from Congress to go into Iraq, that the authorization from the first Gulf War was enough.

The IWR put limits on the deployment of troops - limits that would not be present without a resolution. This was vastly superior to Bush using the 30 day window under the War Powers Act to invade Iraq, and possibly conflicts in Iran or Syria (remember, some of our troops had border incidents with Syrian troops).

If some posters here had their way, Kerry would reflexively say "no!" to any resolution whatsoever; this would have prevented him from having any sort of voice in what actually was placed in the resolution.

[zoeyfong]

89. Who cares what was in the resolution, since it was nothing but ass-

cover for congress. Everybody knew Bush was going to war once he got it, which is exactly why kerry should have voted no. At least then his own hands would be clean, even if bush went ahead with the war. As it is now, the war happened, and kerry's in up to his elbows.

[kiahzero]

90. I was not "nothing but asscover"

It limited the scope of the war to Iraq and Iraq only. Without it, I wouldn't be surprised if the Administration went into Syria to hunt for the missing WMDs.

[dfgrbac]

102. The Party should pay attention to Dennis.

Dennis Kucinich is steadily gaining support. That his "support" was so low going into the primaries is more about how our mass media functions than about Dennis Kucinich's message. As voters hear his message, his support grows!

The Democratic Party cannot continue to support a military-industrial empire over the people (its base constituency) without failing!

[dolstein]

103. Sorry, but I have a hard time taking this seriously

The only reason Dennis is "gaining" support is because every other challenger to Kerry has dropped out of the race. In addition, turnout has declined significantly because everyone except Dennis recognizes that the nomination has been settled.

[PVnRT]

107. We can do two things

Wait and pray for some savior to arrive at the convention, then miraculously win over enough votes in three months to win in November

OR

We can accept the fact that Kerry has since changed his stance on the war, that this is not a bad thing, and move on to defeat Bush.

I'm not a huge Kerry fan either, but those are the choices, and I'm going with the latter.

[DrFunkenstein]

109. I Disagreed With Kerry's Vote, Not His Position

You can't compare Kerry's vote with being anti-abortion or anti-civil rights. It would be more like him voting in the past for an anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice. Which would piss me off to no end (Kerry, in fact, voted for Scalia but no conservatives since), but it wouldn't make me think that he would appoint such a person himself.

Kerry, like too many Democrats, gave too much power to Bush. I do not disagree with that assessment, but it is extremely difficult to consider him "pro-war". If he was in charge, there would be no way in hell that we would have ever gone in the first place.

[TLDHOME99]

111. Kerry didn't know back then that Bush was lying about WMD

He also thought that war in Iraq would be a last resort after exhausting all other alternatives.

Bush tried to convince everyone that there was an immediate threat to the US from Iraq. Back then it wasn't as clear just how evil Bush is, and how much he was willing to lie to get into Iraq. Kerry is not clairvoyant.

I don't understand why a politician is not allowed to change his mind in this country. Once Kerry understood that he had been lied to along with the rest of us, he spoke out strongly against the war in Iraq.

"Bush sidestepped process on war in Iraq, Kerry says"

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030721-103628-1890r.htm

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry yesterday said President Bush "circumvented" the process laid out in the congressional resolution authorizing action against Iraq, which Mr. Kerry supported in the Senate last year.
Mr. Kerry, of Massachusetts, said the president promised to build the international coalition, work through the United Nations and go to war as a last resort.
"It is clear now that he didn't do that sufficiently," Mr. Kerry told reporters in a telephone conference call yesterday.
He said the Iraq war resolution supported Mr. Bush exhausting diplomatic efforts before going to war, and working through the United Nations.
"The president circumvented that process," he said, adding that Mr. Bush "did not give full meaning to the words 'last resort.'Â "
Mr. Kerry defended his Senate vote in favor of the Iraq resolution, however, saying it was the right vote, "based on the information that we were given."
He said he voted for it with the expectation that the United States would build an international coalition and exhaust other remedies before attacking. He said he was not voting to give Mr. Bush permission "to make an end run around the United Nations."

[Tarheel_Dem]

114. thanks TLDHOME99....

and welcome to DU. I've decided that some on this discussion board are here merely to stir up shit, posing as anti-war lefties or they truly believe there's no difference between kerry & bush. either way, they're pretty insufferable. but stick around & enjoy. there are plenty of savvy posters here (like yourself) who take the anti-kerry crowd to task daily.


:hi:

[TLDHOME99]

116. thanks for the welcome, tarheel

[DrFunkenstein]

120. Kerry Didn't Know The Intelligence Community Was Shirking Their Duty

Alot of what was coming down the pike was straight out of the Chalabi club and the CIA, bowing to pressure from Cheney, didn't properly vet the intelligence. Just think about Tenet's silence (and later backtracking) on the Yellowcake scandal. If Wilson hadn't blown the whistle publicly, the CIA would have just let it pass as fact. Shameful.

[tinanator]

121. you call that shirking?

why do I think they all got bonuses and raises?

[DrFunkenstein]

122. They Do "Serve At The Pleasure of The President"

[curse10]

124. Welcom to DU TLDHOME99!!

:hi:

and great post!

[TLDHOME99]

126. thanks for the welcome, curse

:hi:

[no name no slogan]

130. Waitaminute-- after 2000, Kerry didn't know Bush was a LIAR?

Come on now! Even us rubes in the sticks knew damn well that Bush COULD NOT be trusted. And what about 20 million people in the streets, throughout the world, who KNEW that Bush didn't have a leg to stand on? Were those 20mil somehow more knowledgeable about the situation than a respected United States Senator?

The whole "I trusted Bush" excuse is a total cop-out. Most of the Democrats in the US House did NOT "trust" Bush with his WMD claims, as they voted AGAINST the IWR, despite Geph's photo-op on the White House lawn. So did a number of Senators, who knew better than to trust a man who stole a presidential election in 2000.

Kerry does NOTHING to gain credibility with voters by sticking up for a wrong vote, and spinning it into something it never was. It was a purely political vote, as he knew he'd be pilloried by the press and Repubs on the campaign trail as being "unpatriotic" for not supporting this useless war.

If he were to come out and say, "My IWR vote was WRONG. I made a mistake, and I deeply regret that I did not do more to keep Shrub from invading Iraq", he'd gain several points in courage in the eyes of most Americans. But, seeing as he's quite adept at politico-speak, I won't hold my breath.

Even so, I can live with a candidate who voted the "wrong way" on the IWR. However, his plan for continuing the occupation of Iraq is almost enough to send me looking elsewhere.

Kerry's "occupation" plan for Iraq is little different from the one supported by the Shrub administration. He wants more troops, if necessary, to "stabilize" the country, so he can put those "desk jockeys" to work in combat and "security". He will not relinquish military control of Iraq to ANYBODY else, except to the ever-shrinking "coalition of the willing". His plan will keep us in Iraq until at least 2008, at the earliest. He's more than willing to make Iraq a Democratic War.

Yeah, sure, I'll vote for him, because I'm a Democrat. However, he's going to have a hard time convincing people he's actually different from Shrub on this war if he doesn't make some principled stands-- and soon.

[sampsonblk]

133. I knew it, and Kerry has access to better info than I have!

This excuse is not believable at all. And the voters are not buying it any more than I do.

[union_maid]

135. I knew that Bush was evil.

I knew it at the same time that some of the left was saying that he and Gore were the same deal. I knew that choosing the lesser of two evils, even if you believed that Gore was one of the evils, could wind up being a matter of life and death. Enough people on the left disagreed with me to provide a nail in the coffin of Gore's candidacy. Bush wound up in the White House and a lot of people have died. Does that mean that everyone who voted for Nader was equally culpable in all these deaths because I knew better? Just wondering. Kerry's vote would have been meaningless. Nader's candidacy was not.

[sampsonblk]

149. Nader? How'd he get into this?

Fault anyone who voted for Bush, anyone who didn't complain (Nader sure did) and anyone who voted for this war. No excuses. Anyone should have known it was a scam. Hello? This is the same admin that hired John Poindexter. We shouldn' take their word for anything.

[AmyStrange]

123. Kerry is an idiot...

but he's OUR idiot and we are stuck with him.

And you'll notice most people didn't answer your question, but rather attacked what they thought you meant. Or rather, they just want everyone to shut up about what's wrong with Kerry. It will show division in our party which will be seen as a weakness and will lead to Kerry's loss in November.

Most of those people sit on this board like vultures looking for post like yours so they can browbeat and harras and insult the thread starter into just shutting up. Most of those people will insult you just vaguely enough (in Kerry's name) so they don't get purged, and then swing back at you with self-righteous idignation for doing what they did.

These are the people who will lose the election for Kerry and not people like you. Personally I believe we should vote for Kerry now and THEN work to change his mind after he is elected.

But I also have no problem with folks like you who have questions. Keep asking those questions my friend. Don't let some people pull a Bush reversal on you by making you feel that you are against us if you ask questions,





sig:
"The Truth knows no master" - AmyStrange said to me in a dream

10) And best of all, check these out:

the "First Seven Days Underground" by Skinner:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/01/010127_7days.html
mirror pages:
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-1.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-2.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-3.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-4.html


the best "unofficial" DU slang Dictionary in the world:
http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/





Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person related news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/


Serious serial killer news and
discussion at the "Serial Killer Cafe":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

132. He's not Howard Dean

who was unwavering and unequivocal in his opposition to the war, as I was. However, he has the core values that I relate to, and he is a measured thinker who will readily admit that, in hindsight, his vote was wrong. Wow, a fallible human being, who admits a mistake. More importantly, he is a war veteran who has killed others in service to his country, and will not take the matter of war lightly. Unlike Howard Dean, his vote had an impact, and he obviously felt that our national security was paramount. I also believe John Kerry, along with many of his Democratic colleagues, never believed that GWB would launch a preemptive attack, without UN support, going against 300 years of US international policy. Please forgive him his human foibles, and welcome his willingness to admit that his faith was misplaced.

mkj

[AmyStrange]

136. Yeah so?

What does that have to do with Kerry being our idiot that we're stuck with? We have to make the best of it don't you think?

Why bring Howard Dean into it? What does he have to do with my post or this thread?

d

[AmyStrange]

138. Sorry about the rant mkj...

in my earlier post. After rereading your post, I realized you were trying to be nice and I shouldn't have dumped on you,

d

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

146. No problem d

Whenever I think of all the Dems rolling over and voting for the war resolution in Oct. 02, I get so frustrated. Howard Dean really resonated with me, because he called those Dems (including Kerry) on it, as he should have. I am unequivocal in my belief that John Kerry is a HUGE improvement over Bush, though, and I accept that he is sincere in the regrets he has since expressed regarding his role in approving the resolution. MKJ

[zoeyfong]

140. Thanks; one look at where "ABC" got us should convince dems *and*

republicans that it is probably not a good idea to throw principle and standards out the window in the name of winning.

[Hippo_Tron]

128. Small steps...

Kerry right now needs to win an election. Once he's in the white house he'll be the new commander in chief, head of the executive branch, and he'll have a veto pen. If we get Kerry a democratic congress and get him re-elected THEN we will have a good shot at a very progressive agenda.

[no name no slogan]

131. I only hope you're right, because we heard the same thing in 1992...

Clinton was the savior that time. Remember how we all thought that the 12-year Reagan/Bush nightmare was over? We had a Democratic president, and a Democratic congress. Clinton promised universal healthcare and an end to anti-gay discrimination in the military.

What did we get? A half-assed attempt at health care that only the President and big insurance companies could love. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which has actually made it worse for GLBT people in the military.

Not to mention "welfare reform", NAFTA, "Most favored nation" trade status with China, an alarmingly large growth in the gap between the rich and poor, further erosion of the middle class, and an economic agenda that Milton Freidman would die for.

Sorry if this sounds pessimistic, but many of us of the leftish persuasion have been hearing these same arguments for the last thirty years. "First, elect a Democratic president. Then it will all get better." Unfortunately that's not how it works. Kerry owes a lot of people a lot of favors, and most of them are NOT poor or working people.

I would honestly like Kerry to become the most progressive president we've ever elected, but the more he says lately, the less hopeful I get. Sure, he may be "going to the center" to get elected, but when the so-called "center" is to the right of Richard Nixon, there's no point in it. Kerry needs to worry less about being a wimp on war and "national defense" and be a warrior on fair trade, livable wage jobs, an end to imperialism abroad, and a defense strategy based on REAL defense, not expeditionary wars.

I know he could do it-- if he truly wanted to. He's got the courage to do this. He just needs to stop listening to his "advisers" and start listening to America, instead.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

134. You are so right, no name

I was in the military during the Reagan years, and was horrified by the treatment of gays (the investigative arm of the military spent lots of manpower and money to "out" and discharge some of the most honorable people I ever served with) during my enlistment. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a poor compromise, and the Welfare reform bill that was passed during Clinton's tenure just about put me over the edge. However, Clinton was an outsider, in the cross hairs of Republicans and insider Democrats alike, and had an uphill battle the whole way. Kerry has established many relationships within Washington, and, as the Chief Executive, could broker far more than Clinton could ever dream of. Furthermore, Kerry is a literate and studied individual,who, in the last few decades of his life,I believe, will appreciate that the impact of his presidency will transcend the current times and opinions. He is a student of Socrates and Caesar, as well as Jefferson, Adams, Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy (both late brothers). I long for an educated and humane person to again occupy the White House, and Kerry is all of the above.

[quaker bill]

137. I am willing to buy

all the stuff about Kerry trusting Bush*, even though to my mind this causes me to question his abilty to judge character.

Here is the damn problem then:

Kerry is simply offering no solution that Bush cannot accomplish a reasonable facsimile of. By November we will have a "soveriegn" Iraqi government calling for our help, and a UN resolution backing up our providing assistance.

Because of this the war will be more or less off the table as an issue. This is true simply because there will be little immediately tangible difference between their policies. I am not saying that there would not be a difference between them, but nuanced arguments do not win elections. Bold policy differences do. There will be no bold and obvious policy difference on the war. Bush will not allow this election to be decided on this issue, if he does, he knows he will lose.

The economy is recovering. Bush and Greenspan have poured enough gasoline on it to get it rolling again.

The Saudi's will dump enough crude on the market to drive gas prices down.

This is going to be a very close race. There is absolutely no excuse for it, but the majority have chosen. They have chosen the candidate uniquely qualified to lose to Bush. Why is Kerry so qualified? Because his IWR vote prevents him from going to places Bush cannot follow. Why do you think Bush went to congress in the first place? Remember, initially the administration argued that they did not need the resolution.

Rove wanted this vote to take the teeth out of the likely Democratic opposition in 2004 and to have a strong hand in 2002. By selecting a member of congress that voted on this issue, we have played right into their hand. If Kerry had voted against IWR he would be "weak on the war on terror", since he voted for it, his ability to criticise is limited. It was designed as the perfect win-win scenario by Karl Rove.

The real threat was when it looked like we would pick someone who had not played the game.

[zoeyfong]

141. Yep; i knew when Repugs were saying "We hope dems pick Dean"

that Dean was the *last* candidate they wanted to run against.

[On the Road]

145. Kerry Didn't Actively Oppose the War

but made a safe vote with the majority that he could play either way depending on the results. I don't particularly like that, but it's very different from supporting the war.

Edwards, on the other hand, has been an unapologetic supporter of the war. That's a different matter, that's why I hope he does not get the VP nod.

[Malva Zebrina]

147. Just politics to the level we have sunk--very sleazy and low

those who voted to give an idiot a blank check, must have known he was an idiot, must have realized his intentions, and, imo, pretended to believe the WMD threats. They must have been living in an underground bunker for it was quite evident to millions and million and a handful of honest congresspersons that there were NO WMD.

They choose to bury their head in the sand for political purpses--they reasoned if it fails they could blame Bush, the intelligence community and whoever would be the scapegoat, and we see this happening as we speak, and if it suceeded they could take credit. I do not and will not ever believe they were duped by Bush-or Tenet. We knew about Chalabi and if they did not they are really woodenheaded fools, which they are not-they were playing that game--and why were they playing the game? Because a great deal of many people in this country were out for blood, out for revenge, they believed Saddam was responsible for 9-11 even though letters to their office urging restraint outnumbered those for the invasion.

and, the other reason, and this is really I think at the bottom of it much as I hate to say it, but there seems no other reason that makes this much sense--they actually wanted to occupy Iraq and get that oil just as much as Bush did and they were willing to let him make the mistakes and be responsible for all the deaths. They wanted in their heart of hearts to, occupy the place, get all the business people settled in and whoever wins the election gets to oversee it all-gets to actually rope in for America all of that booty.

There were only a handful who managed to preserve and maintain their honesty and integrity, and morals.

Kerry put himself into a corner by doing this, because he cannot give it away that he would like to run Iraq as much as Bush so he cannot appeal to those of us who abhored a stupid man, an inarticulate prick, invading a country on lies. But the rub is that we will have to vote for him because Bush is worse--he knows that.

I do not like this situation much at all--it is uncomfortable.

[zoeyfong]

151. Right on, except for the "Vote for Kerry anyway' part.

[sangh0]

153. It seems your only line is "Don't vote for Kerry"

.

[Tarheel_Dem]

154. ahhhhhh....you finally got to the point........

i & others in this thread have wondered what your agenda was, and now we know. i feel so much better. is your intent to create enough apathy and/or doubt on this board so that noone here supports kerry? well, nice try, but i think most of us are a lot smarter than you give us credit for. i'm not a "sheeple", nor am i "blindly following", and i'm not even a "dlc plant" as some have been accused, i just know that i want george bush out of the white house, and i want JOHN KERRY to replace him.

and i hope between rants, you will at some point, click the "DONATE" button in support of this site, and maybe then i'll take you more seriously.

[zoeyfong]

159. Don't mention morality or integrity, just send money. Classic.

You still haven't offered *one, single thing* that you would take a stand on, or that you would expect the democratic party to take a stand on. I'm sorry if i'm being difficult, but i am just fed up with seeing america and american government turning into one big lying, conniving, back-stabbing, reality tv show. And no, it is not all bush's fault. You can rationalize all you want, but when most people on this website can't name one damn thing that they'd take a stand on, it could be a sign that the democratic party is in trouble.

[Tarheel_Dem]

160. well, i agree with one thing.....

if folks like yourself are representative of the "democratic party" out in the real world, WE ARE DEFINITELY IN TROUBLE. :eyes:

[sangh0]

163. zoeyfong will sacrifice EVERY principle he has

but one - Under no conditions will he vote for Kerry.

[Tarheel_Dem]

165. Agreed..........

but i have my principles too, and to suggest that those of us who actually want Kerry to win haven't studied the candidate and have somehow made the wrong choice is the height of arrogance on the poster's part. i was so glad when he/she got around to the actual point of this thread; 'DON'T VOTE FOR KERRY'. i knew there would be a real hidden gem in all the subterfuge. i'm just glad to finally know where the poster stands.

[AmyStrange]

172. When did the thread starter say not to vote for Kerry?

?

d

[sangh0]

174. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=540681&mesg_id=543329&page=

reading helps

[AmyStrange]

176. Where does he say it there?

you're imagining things again Sangh0. The thread starter doesn't say "Don't Vote for Kerry". Nor did they say they weren't going to vote for Kerry.

Reading certainly does help. Wish more people would do it,

d

[zoeyfong]

179. Well, if i haven't said it before, i'm saying it now. Actually, i guess

i'm not *telling* anybody not to vote for kerry, i am simply saying, consider this point of view and make your own decision.

[AmyStrange]

190. Thank you zoeyfong...

and once again Sangh0 is proven wrong,

d

[zoeyfong]

177. I'll sacrifice every principle? Name one, please. But of course

you're just talking shit because you don't want to admit the truth, which is that you draw the line at nothing. Geez, and *i'm* the bad guy here. I suppose it's my fault because dems chose someone who is either an imbecile or as big of a criminal as bush, and now i won't vote for him, and if enough people like me don't vote for him he'll lose. So it's my fault if kerry loses and shrub screws america even worse. People, please look on the mirror; democrats chose their candidate, and if he loses it is no one's fault but the candidate's and his supporters'. And if he wins, it writes the record of history which says: the democratic party stood side by side with Bush on the Iraq war. You're right about one thing, though, i *won't* be voting for kerry.

[sangha]

183. Here's more than one

1) Energy conservation
2) Abortion

If a candidate has the perfect policy on those two issue, but voted for war, you would sacrifice those two principles in order to vote against the candidate.

[zoeyfong]

192. Okay, so what if those things were tied to, say, the return of slavery..

What if dems offered a candidate who was pro-choice and pro-energy conservation, but also supported the return of slavery; would you still vote for him? Look, i really hate to belabor the point, but very few people have actually answered the question (and i suspect that you will not answer the question i just wrote). Yes, i agree that dems are generally better than repugs on the whole range of issues, but is there ever *anything* that would make you say, "No way, i refuse to support the perpetrators of this crime, and i don't care about this issue or that issue, or about what 'everybody else was going to do anyway.'" And i repeat my original question, "If not now, then when?"

[Sparkly]

164. Things Democrats "take a stand on"

I assume you're familiar with the Democratic party platform? I don't understand why you don't think Democrats are, and long have been, taking stands on a wide range of issues.

[zoeyfong]

178. You mean things they *say* they take a stand on. I ask you, is there

any principle, in that platform or otherwise, that if it became clear to you the the democratic party was *not* standing for, would cause you to withhold support for the party? i am clearly not quite the team player that many on this site are, but IMO, election year politics do not take precedence over my own conscience, and i simply will not support someone who supported the war.

[sangha]

184. And you betray all of your principles but one when you do that

You sacrifice energy conservation, because you will not cross your imaginary "line"

[Hekate]

180. God, save us from our friends...

This year is pivotal in our history.
* Either the Bush-Cheney-Rove juggernaut is allowed to continue unimpeded for another four years, or it is not.

* Either we continue along the path of the Neocon dream of empire and have a war with the entire world, or we repair international relations and rejoin the family of nations.

* Either we complete the erasure of the line between church and state and all agree that the US is a Christian Evangelical Fundamentalist nation where all are subject to Old Testament laws, or we reassert our historic and constitutional status as a nation of secular laws that protect all religions equally.

* Either we allow the bankrupting of Social Security, Medicare, and all public education, or we take back the Executive Branch start vetoing the insane budgets put forth by the Neocons.

* Either we pull our blankets over our heads, or we wake up and realize that this administration is achieving what people like Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove SAID they were going to do: which is to undo every single social program put in place by FDR and LBJ. They are achieving these goals by making absolutely certain there is no money left to fund them.

*Either we struggle with a Kerry administration and our Congressional reps and senators to repeal most of the USA PATRIOT Act, or we speed ever faster along the road to repressive and invasive fascism, watching our civil liberties disappear like so many sand castles in the rain.

Dammit, the primaries are over and these are our choices: Bush or Kerry.

Kerry is only human, not the Second Coming. Bush, on the other hand, seems to honestly think he himself is the Second Coming. Which one do you want as president?

Kerry has a long congressional record that has consistently been rated as highly liberal. As a liberal, this pleases me. Why does it bother so many of you?

You know that the Republicans are already using his record to smear him -- when you pick up on something negative about Kerry, try considering the source and what that source has to gain.

Months ago the economist Paul Krugman wrote a column describing just how critical the outcome of this election is for the very fate of our nation. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because Kerry is not perfect enough that we should ditch him and allow Bush to win by default.

Hekate

[Tarheel_Dem]

186. excellent post Hekate......

i think that most sane, rational, progressive thinking dems have reached the same conclusion as paul krugman and yourself.
:toast:

[TLDHOME99]

187. Wise words, Hekate

Thanks for spelling it out so clearly.

:hi:

[Township75]

185. Excellent Post!

I have been thinking the same thing. When our party leaders fall-in-line behind the repub leader despite it being against their principles, AND OUR PRINCIPLES, then what does our party stand for?

I know what I stand for, and the IWR was not one of them. I am not changing my values and beliefs to accomodate Kerry or another Dem or any other politician period.

This ABB campaign has turned into giving a lot of credit to anyone who isn't Bush, regardless of what they do, or do not, stand for. Some people appear to have traded in their values for a set of pom-poms to become cheerleaders for the party, just because its the party, and not because of something it should stand for.

This thread is getting too long, so I imagine people will not be reading threads like mine at the very bottom. But in case someone does, and has to give the standard 4 more years of Bush response, I say if I am not excited with either candidate, why should I care.

[zoeyfong]

191. You took the words right out of my mouth.

I am so disgusted with dems lately, i really don't care who wins. In 2000 i cared, but this year dems are not offering a candidate who gives me a reason to care. "A little tiny bit better than Bush" is nothing to get excited about.

[CWebster]

188. Bingo! ABB sets the bar so low

One wonders if they would've voted for Reagan--or at least Zell, because hey, it isn't Bush.