I will not be voting for anybody who voted for the war

[Walt Starr]

Listening to a hawk defend that illegal war convinced me it would be immoral to vote for any politician who voted in favor of that evil war.

So now, there is no way I will be voting for the following:

Lieberman
Kerry
Gephardt
Edwards

I'm sick of the killing and I'm sick of the body bags coming home from Vietnam II.

Flame away.

[tjdee]

1. This is why the ticket needs to have one anti-war and one pro-war.

I don't mind your not voting for the pro-war ones in the primaries (like you care, LOL)--but I think it would be very wise for whomever the nominee is to pick someone who is on the opposite side of this issue. To unite the party, as this seems the biggest divider right now.

[poskonig]

40. That wouldn't work.

The Republicans would play good cop bad cop with that all day. Suppose we had Clark/Edwards, with Clark at the top. People would say about the anti-war Clark, "why can't he stop being a 'pacifist' psycho and be more reasonable like good'ol Edwards?" And so forth.

With Bush's re-elect numbers at 45-48, and his approval at 52-48, this is no time for surrender.

[terryg11]

2. what happens if one of them gets the nod?

will you vote green, another choice or not vote?

[Walt Starr]

3. Yes

I will vote Green, another choice, or not vote.

[tjdee]

4. Just curious, what are you thinking on Clark? n/t

[Walt Starr]

5. Clark would get my vote

Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun, and Graham would all get my vote.

Kucinich's voting record on abortion bothers me, but not as much as the war vote by the four horsemen of the debacle.

[terryg11]

11. I'm curious about the general

he talks a great game and it seems likely he will run.

Got an interesting response from someone at the Hackworth website (whether it was col. Hack or not I'm not sure but they answered for him) saying he was going to address the issue of general Clarke sometime in the future. I just wonder what other former military personnel especially those like Hackworth who have been very critical of many recent events think of Clarke

[KC21304]

67. Hackworth savaged Clark in l999.

I don't have the link.

[Tinoire]

76. Very poor opinion. Hackworth's name for Clark is Perfumed Prince

Hackworth was less than complimentary about Clark. Seems his favorite term for Clark is "the Ultimate Perfumed Prince".

DEFENDING AMERICA
David H. Hackworth
April 20, 1999

CLARK AND VIETNAM.

NATO's Wesley Clark is not the Iron Duke, nor is he Stormin' Norman. Unlike Wellington and Schwarzkopf, Clark's not a muddy boots soldier. He's a military politician, without the right stuff to produce victory over Serbia.

Known by those who've served with him as the "Ultimate Perfumed Prince," he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die. An intellectual in warrior's gear. A saying attributed to General George Patton was that it took 10 years with troops alone before an officer knew how to empty a bucket of spit As a serving soldier with 33 years of active duty under his pistol belt, Clark's commanded combat units -- rifle platoon to tank division - for only seven years. The rest of his career's been spent as an aide, an executive, a student and teacher and a staff weenie.

Very much like generals Maxwell Taylor and William Westmoreland, the architect and carpenter of the Vietnam disaster, Clark was earmarked and then groomed early in his career for big things. At West Point he graduated No. 1 in his class, and even though the Vietnam War was raging and chewing up lieutenants faster than a machine gun can spit death, he was seconded to Oxford for two years of contemplating instead of to the trenches to lead a platoon.

A year after graduating Oxford, he was sent to Vietnam, where, as a combat leader for several months, he was bloodied and muddied. Unlike most of his classmates, who did multiple combat tours in the killing fields of Southeast Asia, he spent the rest of the war sheltered in the ivy towers of West Point or learning power games first hand as a White House fellow.

<snip>
http://www.hackworth.com/20Apr99.html
---------------------------------

A PERFUMED PRINCE GETS THE AXE

<snip>

Certainly these sins, plus his hot temper, abrasive style and demand for much of America's air assets to fight the Serbs, didn't exactly win fans in Washington. Like a little boy stamping his feet, he wanted everything NOW and showed no concern for the Pentagon's need to maintain global forces to cover threats from other fronts such as Iraq and North Korea.

For sure, Clark is one of the smartest guys ever to wear four stars. He finished number one in his West Point class, graduated with honors from Oxford and the National War College, was a war hero in Vietnam and as a young captain was earmarked as general officer material.

But among mud soldiers, he's known as a guy who never paid his dues with the troops in the trenches and doesn't understand the nitty- gritty of war or what motivates warriors down at the bayonet level. He's like a doctor who's brilliant at theory but dangerous with a scalpel because he hasn't been there and done that long enough to learn the skills of the trade. In 33 years of service, Clark spent only seven and one- half years in command with troops from platoon to division level-- barely enough time to learn what makes a tank platoon tick. The rest of his service was as a staff weenie, an aide, a student, at the White House or at some fat cat headquarters.

The man is not a field soldier; he's more a CEO in uniform. Perhaps an efficient manager, but not a Patton-like leader. The troops call his sort "Perfumed Princes," brass known for their micromanagement bias and slavish focus on "show over go" and covering their tails with fancy footwork. Unfortunately, today's senior Army ranks are filled with such managers -- and these kind of dweebs are why the U.S. Army is in trouble. The troops and young leaders are great. But too often the senior brass are politically correct dilettantes, out of touch with their soldiers more interested in chin straps on the points of chin than in battle-drill being executed correctly. They don't understand that everything they need to learn about leadership and combat savvy doesn't come from management books or advanced degrees.

<snip>

http://www.hackworth.com/9aug99.html

----------------------

Nor are they gung-ho about remaining dependent on the U.S. security apparatus, especially since our bungles in Serbia. American leadership both in Washington and among the top brass at NATO -- starting with Gen. Wesley Clark, the biggest doofus since William Westmoreland of Vietnam shame -- has made European leaders leery about being led down the tubes by another American General Humpty Dumpty. Going it alone with an all-European defense force commanded by their own generals is looking better and better.

And it should. They're big boys and girls who can well defend their own back yard. We've been propping them up for 55 years, and it's time they did the Bosnias and Kosovos on their own while we attend to our home fronts, beginning with securing our southern border.

Hopefully, then, NATO won't be around much longer to waste your tax dollars. When this obsolete defense treaty disappears, we can bring 100,000 troops back to the USA and save about $50 billion per year.

One of life's ironies is that our government arms most of the so-called Free World with horrific weapons. Meanwhile, the same politicians are scheming to take away our peashooters in order to make our country a more peaceful land -- just as we enter a decade of the worst terrorism in history.
Perhaps we should all make a New Year's resolution to disarm the world instead. We could start by putting an end to the mass exportation of weapons. And we could also stop sticking our noses in everyone else's business.

Of course, this wouldn't be good for our Sec Defs. How could they afford their post-Pentagon lifestyle? Since 1961, there hasn't been one U.S. secretary of defense who didn't end up a multimillionaire. Ever wonder where the money comes from?

http://www.hackworth.com/14dec99.html
-----------------------

SEC DEFS AND THEIR GOLDEN PARACHUTES

<snip>

Everyone on Sen. John Warner's Armed Services Committee is worked up because British Lt. Gen. Mike Jackson didn't blindly follow the orders of NATO commander U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark.

Last June, Clark ordered Jackson, then the NATO commander in Kosovo, to push the Russian troops out of Kosovo's main airport. Jackson told Clark, "No, I am not going to do that. It is not worth starting World War III."

Remember, Russia still has thousands of nuclear-tipped ICBMs pointed at us, and it would make many a hard-liner's day if the launch order was given. Jackson -- who's since been promoted to full general, presumably, in part, for the wisdom of this decision -- wisely concluded that the gain of winning King of the Mountain against the Ruskies wasn't worth the possible pain.

Sure, discipline is essential in the military. But soldiers should not be robots and blindly follow dumb or illegal orders.

<snip>

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18459


---------------------
<snip>

For those wanting a second opinion, or in the case of Kosovo, any opinion other than Madeleine Albright's and her compliant media spin doctors, Kosovo Crisis: A Study in Foreign Policy Mismanagement by Dr. Vojin Joksimovich is a first. It's the first book authored by this nuclear scientist, the first comprehensive detailed volume about the war in Kosovo as told from a non-NATO perspective. It's also the first "no-holds barred" attack on the NATO propaganda machine and their dirty little illegal war.

Col. David Hackworth says: "This brilliant fact-filled book exposes a Clinton/Clark phoney victory and the stupidity of the Rambo-like Clinton foreign policy. Kosovo Crisis destroys the myth of Nato's invincibility and exposes Nato's General Clark as an inept fumbler and military lightweight. Contrary to his claims, Clark, a Perfumed Prince, barely scratched the Serbian Army. The Serbs outfoxed him with hundreds of decoys knowing they couldn't win if they slugged it out toe to toe."

Readers of Kosovo Crisis need to wear a seat belt. This power-packed, "can't put down" journey into what the author calls in chapter 10, the "Devastating Consequences of Fraud" will have you sitting at the edge of your seat. He exposes the blood of Serbian victims on the hands of political leaders from all 19 NATO governments.

The foreword to the book is by Sir Eldon Griffiths, President of the World Affairs Council of Orange County, California and former Foreign Editor for Newsweek. Griffiths says, "Vojin Joksimovich has produced a radioactive commentary so hot and so corrosive, that no historian and few journalists would dare-or deign-to indulge in it. And it is this that makes Kosovo Crisis such compulsive reading for anyone seriously interested in hearing the other side-the non-NATO side-of what actually happened in the first European war to be waged against a sovereign nation..."

I was able to send a printer's proof of Kosovo Crisis to Major Richard L. Felman USAF (Ret.) the week before his death. His wife Marianne said he was so please that Joksimovich included a few pages about him and his 50 year quest to pay honor to General Draza Mihailovich. Major Felman gave me the following endorsement for the book two days before hhe died:

"The truth about the single largest rescue of American troops from behind enemy lines in our nation's history has been muzzled by the American government. My life and that of 500 other American airmen was saved by Serbs. Kosovo Crisis unmasks the facts surrounding Kosovo and NATO expansionism. Joksimovich is to be commended for having the courage to write this book and his willingness to pay the politically incorrect price."

Taken from:
Book Review By William Dorich
Kosovo Crisis: A Study in Foreign Policy Mismanagement
By Vojin Joksimovich

Published by Graphics Management Press
P.O. Box 241811
Los Angeles, CA 90024
[phone]

ISBN# 1-882383-10-9
460 pages - Soft Cover
$21.00, plus $4.00 postage in the U.S.
Add $1.75 Sales Tax for California purchases.

http://www.suc.org/culture/library/Vojin/review.html?Suc_Session=e53f007e27b5d19a11919a41112e1039

[terryg11]

83. holy crap!! thanks for the read

yeah, he doesn't seem to think much about the guy as a military leader but does say the man was more concerned with theory and pollitics et al.
Damn though, gotta love Hack's writing!!

[OrdinaryTa]

91. Hackworth Is a Jerk

I gave "About Face" about 100 pages before tossing it in. Hackworth sells the idea that warfare is about field soldiering, and very little else. He's wrong about that, but he's too enamored of his own image as war hero to see any other viewpoint.

Obviously he can't stand another military guy who chose a different career path. I don't trust David Hackworth. I think he's a jerk.

[maveric]

6. Which is essentially a vote for bu$h.

I think that we all need to stick to objective #1. Get bu$h out of the WH.

[VermontDem2004]

7. I hate that insane logic

a vote for a green is a vote for a green, when someone votes for a green, the vote doesn't get tallied up for Bush. When someone doesn't vote, that isn't a vote tallied up for anyone.

[MaverickX]

15. we're a two-party system...

So every vote for Greens is one less vote to get rid of Bush all so you egomaniacs can avoid voting for someone who disagreed with you on one thing.

[Ardee]

19. It is far from a two party system

there are a number of political parties out there, the major problem is the merging of the two main ones........

[MaverickX]

30. I disagree..

Third parties don't get enough votes to be taken seriously.

[VermontDem2004]

38. I recall Ross Perot getting 20%

of the vote in 1992.

[Walt Starr]

42. He could have won, too

If he had stayed the course and not done the in, out, in again, nutty uncle who came to dinner routine.

I was preparing to vote Perot in '92 because he seemed like he had the best shot at beating Bush the Elder.

Just goes to show what the win at any cost philosophy can lead to.

[MaverickX]

46. he couldve won?

With 2 or 3 electoral votes?

[Walt Starr]

60. He wa ahead of Bush by 5 points in the polls early on

Democrats were behind Bush by a long distance at that time.

Then he dropped out.

He came back in, played the crazy uncle who comes to dinner routine, put up somebody who couldn't debate his way out of w wet paper sack as Veep, and basically stood no chance.

He could have walked away with a majority of the electoral college, possibly winning in a landslide bcause he would have probably taken the most votes in every state, he was that popular early on (in a three way race, 37% is HUGE).

Luckily for America, hius insane side came out and that cost him big.

Hell, early on when he was looking so good in the polls (before he dropped out the first time), I was ready to support him because in that election I was truly ABB and would have taken Perot because he looked like he stood the best chance of defeating Bush.

[KC21304]

69. Glad to hear you were ready to vote for Perot.

Now there is a real pacifist.

[Walt Starr]

70. I've never claimed to be a pacifist

I'm not brave enough to be a pacifist.

I stand in opposition to an illegal and immoral war against civilians in order to steal oil.

[MaverickX]

44. well I have admitted on this board

That if anyone can make a 3rd party count it was Perot. However he only got 2 or 3 electoral votes.

[Ardee]

97. time is the friend of the third party movement

consider that there is no longer much of a difference between the GOP and the "new" democrats, which,imo resulted in the debacle in the mid term elections where, traditionally, the opposition party gains seats.

More and more folks, from both parties, are becoming increasingly dissatified with their party's direction. This bodes well for the growth of the third party. You choose to look short term I choose to look further.....

[Ardee]

197. by you perhaps, maverick

but your blanket statement assumes only that your opinion is the universal one. Third party memberships are slowly growing, as a direct result of the merging of the two principle parties, and any long range view shows that, should the democrats continue to refuse their responsibilities to us all, the third party will assume that role....

[VermontDem2004]

20. Alot of the people that voted for Nader

wouldn't of voted for Al Gore because they thought he was to conservative. But it is up to the politicians to get votes, not the voters.

[ErasureAcer]

96. damn straight, he is for the death penalty

I won't be voting for no death penalty loving dork...

it is wrong wrong wrong.

www.kucinich.us <-------not for the death penalty. WILL put a moratorium on executions...with his executive privledge.

[terryg11]

16. I agree

it's a free country and we can vote for who we want.
IT'S UP TO THE CANDIDATES TO DECIDE WHOSE VOTE THEY WANT, THUS THE STANDS AND COMMENTS THEY MAKE. If someone votes green then that means they didn't like what the other candidates had to say.

[JVS]

92. I agree

This vote for A is vote for B shit is bunk

[Redleg]

198. Sure- if that makes you feel better.

It still amounts to a vote not going to the Democratic candidate.

[Walt Starr]

12. Nope, not if the Democrat voted in favor of the war

And that is NOT voting for Bush, it's voting for whomever the vote is cast for.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

18. A bit subtle for some, but absolutely true

One less meaningful vote against Bush.

I guess one could write in Janeane Garofolo and feel like a really special person.

[wryter2000]

53. You gotta vote, Walt

Increased votes for the Greens will at least send a message to the Dems.

[CMT]

132. of course if a anti-war dem is nominated

he will be voting democratic. If not, he has to do what his conscience dictates. I think the chances of an anti-war democrat being nominated are good--especilly Dean or Clark.

[Speed8098]

55. That's weak Walt

If you vote Green/other or don't vote at all, then why don't you just touch the screen for *. You'll get the same effect.

[Walt Starr]

62. Because all of the others is not voting FOR Bush

I would still be voting AGAINST Bush.

[bearfartinthewoods]

165. i like the way Skinner puts it

the dem will be the only person on the planet with a chance of unseating bush.

for me, that says it all. ABB

[Walt Starr]

168. The day one of those four win the nomination

is the day I leave DU. This is Skinner's house and he made the rules. They are rules I cannot abide by should one of those four win the nomination, ergo, I leave Skinner's house.

[KC21304]

66. That is certainly your right.

And if Bush is elected, you of course will be able to live with your choice and never regret it. Good for you.

[MaverickX]

8. good then you can help Bush get reelected..

All so you can feel self-righteous.

[Walt Starr]

17. So you're saying I have to vote against my morals

My vote is MY vote, not yours. I can vote for whomever the fuck I want to.

[MaverickX]

26. no..

I'm just saying you can't expect a candidate to agree with you 100% Ever heard of realism or compromise?

[Walt Starr]

28. There are certain issues I refuse to compromise on

The war is one. It is a litmus test. Until the hawk showed me how evil it really was to be in support of the war, I was willing to put it aside for the three puke bucket candidates, but no longer.

[MaverickX]

34. evil is such a relative term..

I think its more evil to not support the person running against Bush. Who are you to say what's evil?

[Walt Starr]

I'm a voter, that's who

I must detmine what I consider to be evil, and I will not choose between the lesser of two evils. I will choose the third choice or choose not to choose at all.

[MaverickX]

48. I don't personally care who vote for...

Just don't tell me you're not helping the GOP win.

[Walt Starr]

56. I'm not helping the GOP to win by voting third party

should it come to that.

There is only ONE WAY to help the GOP win.

Yolu must actually vote FOR the GOP candidate to help the GOP win.

Claiming anything else is just plain BULLSHIT.

[FubarFly]

68. Hmm...

500 3rd party voters in Florida might disagree with you.

Then again, they might not. Delusional thinking has a funny way of doing that to you.

[Walt Starr]

71. I honestly do not believe 10,000 more votes for Gore in Florida

would have made one whit of difference.

The fix was in.

[FubarFly]

74. You may be right about that.

But we can't approach this election from a "I'm going to vote for my principles because the election will be rigged anyway" perspective. With all due respect, I believe that is defeatism.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

149. The fix was "in" in Florida and Texas, 2000

It was "In" in Georgia and an additional couple of other states in 2002.

IT will be "In" in California (assuming an Ahnuld win), Ohio, and several more states come 2004.

It won't hit my state until at least 2006 is the way I figure it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

116. If we are going to have litmus tests, mine is NAFTA

So I won't vote for anyone who voted for or supported NAFTA.

[wryter2000]

With due respect

I know how Walt feels and am struggling with this same issue, myself. This isn't just "some issue." An increase in defense spending is "some issue."

This is an unjust, totally morally wrong war that's killed thousands of people and will kill who knows how many thousands more. It's a deal buster. It's make-or-break.

But I still insist that Walt has to vote for someone.

[Walt Starr]

73. I simply will not vote for Nader

Harry Browne is out too.

I'm not going to vote for somebody even more rightwing than Bush.

My choices could be very limited in which case I either leave that race blank, or write in "None of the Above".

[maveric]

79. Is your objective to vote your morals or get the nazi out of office?

This is very serious. Who knows what will happen if jr. gets another 4 years.
Come on man!

[Walt Starr]

22. BTW, thanks again

I appreciate it.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

32. Ad hominems are generally resorted to

when the attacker has no argument.

[MaverickX]

39. oh wow..

That sure convinced me that I'm wrong.

[Walt Starr]

63. I didn't want to change your mind

I don't think that's possible.

I did want your post removed.

I got that.

[VermontDem2004]

35. I'll smoke some dope

[NNN0LHI]

9. Karl Rove sends his thanks n/t

[carpetbagger]

10. Voting for them would get rid of the guy who started the war.

Let's face it. 2004 is about stopping the next war. Syria, Iran, Venezuela, who knows? My bet is on Iran. I think there's a very real possibility that Bush will lead us into an unnecessary war in his second term. I also believe that Kerry, Gephardt, or Edwards would not lead us into that war, even though they gave Bush a viable threat of force, which Bush misused.

There is a difference.

[Walt Starr]

25. I honestly do not believe that

I don't think anybody but Dean stands a chance against Bush. That is seriously how I feel, not one of them is electable with the exception of Dean, so voting for any of those four would just be a symbolic gesture any way.

[bearfartinthewoods]

172. weeelll..that's a new wrinkle...n't

[GreenArrow]

59. There's a very real chance a Democrat will do the same

Bush has opened the pandora's box, and whoever folllows him is going to have to clean up the mess. And Kerry Gephardt and Edwards have made no bones about believing that Bush did the right thing the wrong way.

All those speculative invasions are going to be marketed as part of the "war against terror" and they are really something quite different-- a war for complete global domination. And maybe that's what the majority of the American people think they want. But wanting won't be nearly the same as getting.

[VermontDem2004]

13. I support you 100%

I am leaning that way myself, this war is morally wrong and I would feel I am violating my morals by voting for someone who I know help gave mr. Bush the power to declare war on Iraq.

[disgruntella]

41. y'know, i think the war is morally wrong too

And it doesn't matter to me who you vote for. Especially in the primaries, my opinion is that it's important to go with your own conscience.

But in November 2004 I'll certainly vote for Kerry (my current #1), or any Democrat who gets the nomination. Ultimately I think our nation's future is more important than electing the perfect candidate who lives up to each and every one of my expectations. And I see Bush & Co. as threats to our nation's future. (and present!)

(Peanut gallery: Even Lieberman? Me: Yes, but I truly doubt it will be him in 2004. Thread conservation at work.)

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

47. Then I hope you didn't vote for Nader

Because he damn sure helped give Bush the power to declare war on Iraq.

[Proletariat]

14. You won't have to, Clark didn't vote for war.

:)

[MaverickX]

21. he wasnt put in the position of having to

Decide to support the war or not. Going on tv to voice opposition proves nothing. At least Kucinich has room to talk.

[Proletariat]

23. So Dean wasn't either then?

He has no room to talk either?

[MaverickX]

52. of course not..

He wasn't put in a position to vote on it.

[terryg11]

29. "at least Kucinich has room to talk"

exactly, and if the other senators had done the same thing then Starr here probably wouldn't have put their name on his do not vote list

[terryg11]

24. Self-righteous?

do people really think that's why others vote green or indie? It's about being proud of whom you voted for. This isn't the greens fault that so many people are thinking of voting for a non dem. It's the dems fault. Look at how many people even here are bitching about the possible nomination, they say they'll hold their nose and vote for so and so, instead of backing someone they may like better just to "make their vote count".
well, what if all those disaffected nose holders voted for the green candidate?

[NNN0LHI]

31. Because there are not enough disaffected nose holders to beat Bush

[terryg11]

36. are we sure about that?

Honestly, I'm probably one of them. I will most likely vote for the dem candidate unless they do something dumb like promote the patriot act or invading another country on bs grounds or another tax cut in a time of recession.

[Booberdawg]

50. disaffected nose holder here

"what if all those disaffected nose holders voted for the green candidate? "

Because this disaffected nose holder doesn't support the Green Party or Platform. I, like my fellow nose holders, want to see a Democrat in the White House; not a Green candidate.

:)

[sangh0]

104. I'm with you.

I don't know why the Greens think the Dems would get non-voters to vote Dem if only the Dems became nmore like the Greens, when the Greens can't deliver those votes for themselves.

[disgruntella]

51. in 2004, yes. i think it is self-righteous.

I think the Bush administration has caused enough damage that "being proud of who you vote for" is NOT really all that important compared to uniting with Democrats in a 2-party system to elect the president in 2004.

Edit: yes, I know that there are 3rd parties that have had an impact, but historically, Dem vs. Rep is the pattern.

[FubarFly]

65. If we unite the party, liberals would have a voice in gov't again.

And if fundis and libertarians can work out their differences, why the hell can't we?

:shrug:

[Booberdawg]

85. That's what us "disaffected nose holders" want too

... to unite the DEMOCRATIC Party for the 2004 election - where it has a chance of stopping the forward motion of the bush crime family

[MoonAndSun]

33. I support Dean, but I will vote for the Dem nominee...

bush* has to be defeated! No if, ands or buts.

[silverlib]

45. AMEN!!!!! n/t

[indepat]

37. Neither will I ever vote for anyone who voted for /supported

illegal war.

[FubarFly]

43. Think SCOTUS, and get back to me...

I hate b*sh more than I could possibly hate any Democrat. Even a crappy one like Lieberman. I could not live with myself if I ,through action or inaction, allowed b*sh and the neocons to solidify their grip of power over this nation which I once proudly thought of as a Democracy. Pick a horse for the primaries and work towards getting that person elected. But please please remember who the real enemy is.

Of course I respect your decision to do what you think is right. If you think that voting for a third party candidate over b*sh is the best way to ultimately defeat him- in no small part due to maintaining your principles- then I won't argue with you. A victory in the 2004 elections won't make the neocons disappear. Why vote for someone who would allow the the corporatists and fascists to remain in power out of the glare of the public eye? However, before you go that route, please consider the ramifications of defeat in this next election. It's not just SCOTUS. Without reelection to worry about, the damage b*sh will do to this country would be incalcuable.

[GreenArrow]

49. Right on!

I won't vote for one of that lot either.

To vote for Bushie's invasion was either the vote of an imbecile, a coward, a stooge or a complicitor.

Kerry is still spewing the lie about Sadaam kicking out the inspectors, so I'll let you decide which of the four categories above he falls into.

Edwards is bragging how he believes in a "strong America" and doesn't take a back seat to anyone on American strength. Sorry Johnny lad, unilateral invasion of countries that are unable to defend themselves in any meaningful way in order to steal their resources and destroy their culture is the wrong kind of "strength" in my book.

Lieberman is Lieberman--nuff said.

Gephardt is simply a professional politician with no vision.

Graham voted no because the attack on Iraq didn't go far enough and would detract from the "war on terra'" He's out too, because the war on terra is more expansionist, imperialist, bullshit.

The attitude we're dealing with in regards to the above candidates is the same as Madeline Not-Albright's when she said that 500,000 deaths was a price worth paying--worth it for who, lady?

[poskonig]

54. Though you should vote for the Democratic nominee

I support you 100% in condemning the "four horsemen."

[mix68]

57. moi non plus!

shame on our political class for treating war so lightly

[VermontDem2004]

58. I remember growing up as a kid

I was taught to evaluate every candidate's positions, see if I agree or disagree with him/her on the issues and that is how you vote. Well not here, who cares where he stands on the issues, vote for him damnit because he has a (D) next to his name. I don't like the Iraq War and he voted for it, oh I don't care he has a (D) next to his name. That kind of thing threatens our democracy when people vote based on whether his/her political idealogy is rather then if you agree where he/she stands on the issues.

[maveric]

81. This is an entirely different scenario. We could lose our freedom

forever! This country has never been faced with a situation like this. Bu$h/PNAC are setting themselves up to turn this nation into a facist police state. How many more neo-con judges will be installed? How many more of our civil liberties will be altered or taken away?
Look at the big picture man.

[QC]

61. You're beautiful!!!!!!!!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. Me too.

As I have said, in many posts, I'll be voting Democratic for my rep and senator, both incumbents who voted against the war. I hope to be voting Democrat for president in the General election, if the candidate is anti-war. The same 4 that you named will not be getting my vote. I am very much to the left, but I am willing to compromise on most issues, and have done so many times in most elections. But, these guys sold their votes for the sake of expediency and the price was blood.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

72. niether will i ...i can(will) not compromise my principles

anti-violence

[jiacinto]

113. This is indeed a Green board, I guess

It should be renamed WewantDemocratstolosein2004.com

[Iverson]

148. nope

Witness the open hostility to Greens whenever they suggest that pre-emptive invasion and shredding the Geneva Convention had ought to be opposed.

[Malva Zebrina]

75. Why enable killing and immoral war?

Why? Bush got away with it because he was enabled by wishy washy Dempcrats== Gore includede. Why enable this murder any longer?

I will not vote for anyone who was in favor of this barbaric murder of thousands of innocents. Think--thousands of people--think of how the murder of those three thousand in the WTC felt--and think that we, the US, are just as guilty of killing thousands more of innocent people--human beings--people like us==and it was necessary to LIE to do so! If I could see the Bush lie, I feel certain that those who are far more savvy, and far more sophisticalted, politically, than I, certainly could have seen the lie--I believe they did--although hardly any acknowledged the millions of protestors worldwide--they KNEW thhey voted for murder of children

Not the way I will vote next time around. I will not enable this weird world any longer. I have had it--it is time to get real.

A vote for any Dem that would have pursued this war, is simply a vot for the same candidate as a Bush. War is the most serious undertaking that any country can ever engage in. Thousands lost thier lives==their innocent lives because of Bush's lies--do not tell me those lies were believed by naive Democrats-uh uh--no way.

[Walt Starr]

77. Thank you

You summed it up far more eloquently than I ever could.

[GreenArrow]

78. "Yes, we think the price was worth it"

Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, referring to the deaths of half a million people as a result of sanctions and the Bogus gulf War I.

The candidates who voted yes knew what they were voting for. amd presumably, the price is worth it.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

95. AGREE !!!--I will not support any pro war dem

A vote for any Dem that would have pursued this war, is simply a vote for the same candidate as a Bush.
************SO TRUE

Those who handed over to Bush the right to declare made an immoral decision--those who handed over this power which is reserved ONLY for congress damn well knew what would happen !!!
They were just trying to "go along" with
what they "thought " would get them re elected.

Spineless politicians who can't stand up for human rights and basic values do no deserve my vote.

Only the strong with backbone get my vote.
We all know what is wrong with killing thousands of innocent people.
That's just plain and simple.
no votes for war mongers.

[Q]

182. Gore came out against a 'war' on Iraq...

- Let's keep the record straight.

[Sterling]

80. I won't either

I cant see why it is even a question at this point.

[snyttri]

82. Vote 3rd party in 2004 and in 2008 you might oppose the congressmen...

who voted for Bush's Iran, Syria and/or North Korea wars.

[German-Lefty]

99. Vote Dem in 2004 and you can vote with them in 2008 again

after they "voted for Bush's Iran, Syria and/or North Korea wars."

[niceypoo]

84. Neither will I

In November I said that I would only vote for Dean because he was the only candidate against the war. Now I can add 3 more to the list. No way in hell I will vote for anyone who went along with Bush. i cannot vote for Bush lite.

[gully]

86. Well then, perhaps you'll need to prepare for more body bags...N/T

[QC]

88. But you don't understand....

The point of politics is not to win elections and then change things for the betterment of the real world.

The point of politics is to make meaningless but beautiful, poignant gestures that demonstrate one's moral superiority to The Great Unwashed.

Get with the program!

:eyes:

[gully]

89. LOL

[ScreamingMeemie]

87. There is one man on your list that would make me ( a rational person)

pack up my duffel bag and move to France with Johnny Depp if he made it on the ticket. The other three just make me sick because they have turned their backs on what was once right and good about this country. I 'd plug and vote, and be slightly less enthusiastic. But if Repub in disguise gets the nod, YIKES!!!!

[directinfection]

90. france looks good!

"pack up my duffel bag and move to France with Johnny Depp if he made it on the ticket. The other three just make me sick because they have turned their backs on what was once right and good about this country. I 'd plug and vote, and be slightly less enthusiastic. But if Repub in disguise gets the nod, YIKES!!!!"

i think Im about ready to pack up my bags and join johnny depp over there. america is one giant toilet bowl. that being said...i as well will not be voting for anyone who supported this war.

why?

because they voted to go the war, then all of a sudden they are all whining about how bush "misled" them into voting for it. please. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see right through bush...what clearly happened here is they were afraid to stand up for what they believed in...and now that all questions are coming out about how bush misled the public they are quick to join in since its "safe" for them to do so. For all those democrats who voted yes, i say grow a spine, and don't expect my vote. they very idea that bush "tricked' you with all that intelligence is laughable. my vote is going to someone who stands up for their principles..tha person being dennis kucinich.

[German-Lefty]

102. Come to Germany - they take political refugees

and they speak more English. It's nice here. Since I've left the coutry back home seems to have gone to shit. Come to the EU lands of freedom and democracy and respect of man. America was nice while it lasted.

[ScreamingMeemie]

175. Und Ich Spreche Deutsch!!!

:-)

[OrdinaryTa]

93. A Question of Eligibility

The words election and eligible have the same Latin root - a person who is ineligible cannot be elected. There are various Constitutional criteria that decide eligibility; but as a voter I add my own criteria. I won't vote for a war-monger, period.

It will be regrettable if the Democrats foolishly nominate an ineligible candidate. Certainly I'd prefer to vote for a Democrat rather than for a third-party candidate. Don't even talk to be about Kerry, Lieberman or Gephardt. As far as I am concerned, they are simply ineligible.

[Lexingtonian]

94. Why the selective morality?

At face value the argument you assert is about the moral high road and such. But the longer I look at it, the more it's about the form rather than the substance and uninterested in who, among the candidates, actually does any good in the situation they will be presented with.

I think you are insistent on an aesthetic resolution over a substantial one and too quick to demonize the candidates you don't like.

Have you honestly considered whether your thinking might be too Manichaean, and whether you have extracted the narcissism from your decision-making process?

[OrdinaryTa]

105. Lack of Stature

Amusement park operators keep little kids off certain rides with a sign that reads: You must be this tall to buy a ticket. That's how I feel about presidential candidates. If they didn't have the stature to vote against a war that everyone knew was bogus, they certainly shouldn't be president.

No to Kerry. No to Lieberman. No to Gephardt. They had their chance to show some leadership, and they blew it.

[sangh0]

106. You're right! It' selective morality

Walt would vote for a Byrd because he opposed the war even though Byrd is one of the most pro-corporate anti-environmentalists in the Senate.

Walt is willing to vote for candidates that have supported a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would strangle funding for social services, so long as the candidate opposed the invasion.

Walt is willing to vote for conservatives so long as they opposed the invasion.

Walt is willing to vote for pro-death-penalty candidates, a penalty which is disproportionately applied to minorities. The intentional murder of innocent people can be overlooked, but not a vote for a Senate resolution that would not have stopped the invasion.

Walt is willing to overlook a candidates position on welfare. The candidate could have voted to deny food, shelter, and medical care to poor children, but Walt will overlook that. But if the candidate "voted for war", then Walt gets pissed.

What a principled stance!

[tjdee]

191. This is a great way of putting it.

I agree with both you and sangh0.

I don't undestand why this position should trump all others.

There are 6 million ways to die, as the saying goes.

[sujan]

98. more power to you Walt

Empower the third parties. Its about time.

[German-Lefty]

100. I'm with you buddy.

Screw those guys. Why can't we pick the best candidate for the democratic nomination, or at least not one of these 4 worst. Give me someone with a backbone.

By the way I'd rather have you vote third party than not vote at all.

[CWebster]

101. no flames here.

Anyone who voted to support Shrub's big adventure has some explaining to do. If they claimed they were mis-led or lied to they have demonstrated an inability to lead when the case wasn't made for our allies and many other Democrats who stood and took the heat. If it was done for political expediancy, it was done at the expence of the truth and the welfare of the country's future and demonstrated lack of foresight and poor political instincts.

no cigar.

[German-Lefty]

103. Very Well Put!!!

[Kamika]

107. Yes you will, since you will vote for Bush

Not voting for a democrat = voting on Bush. So be sure to get a thank you card from them greenie

[CWebster]

108. No

We will just fight like hell to get democratic nominee who didn't jump onD Shrub's war wagon.

[Walt Starr]

121. BULLSHIT, only voting for Bush is voting for Bush

You cannot vote for Bush if you do not vote for Bush.

You're spreading BULLSHIT!

[Kamika]

122. ok

Great arguments there..

[Walt Starr]

123. DAMN STRAIGHT IT'S A GREAT ARGUMENT!

There is only one way to vote for Bush. You punch the hole next to Bush's name. If I punch a hole next to any other candidate's name, that cannot be considered voting for Bush.

Pretty simple and straightforward.

[Kamika]

124. No sorry

See there are only two who can win.

The democratic nominee or Bush.

If you vote for the democrat you reduce the chance bush wins.

If you vote for someone else you give 1 vote to bush. Since the democrats will lose 1 vote

If you dont vote you give 1 vote to bush.


Now id love to see how you can say im wrong here.

[Walt Starr]

125. That is incorrect

Anybody who is on the ballot *can* win. I do not buy into your bogus bullshit arguments.

Voting for somebody with a (D) behind their name simply because there is a (D) behind their name is ludicrous and anti-democratic. I won't fall into the bullshit argument.

[Kamika]

126. "Anybody who is on the ballot *can* win."

Come back when you have a grasp of reality greenie

[Walt Starr]

129. More bullshit

Anybody who qualifies for the presidency *can* win. That's how the laws work.

It's bullshit arguments about only Democrats and Republicans having a chance to win that makes it so. I don't buy into the arguemnt and I *will not* vote for a particpant in starting an illegal war of agression.

[Walt Starr]

130. More bullshit

Anybody who qualifies for the presidency *can* win. That's how the laws work.

It's bullshit arguments about only Democrats and Republicans having a chance to win that makes it so. I don't buy into the arguemnt and I *will not* vote for a particpant in starting an illegal war of agression.

[enki23]

145. your math needs some work

here's how it really works:

a person who would have voted democratic is convinced to vote for bush: bush campaign nets +2 votes.

a person who would have voted democratic is convinced to vote for a third party, fails to vote, or their vote is not counted: bush campaign nets +1 vote.

a person who would not have voted or would have voted third party is convinced to vote democratic, or a person whose democratic vote was not counted has their vote discovered in a recount: democratic campaign nets +1 vote.

a person who would have voted for bush is convinced to vote democratic: democratic campaign nets +2 votes.

a vote for bush is a vote for bush. a "democratic" voter who votes for bush counts *DOUBLE*, if we have to follow this "owed vote" logic. this is why moderates and swing voters are worth so much. it's not because they're necessarily more numerous, it's because their votes count for twice as much as someone whose vote can safely be assumed not to be for bush.

leftists don't need to be courted in the general election, the way this is set up, even if there are twice as many of them. they won't vote for bush in any case, and so their measly single votes are worth less than a "centrist" vote from someone who will vote republican. the truth is, swing voters are in a much better position to (in the words of the carlossian crowd) "hold the democratic party hostage." the minority can rule, so long as it's willing to rule ruthlessly.

you can still blame the greens if you like. they're a tiny part of your problem. but to remain consistent, you'd have to blame those "democrats" who voted for bush first, as they're a far larger problem. 1) there were likely more of them in the first place, and 2) each of their bush votes counted double against the party with which they are assumed to be affiliated.

assign the swing voters their larger share of the blame, or get off the greens' case.

[Kamika]

147. lol

Sorry but if a dem votes republican is still only 1 for republican. A vote cant be 2. Now i actually considered this "formula" some time ago, but its not applicable on reality.

And no im not considering greens "ove" democrats their vote. But i do think greens who come to this forum whining how bad bush is but then dont vote dem should reconsider because by "not" voting dem, they will not help getting rid of bush and THATS how the bush regime gain a vote.


You said i should blame the swing voters.. well i dont because swing voters actually vote on politics.

I vote to get rid of bush

[enki23]

150. let me lay this out for you in a way you can handle

four jellybeans are divided evenly between you and little timmy, giving each of you a total of two jellybeans.

you lose one of your jellybeans. timmy now has more jellybeans than you. how many more jellybeans does little timmy have?

starting from the beginning again. if you and little timmy each have two jellybeans, and you give one of your jellybeans to little timmy, he will have more jellybeans than you. how many more jellybeans will little timmy have?

[Kamika]

153. *sigh*

try and understand that you cant apply mathematics to this.

Now try and understand.

Some guy who votes dem or rep because of issues doesnt give +2 or whatever you said. He gives one vote and thats it.

But someone who wants to get rid of BUSH but doesnt vote democratic gives a vote to Bush. And it doesnt matter if he Doesnt vote, or votes green he will STILL give his vote to bush.

If you dont understand this dont bother responding

[Walt Starr]

155. BULLSHIT!

Somebody who doesn't want to vote for Bush and votes for ANYBODY ELSE, regardless of who that anybody else is, has STILL VOTED AGAINST BUSH!

[Walt Starr]

154. Piss Poor Analogy

Here's a better one:

You and Timmy are trying to get everybody in the class to give you a jelly bean each. About one-third of the class likes Timmy but hates you and vice versa, so you start trying to act like Timmy to get more jelly beans.

Now Billy gets into the action and starts trying to get people to give him Jelly Beans too, so lots of people who hate Timmy and now hate you for acting like Timmy decide to give their jelly beans to Billy.

Who loses and who wins? Frankly, you're sounding like Timmy so I'll give my jelly bean to Billy.

[enki23]

161. it wasn't an analogy. it was a kindergarten math lesson

i'm not talking about the sociology of the situation, just the simple mathematics of it. if you assume two totals, democratic and republican, then moving a unit (vote) from one column to the other will result in a net loss for the first column (gain for the second) of two. this is the *only* point i was trying to illustrate. that, and a whole lotta sarcasm.

i will possibly vote green too. if i do, i'll be fully aware that i *could* have added my vote to the democratic candidate, and that the democratic candidate would have a better chance of winning than the green candidate. i'll do it anyway, *if* i think the democratic candidate is sufficiently poor that four more years of bush might be preferable in the long run, or as an effort to help build a viable third party if the democratic candidate doesn't have a real chance to carry my state. (note: i'm saying *in the long run* the four years themselves will certainly be worse under bush than under any of the current or likely demococratic contenders) i'm by no means sure of it, and never will be. it'll be my best guess, which is all anyone can really do. i'll probably vote democratic, because i think it's usually true that it's better to do what you can now than fail to act out of hope (or fear) of some future backlash.

but i'm not certain.

[Walt Starr]

163. You cannot assume two totals

There has never been a presidential campaign exlusively limted to two candidates.

[enki23]

166. lol. i'm on *your* side you know

i miswrote, i suppose. i don't really mean "assume two totals" i mean "if you consider two of the totals at a time" the two candidates with the greatest chance of winning a presidential election are currently the democratic candidate and the republican candidate. i don't dispute that fact. it might change, but that's where it stands today, and probably for a long time to come. doesn't mean i won't vote green, *if* i feel it's warranted, partly as an effort to change that.

[Walt Starr]

151. But I'm a Democrat

I have been for more than two decades. I voted straight party-line tickets for those two decades and ran for public office twice during those two decades as the Democratic candidate.

I'm not a Green, but the Greens may get my vote if the Democratic Party decides to leave me.

[Kamika]

158. Good for you!

Im sure Bush appreciates it

[Walt Starr]

160. BULLSHIT

I refuse to lie down with dogs. The above mentioned so-called candidates are dogs. They cannot win. Fuck them and fuck the Democratic PArty if it is idiotic enough to reward their craven cowardice in the face of the chimp.

[Jacobin]

109. Those who voted for the invasion are just as culpable as Smirk

This invasion opened a Pandora's Box of horrors and will lead directly to loss of U.S. life through increased terrorism on our soil and around the world.

Iraq is becoming the new Afghanistan...a training ground for terrorists and a shooting gallery in which our soldiers are the targets.

Enormous protests, letter writing campaigns, email campaigns, fax campaigns and the rest were launched to demand that Dem senators NOT give Smirk the authority to invade, for all the same reasons that are obvious now to anyone, and should have been obvious to the non-PNACers back then.

Anyone who voted for the invasion is either muddle-headed, stupid, a criminal, or so self-absorbed with their own perceived political future that they have no business being in congress.

They are accessories to mass murder and war crimes and should be JAILED, NOT elected to office.

I'm with you 1000000%.

[Redleg]

199. Who voted for the invasion? Invasion was never put to a vote.

Bush is still responsible for the decision, since it was his. Congress abdicated their right to declare war (or not declare it) but Bush is ultimately responsible for the action.

[jiacinto]

110. This only goes to show how somettimes I wonder

if this board is really Green Underground or wewantDemocratstolosein2004.com

[welshTerrier2]

114. let me ask you these questions, jiacinto

i have no problem, though i don't agree, with your criticism of DU'ers who will not support pro-war democrats ...

however, let me ask you these questions, jiacinto ...

is it your position that we should always support the democratic nominee regardless of that person's voting record? would you extend this to a segregationist? would you extend this to a candidate who opposes a woman's right to choose? would you extend this to someone who wants to abolish the department of education and wants the federal government to get out of the education business? would you extend this to a nominee who wants to abolish the minimum wage or who refuses to take any steps to protect american jobs? would you extend this to a candidate who sees no problem ignoring the will of the U.N. ? would you extend this to a candidate who wants to restart the arms race?

finally, would you extend this to a nominee who doesn't support the long-term traditions and values of the democratic party?

perhaps your answer to all of the above will be YES ... i only hope that you can respect those who do not agree with you ...

[welshTerrier2]

111. the blind democrats

i wrote this in another thread but thought it fit perfectly here as well ...

bush's misguided policy has created a dangerous power vacuum in Iraq ... i believe the expression is "better the devil you know" ... and there is no soil more fertile for terrorism than a country with an anti-american population and a destabilized government ...

sadly, we continue to hear from certain democrats that the war was justified ... some make the argument, which has some merit but misses the greater point, that Saddam was evil and we and the Iraqi people are better off without him. it still mystifies me that any democrat could have "gone along" with bush ... implicit in the "authorization" they provided to him, be it legal or symbolic, was that they trusted bush to "do the right thing" ... this should never have happened ...

there is no question about the tragic failure of bush's Iraq strategy ... it was the wrong policy from day one ... it failed to respect the U.N.'s role in international diplomacy and failed to respect the sovereignty of Iraq ... the entire case against Saddam was an ends looking for a means to justify it ... the PNAC'ers pushed this agenda with Clinton ... they achieved it with bush ...

where the real questions remain is why some democrats sunk so low that they believed supporting bush was necessary ... or why they felt that the threat from Saddam was so great as to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation against the wishes of the U.N. ... or what they envisioned would be the future of post-war Iraq ... we're Democrats ... we are not weak on defense ... we don't shy away from protecting our country ... but did the pro-war democrats really believe this invasion would make us safer? did they believe that war was the way to "free" the Iraqi people and provide them with better lives ...

i hate to have fragmentation within the party ... but i will never vote for any of these poor souls who failed such an easy test ... the wrongness of this war and the inevitability of its aftermath were clear from day one ... and some, even some on our own team, were just too blind to see.

[jiacinto]

112. Sometimes I wonder if this is really a Green board

nt

[sujan]

115. when did it become a democrats only forum?

[Kamika]

118. He didnt say that

Hes just concerned why so many posts reminds us of greens.

Im curious too, alot of posts are so radical it looks more like a green board then a democratic.


Ppl should wake up and realize greens are as big of a enemy as the republicans

[CWebster]

119. Yes of course

Democrats should more closely resemble Republicans to truly be recognised as true Democrats.

[jiacinto]

128. This board is dominated by extremists

Yeah this board is quite radical as the extremists have taken it over.

[sujan]

133. extremists?

I think not. But there are a lot of reactionaries (with you included in that group).

[welshTerrier2]

131. what people should realize

Ppl should wake up and realize greens are as big of a enemy as the republicans

what people should wake up and realize is that many greens are, or were, democrats ... what people should realize is that greens, like every other constituency, provide an opportunity for democrats ... greens are a "natural constituency" for the democratic party ... what people should realize is that severely misguided support for bush's iraq policy shown by certain democrats is what drives some democrats out of the party ...

alot of posts are so radical it looks more like a green board then a democratic.

perhaps so ... but i don't consider posts that show disdain for the votes cast by certain democrats in support of bush to be among those "radical" posts ...

[Kamika]

134. I dont care really

I dont care if these guys are ex democrats, they arent anylonger hence they are enemies. Since they help Bush win.

Thats the only thing they do dont give me any bs that *anyone* can win etc, its either dem or rep.

[welshTerrier2]

135. making your losses permanent

that's a great strategy for a political party ... fortunately, it is not the one being followed by most of the current democratic candidates ...

if you listen to them, you'll hear them making regular appeals for those who have supported third parties to support their candidacies ... they, unlike yourself, understand that there is much in the democratic party to appeal to these constituencies ...

democratics need to find ways to reflect the ideals and values of voters who have been attracted by third parties ... the only thing your hostility will accomplish will be driving them further away ...

and btw, i am a democrat ... for now ... let's hope that we nominate a democrat i can support ... i don't want to vote green ... but i will not "automatically" vote for a democrat ...

one last point ... dont give me any bs that *anyone* can win etc, its either dem or rep. ... i gave you no such bs ... you were wrong to imply that i did ... or that i held that view ...

[Kamika]

139. They cant do that

If they give in to the radical left they will lose ALOT more ppl then they gain. Like extreme gun control.

[welshTerrier2]

140. BUT THEY ARE DOING THAT !!!

They cant do that

BUT THEY ARE DOING THAT !!! the point is not to adopt every view of every party just to attract more voters ... the point is that democrats need to see 3rd party voters as opportunities ... not as enemies ... democrats need to highlight areas of agreement with 3rd party voters ... and there are many such areas ... and with regard to the greens, many green voters are disaffected democrats ... many feel that the party has abandoned them, not they they have abandoned the party ... why not respect them even if you believe they are wrong ... why not listen to their reasons even if you disagree with them ... why not do everything you can to "bring them home" ... you want to drive wedges between those on the left? i still carry hope that the wounds can be healed ...


fortunately, it is not the one being followed by most of the current democratic candidates ...

if you listen to them, you'll hear them making regular appeals for those who have supported third parties to support their candidacies ... they, unlike yourself, understand that there is much in the democratic party to appeal to these constituencies ...

[Kamika]

142. I dont need to drive wedges

The left does that great without my help. Even on this forum

[Iverson]

152. by daring to exist?

or did you have something else in mind?

[Walt Starr]

144. Bravo!

Thank you for stating tht so eloquently.

Any of the above could easily get my vote back by disavowing their vote in favor of an illegal and immoral war for oil.

[welshTerrier2]

164. if all you care about is winning, look who's out in front ...

well said, Walt ...

those who hold us in such disdain for seeing the evils of bush's iraq policy so clearly fail to hear this important point ... we are not seeking the destruction of democrats or the democratic party ...

we do not see kerry and the other misguided souls as "radicals" or as the enemy ... but we do need them to acknowledge their mistake ... we do need them to share our view of the world on this most critical issue ... they trusted bush ... they believed he would use diplomacy to its fullest extent ... they believed he would use an invasion only as a last resort ...

they must disavow what they've done ... they must say the truth ... if they continue to hide from the truth, not only will they not have the votes of many on the left, but they also will not have a chance to win against bush ... and for those who label us radicals, please take note of the democratic candidates with momentum ... does lieberman have momentum ... is kerry or gephardt surging ?? if all you care about is winning, and you're wrong to do so, then take a good, clear look at Dean as he surges ahead of the war supporters ... it's not radicals supporting him ... it's mainstream democrats ... and maybe some from third parties as well ...

[Pobeka]

173. They can't acknowledge their mistake

without looking like total idiots. Bush proclaimed to the world before the election that he thought diplomacy was a waste of time. Every action he took in office before the Iraq vote confirmed that fact. Anyone who voted for that Iraq resolution knew with high certainty that Bush was going to start a war, come hell or high water. And he chose the hell route.

[welshTerrier2]

180. take your medicine

kerry keeps saying that he voted for the resolution to give bush the power to backup his diplomatic efforts with the strength and support of the Congress and the American military ... he keeps saying his objective in doing this was to strengthen bush's hand in the diplomatic process with the hope that this would give diplomacy a better chance of succeeding ...

well, fine ... it was foolish to do so ... but so be it ...

the "path out" of this mess for Kerry and the others is to say that because bush rejected "real diplomatic efforts" the war was not justified ... it should have only been used as a last resort and because it wasn't, it was not justified ...

but Kerry and the others refuse to say this ... they acknowledge bush was too quick to go to war but they stand on that last teensy weensy little piece of shakey ground and steadfastly, and wrongly, adhere to the argument that the war was justified ...

they may, indeed, suffer a big hit by reversing themselves on iraq ... but there is no viable alternative ... they need to take their medicine and admit they were wrong ... it's the only way for the healing to begin ...

[Pobeka]

192. Then they need to take the medicine sooner rather than later

I question their morality as it stands...

[sujan]

137. lol

sure

[sujan]

138. what is so radical about greens?

their ten key values trumps DNC's talking points any day.

[CWebster]

117. Here is the stunning part

Despite the door of hell being flung open in Iraq by Smirk's determination to "appear tough" and get mileage off of the 911 by creating another military victory, Democrats ar still accepting that they must prove their military bravado- that they are not "weak of defense" instead of condemning the reckless deception that increases the threat to our national security.

It is so simple it is mindboggling.

[John_H]

120. No, Walt, you'll be voting for who STARTED the war

if you vote for a third party candidate or cast a blank ballot.

[Walt Starr]

127. BULLSHIT

I'd be voting for somebody other than the people who started the war. If Kerry is the Democrat and Bush is the REpublican, then the only way to vote for who started the war would be to vote for KErry or Bush, since they colluded on starting the war.

[sujan]

143. exactly

nobody owns your vote; they will have to earn it.

[John_H]

146. I'm afraid you have no choice, then

Vote for Kerry=a vote for a guy who voted for the war AND who will roll back many of Chimpy's idiotic social, domestic, and foreign policy initiatives

Vote for Bush= a vote for Bush

Vote for a third party=effectively a vote for Bush

And that's only bullshit in the fantasy world of ideological purists.
I the world that will chose a president november of 2004 it's called the bay it is.

But, hey, it's your vote.

[Walt Starr]

157. BULLSHIT

This is an untrue statement:

Vote for a third party=effectively a vote for Bush

Vote for a thiid party = vote for a third party AND NOTHING ELSE

[Pobeka]

136. Walt, I hear you, and often feel that way

But, then I realize, my vote will make the biggest difference in my life and the lives of my children if I use it to get the best outcome.

If I seriously thought that a third party had a good chance of getting * out of office, they'd get my consideration for sure.

But, if it realistically (as usual) is a choice between * or any Dem, I'll have to vote for a Dem. It may be a vote for the "lesser of 2 evils", but I don't want the greater of the 2 evils in office. I want someone in office who can stem the tide of insanity, maybe even start some real commissions to investigate the robber barrons of the 21st century.

We can use our votes in the primaries to work inside the democratic party to make our points. And I will be -- my representative voted for the Iraq war, and I'm supporting his opponent in the primary only because of that single vote of his.

I hope that some day, we can have a more than 2 party system in this country, and dump the antiquated "you only get to vote for 1 person" system we have. Until then, I'm forced to vote in a way that affects the outcome of an election, not my true desires. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

Do what's right for you Walt, I'll do what's right for me.

Peace.

[Walt Starr]

162. There is but one way to change the Democratic Party

We must stop rewarding Democrats for ineffectivness and craven cowardice.

And the sad fact that everybody has to face, we will have to lose more to win more down the road.

It's that simple and that's precisely how the right wingers changed the Republican party.

It takes decades, not years.

[sangh0]

167. Just one way?

The Fundamentalists agree.

[Walt Starr]

170. That's how the right changed the GOP

That's the only way the Left can change the Democratic Party.

The Right let Bush Sr. hang out to dry in '92.

If the Left leaves a Democratic Lapdog hanging out to dry in '04, the Democratic PArty will ahve to return to its progressive roots.

[Kamika]

202. You seem to be confused

The democratic party is Not left on the political scale it is centrist/right. whereas the conservative party is more right.

[Pobeka]

171. "It takes decades, not years"

Thanks for that, that is some serious food for thought :hi:

[MadHound]

156. Good for you Walt, I'm going to be right there with you

It is time for the people in this party to wake up and see that the once proudly progressive Democratic party of yore has now become nothing more than a lapdog for the corporate special interests that plague our country. The very same interests that got us into this immoral war and are keeping us there.

People wish to think that a Democratic president would not get us into a preemptive war. Well, does anybody remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? Last I checked, LBJ was a Dem at the time. Wrong is wrong not matter which party you are from, and if you are going to continue to reward these people with your vote, then I ask you what is going to make them change? It was obvious in the run up to the war that protests and letters wouldn't change it. So you wish to reward them with your vote? Insanity!

Lots of good people around here bitch and moan about how spineless the Dems are, how they aren't standing up to anything that Bush and his ilk are doing. And yet they are now saying they are going to reward these same spineless wonders with their vote? More insanity!
How do you expect these people do what we the people wish for them to do if they are not held accountable, if they are automatically given the vote simply because they have a D behind their name?

There are also lots of fine people around hear who are dooming and glooming that this country can't take another four years of Bush, that all hell will come up and take up residence here on Earth. The very same dire warnings that I heard when Bush I ran, when Reagan ran and when Nixon ran. And yet here we are, all still here, no tanks in the streets. What is worse than having a 'Pug in office though is having the corporate masters controlling BOTH parties. I think that this was adequately demonstrated with the Clinton administration. Let's go down the list shall we. NAFTA, WTO, expansion of GATT and IMF, '96 Telecom act, welfare "reform", stepping up the WOD, increase prison size and population, H-1B visa program, the standard of living for the average American declining 3.1%, the disparity in wealth reaching a historical all time high, deregulation of financal institutions(so much for Glass Steegle), the advent of soft money(to complete the corporate mastery of elections), and on and on, all the while paying mere lip service to Democratic Party ideals. And this was a Democratic President!? No, this is our new breed of corporate president, bought and paid for by his corporate masters. We, the backbone of this party and this nation are dumped by the roadside, needed only for the formality of our vote. "Vote Democratic, who else are you going to vote for? The 'Pugs?" Might as well, both candidates have virtually the same corporate masters(or did you forget that Phillip Morris gave 2 million+ to both Bush and Gore, along with 50 other corporations who gave $100,000 to each candidate)

Well for me, enough is enough! I'm not rewarding a candidate just because he has a D by his name! I'm not going to settle for "the lesser of two evils" logic anymore. Evil is evil, and any candidate who voted for the war, or is beholden to corporate masters is not getting my vote. This is not going to be a vote for Bush, nor is it going to be a vote for whichever Dem is spewed up by the DLC and suchlike ilk. This IS going to be a vote for our future, both as a country and as citizens of this world. That is what we are fighting for here, and I put to you that if you are voting for a Dem simply because there is a D behind the name then you are doing us all a disservice.

[Walt Starr]

159. Thank You

Denying all votes to those who are political cowards will be the only way to effect change in the Democratic Party. If we continue to reward Democrats who are lapdogs of the Republicans, Democrats will contue to be ebaten and sent out to the doghouse.

I refuse to lie down with dogs any more.

[Pobeka]

169. I don't disagree with the principles here

I'm just in a quandry of how exactly to fix things without causing damage in the process. Like I said earlier, I think work the issue of the right-leaning democrats during the primaries, and vote them out then. But, if the election realistically comes down to the choice between a Dem and W, I gotta vote Dem. So, I'm in that class of voters who are waiting for a viable third party to put real pressure on the political system. I wish like heck we had it. I wonder if those ~50% of the population who didn't vote could make a difference if they got engaged, and saw the opportunity for a third party to make the other 2 parties more responsive and accountable.

This is hard stuff to contemplate. Thanks to everyone for sharing their views on this.

[onehandle]

174. I'm voting for my cat....

His name is George W. Bush.

Which is an Amazing Coincidence!

[K-W]

176. Absolutely ludacris

This is the kind of black vs white, good vs evil bs that gets republicans elected.

Im sorry that the world is too complicated for you, but you should at least recognize that its complicated. No one running on the democratic ticket, except maybe lieberman is pro-war. This war is entirely the fault of the republicans. They used the media and they manipulated the American people and they manipulated democrats into a very tough position. First off it was not a vote to war, it was a vote to give the president the power to go to war. The way it was phrased was certainly not that we would go to war the way we did. Ofc Bush could not be trusted with that, but guess what, most of america didnt feel that way then.

So they could vote against the resolution, take a stand on a vote that isnt even technically a vote for war. At this point practically half the country thought saddam had flown one of the planes, so they would probably have been voting against their constituancies at the time as well. Then when the army found tons of warheads and chemical weapons and al queda operatives in iraq (which was of course unlikely, but not impossible) they would be completely disgraced, they would have voted against the war that saved america and their careers would be over and all of the top democrats would be political martyrs leaving the democratic party extremely weakend and embarassed. Id love to see this election if that happend. But we didnt find weapons or terrorists so hindsight is 20/20. They were being bombared by intelligence and lies from people they are supposed to be able to trust and they could not be anywhere certain that Iraq wouldnt have what the republicans say they had. The war went bad, we didnt find anything, and being staunchly anti-war is STILL not an extremely popular position in this country.

Instead of somehow being able to predict the future and sacrificing themselves and the party for a pointless gesture of anti-war sentiment, they did what was the best move politically. They voted for a resolution that put all of the responsibility for this war on the Bush administration. So then, if bush found evidence, they could say they did the right thing. And when he didnt find evidence, they can say "we trusted him, and he lied" Much politically stronger positions and more popular positions nation wide. Voters can sympothize with that, because an aweful lot of voters, and the voters we are going to need to swing WERENT anti war. They believed alot of the lies and now they are realizing they were lied to. They can much easier go and vote for someone who can argue they went through the same exact process.

Politics isnt about perfection. We have a governement that is going to be centrist. This is a good thing. Yes it keeps us from fixing alot of things fast, but it also keeps the neocons in the world from "fixing" things fast.

You cant elect politicians to be martyrs, these people have been playing the game and now they may be our best chance to get rid of this administration. This nation isnt going to swing from voting massively conservative to voting extremely liberal in a day. First we need to get bush out of office and put in someone who is much further left. And all the candidates, even leiberman, are much further left that Bush is. But instead youd rather paint the world in black and white, use your hindsight to unfairly judge the actions of others and help the people who are destroying our country stay in power.

A vote for anyone other than the democratic nominee is a vote for the continuing of the dominance that the right has had over the left politically. It is a vote to keep the left fighting over perfect ideals while the right recognizes that governement is about compromise. Now the religions right, the neocons, business, etc all get much much more of what they want than they would if they refused to support anyone who wasnt 100% with them and didnt constantly push thier agenda. They have overun our country and this petty idealism has helped them.

We arent voting for people, we are voting for what this country will look like in 5 years. A vote for anyone other than the democrat is a vote for a country that is worse than the one we have now.

[molly]

177. I'm so glad you found DU!!!!

welcome to a clear and logical thinking person!

[Walt Starr]

178. You are just plain wrong

The war is the fault of both Democrats and Republicans. I admire the Democrats who had the courage to vote against the act which enabled Mr. Bush's evil war.

I hold nothing but scorn for any cowardly lapdog Democrat who voted in favor of Mr. Bush's evil war, they hold every bit as much blame as Mr. Bush and I will not vote for them.

I am taking the long road to change within the Democratic Party. I refuse to EVER vote for another Lapdog Democrat.

[Iverson]

179. black and white

If you cannot abide pre-emptive invasions, that means that you look at the world in an absolutist black and white way. However, if your critic tells you that the world begins and ends with a choice between Democrats and Republicans and nothing else, that is not black and white. That is "clear and logical."

Don't you get it? Departure from the DLC ethos will not be permitted.

[Walt Starr]

184. Understood, all too well

The only way to reform the Democratic Party is to stop voting for Lapdog Democrats.

Unfortunately, the entire DLC and most elected Democrats fall into the ccategory of Lapdog Democrats.

[K-W]

183. It's funny

how you try to argue that this is both the democrats and republicans fault and then refer to it as "Mr. Bush's evil war"

No one voted in favor of Mr. Bush's evil war. No one is a lapdog.

You are not taking the long road to change, you are taking the short road to destruction. The long road to change is about COMPROMISE. The long road to change is about supporting people who may not agree with you, but can actually change things. You arent changing anything. you are voting for the status quo, where extreme liberals dont vote or vote green and republicans win. that is not a change my friend.

The worst thing is that you are being utterly unfair to them. You might have something approaching a reasonable point if you talked about them giving rights to the president he shouldnt have and enabling him. Or if you think that this represents these people in general of being too tied to the system, or that it represents them being too afraid to challenge opposition. If you want to have that discussion that would be great.

But to call them lapdogs is a gross mischarecterization. They arent lapdogs, they are politicians who made a certain decision at one point that they thought was best for them, their constituants, the party. They will continue to make decisions that way, as will greens and republicans. Now unless you can argue that the way they voted in the resolution was indicitive of something that would make them a bad president, you have absolutely no point.

I think they made the right decisions for themselves and for the party. They werent going to stop the war, their job was to be ready NOW to win the next election. That is thier responsibility to us and I think they fufilled it. Ideals are fun, but its reality that kills people. And in essance, your being anti killing is making you vote for what could result in more killing.

This is the problem. If you want less people to die, vote for the person who is going to cause less people to die. You are more caught up with an anti-war idea than you are with the reason we are anti war.

[Walt Starr]

185. I will not compromise on this issue

Plain and simple, this statement is not factual:

No one voted in favor of Mr. Bush's evil war. No one is a lapdog.

Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, and Edwars ALL VOTED IN FAVOR OF MR. BUSH'S EVIL WAR!

Parse the vote any way you like, all four of them are Lapdog Democrats. They have lost my vote forever.

[Iverson]

189. political calculus vs. bombing people

I cannot agree that an officeholder's political survival is more important than military invasion of a country that has not attacked us, oh yeah, with the attendant "collateral damage."

We'll just have to have a difference of opinion on that one.

[Pobeka]

194. No difference of opinion here!

Why is it so hard to see that deciding to kill people requires better ethics than "being more worried about your re-election than the true merits of the case?"

Edit - clarified a little, sorry for the run-on sentence.

[Walt Starr]

195. Expedience vs. the right thing to do

This sums up precisely why the political cowards voted in favor of the illegal immoral evil war to steal Iraqi oil.

No more Lapdog Democrats.

[MadHound]

186. So we should forgive them for they are stupid and spineless?

Hell no! If a leader is this easily duped, then they don't deserve to be in power. If a leader doesn't have the cojones to LEAD, then they don't deserve to be in power. Rewarding people with your vote because they are stupid and spineless only allows for our country to go down the tubes with nary a peep!

On top of that, the last time I looked, our country's governmental model is that of a represenative democracy, a republic if you will, where the represenative is supposed to listen to OUR wishes. In the run up to the Gulf WarII, there were two hundred+ letters and messages sent to our represenatives that were against the war for every one for it. They were really listening to their constituents there eh? NOT! Before the media went into full hyper mode, the public opinion was actually against the war. And hell, you knew, I knew, the CIA knew, the IAEA knew, the inspectors knew, virtually everybody else knew that Iraq had no WMD! The government was just doing this smoke and mirrors act so that they could get their war for oil. And some of the Democrats handed it to them on a silver platter.

But you are correct, we are voting for what this country will look like in five years(and beyond). Where you go wrong is thinking that people who are beholden to their corporate masters actually will have our best interests at heart, that they will somehow represent us. The only interests they are looking out for is their own and their corporate masters. If you cannot see this bold fact plain in front of you, then your head is buried too deep to uncover with a steamshovel. Perhaps you should do some research, let me reccomend a few eye openers: Wealth and Democracy, by Kevin Phillips, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, by Greg Palast, most anything by Jim Hightower, What Liberal Media, by Eric Alterman. Start there, and when you're done let's see if you still hold the same opinion.

[Pobeka]

190. Words and deeds

We can rationalize all we want, but congress knew very well that Bush would go to war if they gave him that power. No amount of wordsmithing gets them out of that. None. I didn't hire my representatives to "play to the polls" on such a critically moral issue, I hired them to do the right thing. They completely and utterly failed me on that point.

This vote committed thousands of innocent Iraqi's, and soon to be a thousand U.S. citizens (soldiers) to their deaths. When you are going to kill people, you should be more worried about their lives than your re-election.

If they don't get a reprimand from the voters, one way or another, they will continue that behaviour in years to come.

I remember them by the deed they did, not the words they use to rationalize the nasty deed after the fact.

[davidinalameda]

181. A lot of people mistakenly supported the war

based on Shrub's lies

I wouldn't hold that against them.

What is important now is what they are saying now that the lies have been exposed

[Walt Starr]

187. I saw through the lies

They were lapdogs.

Never the twain shall meet.

I'm into reforming the Democratic PArty for the long haul. That means accepting losses now to dump the Lapdogs in favor of REAL Democrats in the future..

[Q]

188. Many on DU knew they were lies...

...are you telling us we're more informed than our representatives?

- Bush* has never been truthworthy. Never. Those who believe anything he has to say are either fools or shouldn't be public servants.

[Pobeka]

193. Yes -- the whole rest of the WORLD didn't believe it

There were virtually no verifiable facts to support this war. Congress was "playing the polls", rather than doing their job.

[Redleg]

201. Knew they were lies or suspected they were lies?

I doubt any of us really knew for sure. Most of us probably did suspect that Bush was playing us.

[RobertFrancisK]

196. I agree

I'll vote for any dem in the general election, but in the primary I'll vote for someone like Clark, Dean or Graham (in that order) that analyzed the war in terms of what it meant for the country, not what it meant for them politically.

[Redleg]

200. Thanks for telling us-

I guess your vote is not big loss.