Here's what I'm not getting....

[Khephra]

I'm seeing many of the people here who have been the strongest foes to the war on terror be willing to not even blink when the two frontrunners are still willing to continue the fight.

Hasn't the war on drugs taught anyone anything? Once you as a Democrat buys into any of these false wars, then you've lost all moral authority. You're willing to vote for someone who is on the same line as the GOP.

Some of you I remember from the IWR days. I remember your online venting. I remember your disgust.

Now you're just willing to shrug it all off and go "Oh, well. ABB."

Yeah, I'm there with you on the ABB Bus, but it's time to stop being silent. It's time for us to be yelling at the top of our lungs. It's OK to still be ABB but still be disgusted. We all were at one time or another. The candidates NEED to know that they're not playing by the old rules anymore, which is all I'm seeing now. Play it safe and we might win.

Yeah, right. I've been here for the past few elections. Does anyone think playing it safe has gotten us anywhere?

Don't ask others to get in line behind your candidate. It's the easiest way to turn off others, especially when we can remember how many times YOU ranted against the war.

I'm willing to compromise, but stop acting like we have to get in line. This "in line" shit is VERY insulting...especially to those of us with a memory.

[Dover]

1. I don't get it either.

Criticism of any kind directed at the Dem candidate is apparently seen as being disloyal, and working against election efforts.
Because it seems Kerry or Edwards will be our selected candidate, "going along" (or "move on" as Kerry would say) is prudent. The Dem leadership has got us between Iraq and hard place.
They gauged the hatred of Bush and the ABB sentiment accurately.
And I understand your resentment.

[Monte Carlo]

2. Speaking for myself, I don't think Kerry would run it the way Bush has.

Not by a long shot. I believe him to be talking big about the War on Terror right now because he wants to take Bush's biggest electoral issue away from him. I think if and when he wins against Bush in Nov., he would immediately steer it into a different direction, one that it should have been going since day 1.

[lastliberalintexas]

20. But you apparently believe he WOULD run it

Just BETTER than the one in power right now. Never mind how many innocents are killed or maimed in the process- Corporate America has declared we need a war by golly, and we'll give it to them. :eyes:

There are other ways to legitimately deal with terrorism and the threats it poses to the world- violence should not be seen as our only option. Humanitarian aid would do far more to truly democratize and stabilize things- if that were truly what the US interests wanted anyway. But no, we can't seize oil reserves with humanitarian aid, and besides, that option's not politically popular. May God have mercy on us all.

[Monte Carlo]

25. What you said is how I think he would run it.

No need for the speech, please.

He understands that we should cooperate normally, and go it alone when only necessary. Bush does it backwards - go it alone normally, cooperate only when necessary.

[lastliberalintexas]

37. Any evidence to support that claim?

I'm not doubting your belief, I'm simply doubting Kerry. I've seen nothing from him to indicate that he wouldn't fall prey to the rightwing interests who pushed for this war in the first place. Regardless of what his supporters want to acknowledge, Kerry has shown a great deal of cowardice in his votes over the past 3 years. And yes, that IS a relevant time frame despite his 30 years of service. It shows me how he responds under great duress and political pressure- and I haven't exactly liked what I've seen.

So I'd be very interested to see something from Kerry that shows his willingness and desire to change directions on this.

[HFishbine]

80. The standard reply has become:

"You have to read between the lines."

[sangh0]

87. See Kerry's "Do not rush to war" speech

If you PM me, I'll see if I can dig up a link

[DontBlameMe]

3. You're not alone.

I watched the debate last night, and for the first time I actually liked Kerry. I didn't necessarily agree with his explanation of the IWR vote, but I could sort of accept his reasoning.

Then I come here this morning, and the first thread I clicked in LBN was about Dean's new organization. Immediately, the response was, in essence, "Fuck Dean. Fuck you. Follow Kerry" yada yada yada.

Well, two words for the get-in-line crew: Fuck that!!!

[jpgray]

4. As I said to a like post, there are loyalty oaths for the primary and GE

One is totally worthless and has no place here, the other I believe in but find tiresome at times.

For the primary I am for Kucinich. For the GE I am for the Democrat. End of story. If someone says 'you should only vote Kerry in the primary', they have no business expecting polite responses, or any responses at all. For the GE, saying 'you should only vote for the Dem nominee in the primary' is much better and less offensive. Voting strategically in the primary, unless you're looking to spoil a candidate 's chances, makes absolutely no sense to me.

[sangh0]

5. I'm confused

Is your criticism that Kerry and Edwards aren't opposed to the War on Terrorism? Is it that they do oppose it but aren't vocal enough about it?

ISTR Kerry saying something to the effect that this needs something more like a police action than military action, but I can't think of anything else JE or JK have said on the subject. Also, IMO I don't see how any candidate could get elected if they're publicly against the War on Terrorism. In fact, I doubt I would vote for such a candidate.

[Khephra]

7. That's you

Some of us realize that a "war on terror" isn't winnable. NEVER.

Kerry or Edwards hasn't said they'd support a way out. It's always that it's being fought wrong. It's going to take more or else we are in for another unending war on a nebulous villain.

Terrorism is a tactic. You can't defeat a tactic forever. If you think that's so then you're buying into the Vietnam argument: we can bomb the enemy into defeat.

HA.

Most of this "war" is caused by our relation to Israel. Until we change our relation with Israel, it will never be over.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. Keph

Most of this "war" is caused by our relation to Israel. Until we change our relation with Israel, it will never be over.

It's a great big globe

http://www.icij.org/dtaweb/icij_bow.asp?Section=Chapter&ChapNum=1

[sangh0]

9. In that case

I'd just like to say that Bush* has given us a shitload of issues to attack him with. A campaign cannot push so many issues at the same time because doing so means dividing up your times into sections too small to do them justice, in order to explain them to a public that does not have the capacity to keep so many issues clear in their minds at the same time. Because of this, the candidates need to pick and choose the issues they are going to concentrate, and so there will always be ammo for those who are upset that the candidates are not focusing on the issue some individual is particularly concerned with.

I prefer to judge the candidates by the sum total of their records, statements, actions, etc and not on the basis of one or two issues.

[jpgray]

14. My take on the 'war on terror'

9/11 has to be addressed. We want to avoid those kinds of attacks.

Bush took that indisputable fact and set up an outsider bogeyman to enrich his friends and inflate the budget, much as Reagan did with the Soviet Union. They use the support for solving problem to enact 'solutions' that will NEVER solve the problem. As you said, you can't beat terrorists with tanks, bombs, and soldiers. There are no lines on a map that describe the borders of 'terrorist' country. Many of our allies are inundated with 'terroists', and these we will never invade. Therefore military action is useless, since you can't bomb and invade each individual terrorist's home in every country that harbors them around the world. Bush knows this, but military action is useful in setting up his ideas concerning the budget, corporate deregulation, and rollback of civil rights and social programs. Moreover this allows for perpetual conflict, since the inevitable killing of innocents when hitting the 'evil doers' simply creates more terrorism--Israel's primarily military response hasn't solved the problem this way, and we won't solve it this way either.

What will solve the problems of terrorism has to deal with changing our policy abroad. No Republican administration will do this. A Democrat will at least listen, and, depending on his character, will act. What no major Democrat will do is run on stopping the military war on terror and converting to a policy war on terror. It isn't strategic, and they are right to be afraid since contractors are so intrenched in this country's media ownership.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. I can only speak for myself

I'm seeing many of the people here who have been the strongest foes to the war on terror be willing to not even blink when the two frontrunners are still willing to continue the fight.

I am not a foe of the "war on terror," I am a foe of Bush's war on terror which doesn't address terrorism at all. Afterall, they secured the oil fields in Iraq but they didn't ssecure Tawaitha.

Terrorism is real and even Al Gore acknowledged such. His name was one a great big study about it and made some excellent recommendations, some of which ended up in the PAtriot Act.

We will need to continue to address terrorism since our poor relationships with many countries leads to small militias being able to turn populations against us. We live in a world and do business in it...for the record, I supported us doing something in Somalia and Rawanda.....we shoudl NOT have backed out.

Hasn't the war on drugs taught anyone anything? Once you as a Democrat buys into any of these false wars, then you've lost all moral authority. You're willing to vote for someone who is on the same line as the GOP.

Yes. The war on drugs has taught me that by criminalizing every aspect of it and scaring the shit out of people, we create a black market that then translates that drug money into weapons that are being used all over the world to fuel conflicts Addressing TREATMENT at home limits demand which limits funds.

Some of you I remember from the IWR days. I remember your online venting. I remember your disgust.

Now you're just willing to shrug it all off and go "Oh, well. ABB."

I am not willing to dismiss, I am willing to forgive and to turn it over to someone who cares about what happens to the people when we do. Half measures and abandoning Iraq are not workable and we don't need to leave room for another POL POT to move in. Been ther...done that. WE made a mess, we need to clean it up.


I am not asking anyone to get in line behind my candidate. I am asking people to deal with the present and the future not the past, even if they don't forgive that past.

I am asking people to consider the WHOLE rather than the sum of its parts and I am asking people to continue to do what THEY see will make a difference in the future not the past.

[Khephra]

10. I'm willing to go for the "whole"

But I'm just upset about the forgetfulness of some posters. That's not directed at you. Not at all.

Yes, I realize that terrorism is a problem, but I can't get behind anyone who thinks that's a war that can be won. It can't be. We are talking about a tool here. The idea that we can stop a tool for all time is stupid.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. Terrorism IS indeed a tool that will never go away

But a SMALL ARMS trade that has gone on under the radar has made it possible. This is why when PEACE ACTIVISTS take Kerry to task with the "waffle" deal it makes me crazy. For years he had been acting to reduce the available funds to the people who profit MOST off the arms trade...SMALL ARMS manufacturers....go to the gun dungeon here at DU..and LOOK at the support of SMALL ARMS manufacturers...look at the number of people even in THIS forum that support SMALL arms manufacturers.

You can't do anything about a guy with a homemade bomb but you CAN cutt off the ORGANIZED funding of his cause via the blackmarket ARMS trade which is WHY Kerry's bill on offshore banking was a GREAT start.

[Dhalgren]

55. I think that at least part of the problem is we are fighting

against a type of fighting. "Terrorism" is a method used by certain individuals in order to get their messege across or in order to affect some change that they are otherwize powerless to accomplish. You can't wage a "war" on that. You can honestly try and discover who is committing these acts and for what purpose. It is silly to try and kill them all, we need to find a remedy for their anger and lack of a more acceptable outlet for communication and negotiation. But the "war on terrorism" is a lie - it always has been. We should stop buying into this lie.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

83. I agree. If you saw Kerry's statement on what happened in Haiti last night

I think he understands and sympathizes with that POV. When (I think) Kucinich said Bush did nothing, Kerry quicly pointed out that they were manipulating and WERE doing SOMETHING..the WRONG thing.

snip
KERRY: Actually, I disagree with John a little bit, in that the president...

(LAUGHTER)

... the president himself, wasn't engaged, but his administration has been. And his administration has been engaged in a very manipulative and wrongful way.

EDWARDS: Are you saying they were engaged but wrong engaged?

(LAUGHTER)

KERRY: Here's what I'm telling you. Here's what I'm telling you. This administration set up an equation. They have a theological and a ideological hatred for Aristide. They always have.

And they approach this so that the insurgents were given -- empowered by this administration, because they said to the insurgents, "If you...

(APPLAUSE)

"... Until you reach an agreement with Aristide and the government about sharing power, we're not going to provide aid and assistance."

So we empowered them to simply veto any agreement, which is what they're still doing with respect to a power-sharing in another government.

What this president ought to have done is to have given them an ultimatum: Either we're going to restore the democracy, have the full democracy in the region -- notwithstanding that I think Aristide has some problems, and I do.

And I think there have been serious problems in his police, the way they've managed things. But our engagement should have been to try to restore the democracy, to bring those people together. That's what president...

KING: All right. Janet has a question.

CLAYTON: But as a practical...

KERRY: ... and that's what we should be doing now.

[revcarol]

11. And here's what I'm not getting:

the ire of all of us against Bechtel, Halliburton,Brown & Root, Dyncorp against the raping of all the assets of Iraq and the privatization of everything in sight has just DISSIPATED.

NOT ONE WORD from the "electable ones" about giving the assets of Iraq back to the people who owned them, no word on letting the Iraqis run their own oil(hey, they only did it for years), NOTHING.

So, in the OCCUPATION WAR, "to the victors go the spoils!!"

Was it all just rhetoric, to make us feel good?

LET'S MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD. IRAQ AND ALL ITS ASSETS BELONG TO THE IRAQIS!!

[WilliamPitt]

12. Nobody is shrugging anything off

You, and so many others, miss the ultimate point: George W. Bush left the door open for September 11, which left the door open for the Patriot Act, Homeland Security departments, and Iraq invasions.

All of this flowed from the seedcorn moment - the attack, which could have and should have been stopped, but wasn't. That, for my money, is the main and only reason why ABB is so vital a stance, and not a concession to 'necessity' but a cause worthy of blood and death.

I, for one, forgive nothing of the candidates who went along with the ride in Iraq. Simultaneously, however, I see two things not through a glass darkly, but as clear as day:

1) All of them or any of them are an improvement over Bush. Extrapolations regarding how they are "someone who is on the same line as the GOP" is bullshit revisionism utterly ignorant of voting records and policy statements. You're a lot smarter than that, Kef, and you're too smart to be a one-issue voter. I pray your sadness over the defeat of your chosen candidate has not bent you towards this abyss of nonsense that puts Kerry, Edwards and Bush on the same moral and intellectual level. That's garbage and you know it, and if you've forgotten it, you need to remember. I can dig up 50 old threads where you call yourself a "Kerry man" even after the IWR, speaking of "venting" and "disgust."

2) Kerry or Edwards need to be put into office, by shoehorn if necessary, for the simple reason that THEY CAN BE PUSHED BY THEIR BASE. Look to Bush for the proof of this. He came out for the gay marriage amendment because his base was blasting his ass to do so, and he did it, because he needs them. So shall a Democratic President need us, and so shall they respond to us, as we will kick their asses six ways from Sunday. We will not repeat the mistakes of 1993-1998, when the progressives went to sleep until it was too late.

I wrote THE fucking book on the war, and I will vote for the guys who voted for it, because I am not a one-issue voter, and because they can be pushed, and because there would have been no war, no 9/11, no deficits without George and the boys. Period.

It isn't yet time to "get in line." The primaries are not over. The time to get in line is, however, coming soon. Personally, I will write off anyone who gets in the way of Democratic victory in November as a fool and a wrecker once that moment comes. Compromise can be painful. Defeat, in this matter, will be death.

Forest, meet trees.

[Khephra]

21. That may be so....

But I'm not getting a feeling that we will see much of a "change in team".

Part of the argument I have doesn't apply to you...you understand the need for third parties.

But NEITHER of us need people who are status quo.

Yeah, you can quote me a hell of a lot of quotes about Kerry or Edward's past, but they're moving to the center. I'll be real surprised if you deny it.

In six months you and others will be pissing off about either Kerry or Edwards. Trust me on that. I've seen you and others do it.

For those who were against the war, I ask you this: was your candidate REALLY against the war? Do you think things will change with them in charge?

[WilliamPitt]

23. Of course Kerry is moving to the center

Every Democratic candidate with half a brain moves to the center as the general election approaches. It is an expected part of the process. I'm not going to start tearing my hair because he's doing what I expected him to do. Dean would have done the same thing, because that's how you win in a general election. Then again, I'm a cynic.

As for pissing off about Kerry and Edwards in six months, I will only do so if they get stupid and start to lose. Win first, then reform. It doesn't work the other way around.

[redqueen]

26. Problem is, Will, that a lot of us trusted Clinton

and even (damn our naivete) got excited about the prospect of having something akin to the the fairness doctrine made law. Then we got something else entirely.

So forgive us if we find it hard to trust that this move to the center is anything but reality. Their votes the past few years tend to say otherwise, as well, sadly enough.

[WilliamPitt]

29. Trusting Clinton was your mistake

Thinking you had won something in 1992 was your mistake. You thought the Republicans were just going to pack it in after ruling the roost for 12 years? Do you, likewise, think the rightward tilt of Clinton was entirely his desire? Or was he pushed to the right because the Left 'trusted' him and didn't push back?

We will win NOTHING in 2004 if we win the election, nothing except the chance to begin to push back and fix what has been broken. That's all, but that's enough for now.

[ibegurpard]

63. Just how exactly are we supposed to "push back?"

The only real power we have is our vote... there was plenty of "pushing" going on during the lead-up to the Iraq War but it was all for nought. The only time that politicians pay attention to those of us without obscene amounts of money and influence is election time. If we don't hold their feet to the fire then just how are we supposed to do it afterwards?

[sangh0]

78. Speak for yourself

Maybe the only power you have is your vote, but there is much more the rest of us can do.

[ibegurpard]

85. Enlighten me.

Please. Humor me with something other than a glib one-liner.

[sangh0]

88. OK

giving and withholding donations, letter-writing, telephoning, protesting, organizing, lobbying, etc

I do all of those year after year.

[ibegurpard]

89. Fine

And what do you do when none of those are effective? As has been the case for numerous issues over the past three years? The only thing left is your vote.

[sangh0]

92. What I do?

More of the same, hoping to persuade more people to join in. If I'm in a small minority, then there's no reason for a politician to fear us. If it's a larger number of people, politician's listen.

As has been the case for numerous issues over the past three years?

It's been that case because most people do not agree with us. If we had more people, we'd have more power to change things because in a democracy, there's power in numbers.

The only thing left is your vote.

Wrong. There's also civil disobediance.

[ibegurpard]

94. You're leaving out the very BIG money factor.

eom

[sangh0]

98. I don't understand

Could you say more?

[Khephra]

32. You know as well as anybody

I'm abb. There's one reason why I'll vote for a goat over Bush--the SC judges.

But I'm seeing a lot of people (not you) who are willing to cave in on the war who were the hardest fighters against it. SIGH....

Some people here were going on and on about deaths abroad, but now, it's all forgotten.

Sigh... I guess I'm learning that this isn't my party.

[WilliamPitt]

36. How do you define "caving in"?

By your definition, pledging ABB is "caving in," so you are as guilty as the rest. Moaning about it doesn't remove the stain. So what's the deal, Kef?

Me, I'm voting Democrat in November with a clear fucking conscience. Anyone who wants to call that "caving in" can cram it, because it's nonsense and self-congratulatory masturbation.

You can tell I'm angry.

[KoKo]

113. You are correct Keph that some here who seemed so strong against

Iraq Invasion very soon after turned and were very unconcerned about it, seeming to feel we were there and so we had to finish it. It became a non issue in the Candidate wars for them, and particularly if they didn't support Dean.

I understand where you are coming from. I think we need a "Populist Wing" of the Democratic Party that builds from the anger of those of us who now feel very disenfranchised on DU. I'm not for Third Party because they don't work, but more for a "Liberal Democrat or Populist Wing of the Dem Party which will be as big a force as the RW is to the Repugs. It's time for that. But, how do we do it, and who will lead us?

I don't know if it will be Dean because I'm still so torn up about all of what went on there, that I'm not sure quite what to think, yet. But, I think all will become clear down the road.

I also know that this ABB stuff pushed in folks faces and the ridiculing of Dean supporters here and everywhere hasn't helped those of us who were Dean/Kucinich feel that we are part of the Party.

I will stay as a Democrat because I'm angry with the Democratic current Leadership. The DLC is the target of my anger. I don't think it's just a small group of DU'ers either. It's out there but everyone's kind of "shell shocked" and feeling left without a voice.

We won't go away, but we need to have time to strategize and absorb what really happened with this Primary.

I'm still mad as Hell about Iraq. So, is Bobby Byrd. He said so today. There are others. And, I think there are some powerful people that we don't even know about who will come to light at some point.

Right now, I'm sort of cold in my heart about all of this. Feel I've wasted my time sometimes, and other times I realize all I've learned and that knowledge is POWER. I think it's a time to rest and think and watch carefully how this all unfolds. I won't be putting any yard signs out for this one. But I refuse to just give up, also. There will be ways. We just don't see it now.

[KoKo]

114. OFGS! Kerry was always in the Center. He didn't have to move. n/t

[Khephra]

22. Matter of fact....

I told you my great fear...

we're going to get another democrat who continues the wars of the past Republicans. I hope they prove me wrong, but I'm afraid it will be true.

[WilliamPitt]

24. Don't let them

What do you think truthout will be doing if Bush loses? truthout will be pushing hard against the Democratic president to do the right thing, and kicking him in the balls when he doesn't.

[redqueen]

27. What do you make of Hillary's comments

about the volunteer military lately?

[WilliamPitt]

31. Do you have a link I can read?

[charlie]

46. Link

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4372246

She seems to be making the argument, ala Rangel, that a volunteer army allows foreign commitments without public consideration of the costs, the implication being, I guess, that conscription would make far more people think twice about policy that turns their kids into cannon fodder. She also wants a larger army.

There may be merit to the idea, but it stills annoys the living daylights out of me to hear Democrats floating the idea of a draft.

[sangh0]

53. I just love "seems to be...I guess" ploy

Nowhere does Clinton say that conscription would be better in any way.

"The New York Democrat did not call for a revival of conscription, which ended 30 years ago, but said the all-volunteer nature of the military hides from the public the costs of overseas actions.

Clinton urged an increase in the size of the Army, supporting a proposal by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to expand the Army by 10,000 soldiers."

There may be merit to the idea, but it stills annoys the living daylights out of me to hear Democrats floating the idea of a draft.

There's no merit in your false mischaracterization.

[charlie]

81. Oh, reel it in Sangha

It wasn't a ploy, I'm not skulking around here looking for an opportunity to sneak in an unwarranted slam against a Democrat.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday the all-volunteer military "raises serious questions in a democracy, both (about) how we define ourselves (and) what the real risks politically and militarily of taking action might be."

The all-volunteer force may make it “easy for decision-makers just to try to keep it out of sight and out of mind,” she said in a speech to the foreign policy think-tank the Brookings Institution in Washington.

I said "seems" because it's my opinion that a consideration for conscription is just where she's headed with her critique. Can you tell me another possible remedy if she ultimately decides that the problems must be resolved? I doubt I'm alone in fearing that.

[sangh0]

91. I'm sorry, but it's disingenous

to portray your interpretions as Sen Clinton's secret desires. The article specifically points out that "The New York Democrat did not call for a revival of conscription...".

Can you tell me another possible remedy if she ultimately decides that the problems must be resolved?

Sure, political awareness on the part of the people. Talking about the problem, as Sen Clinton is doing, is one way to raise that awareness.

[charlie]

100. Okay

That's fine. Point taken. I don't mind corrections of my fuzzy thinking or erroneously drawn conclusions. But "seems" and "I guess" were honest qualifiers to denote speculation, not an attempt to slip one by you. Your habit of imputing ulterior motives to those with whom you disagree is the pits.

[sangh0]

101. Point taken

One of the reasons for that (imputing ulterior motives) was I assumed that you were the one who asked about Clinton in the 1st place, a poster I have noticed has a habit of "seeming" things that aren't there. I was careless and didn't look at who was posting to see it wasn't them, it was you.

My apologies. I can't remember you ever doing anything deceptive, and you did nothing to be treated that way by me.

[charlie]

104. Whoa

That's really decent of you. You're a-l-r-i-g-h-t :thumbsup:

[sangh0]

107. If I were really decent

I would've been more careful to begin with. But thanks, all the same

[Mairead]

39. "we will kick their asses six ways from Sunday"

Really, Will? How? Our negotiating power vanishes the moment we hand in our ballots. What leverage would we retain?

[WilliamPitt]

41. You're kidding, right?

The Bush administration is the best example of a crew dedicated to keeping their base happy. They don't do that just for chucks. Elections happen every two years. If the base revolts, ruin at the polls follows. Congress and Congressional elections do, in fact, exist, and do factor into the political calculus being done in the White House.

Do you get the sense that the culture-war mavens of the right lost their negotiating power in 2000? Seems to me they've been running shit. I wonder why.

[Mairead]

45. "If the base revolts, ruin at the polls follows."

Yep. And that's what happened in '02. So what is that lesson buying us today? 'Pour encourager les autres' doesn't seem to have worked, from where I sit.

[sangh0]

49. That wasn't the base who vote R in 2002

The Repukes won more than they should have in 2002 because they ran as patriots, and slammed the Dems as un-american. I really don't think the "liberal base" revolted because the Dems weren't patriotic enough.

Furthermore, turnout was slightly up, so if anyone revolted, they still ended up voting for someone. Since it seems unlikely that the "liberal base" voted R, it seems reasonable to assume that the defeats were the result of more moderate and conservative Dems voting R, and not the result of liberals not voting.

[IrateCitizen]

51. Not entirely true, sangha/sangh0/sangh9

Since I'm not entirely sure what to call you.... ;-)

The Democratic "base" didn't show up at the polls in great numbers in 2002 because the Democratic candidates did little to inspire them to do so. That entire race was about, "I agree with President Bush and the Republicans, just with a small caveat." Of course, the GOP had their bag of dirty tricks helping to fuel this business -- but by and large, the electorate didn't perceive Democrats as willing to stand up more than a wet noodle and fight on their behalf.

A good case in point would be Mary Landrieu's Senate runoff against Suzy Terrell. I recall reading an article that described how Terrell was gaining in the polls toward the end of the race, and former President Clinton made a visit to the campaign HQ. His message was essentially to stop talking about all the ways in which you're similar, and to instead focus on the differences between you and the Republicans.

Landrieu did this in the last week of her campaign, and she pulled away in the polls and held on to her seat.

[sangh0]

56. Turnout was up

It doesn't sound like the "base" didn't show up. Though you could make the argument that the Dems would have done better if they had spoken up more (and in hindsight, I'd agree), if they did do better, it would not be because they got the base to the polls. It would be because they got the moderate Dems and Independents to vote Dem.

[IrateCitizen]

76. And what gets those moderates and independents to vote Dem?

It's when they don't perceive the Democratic candidate as being a wet noodle who's afraid to stand up and fight. Like James Carville said on that election eve, "People don't expect Democrats to stand up and fight for them if they won't even stand up and fight for themselves."

[sangh0]

93. Too simplistic

I really doubt the answer is so simple as that. If those people wanted Dems to attack Bush*, why did so many of them vote for Repukes who made themselves out to be so much like Bush*?

[Mairead]

52. I'm sorry, if that's meant to rebut what I said, you'll have to unpack it

because it sounds like it's supporting my position.

[sangh0]

58. I'll try again

Your argument is that the Dem "base" stayed home ("revolted") because the Dems didn't oppose Bush* forcefully enough, or at all. (I'm assuming this "base" is liberal because you claim that they stayed home because they didn't oppose Bush* enough. That doesn't sound like moderates or conservatives). WHat I see is almost the opposite.

Turnout was up in 2002 compared to 1998. That leads me to believe that the base made it to the polls. The problem wasn't people staying home. It was people voting for the wrong person. And since it was the R's who won, it seems extremely unlikely that what happened was the liberal base voting for R's. If possible D voters voted R, I would guess they were either moderate-conservative Dem, or Independents.

[Mairead]

75. So are you claiming that refutes my argument, or what?

Because I'm still not following. For me, the bottom line is that the Dems lost in a year when traditionally they should have won. According to Will, that should have produced a 'come to Jesus' reaction this year, something that all-too-obviously did not happen. Whence my argument that once we hand over our votes, they can do as they please because, contrary to Will's assertion, we've nothing left to beat them with.

[sangh0]

79. "traditionally they should have won"??

I would say we have no tradition of voting after a terrorist attack on our soil that killed thousands of innocent people.

[Mairead]

86. So are you saying the theory is rubbish, or what? (nt)

[sangh0]

95. I'm saying I don't know

I think we are at the beginning of a entirely new political environment, and I am have little certainty that the old traditions apply.

[Mairead]

102. Okay, fine, but by the same token you've no reason to suppose they don't

It's not as though there's been a significant--let alone fundamental--change in human or even US social makeup. So I see no reason to suppose that anything stopped being true.

[sangh0]

106. Right.

but I would disagree with your claim that there hasn't been a significant change in the US social makeup. I was shocked by the changes in attitude I saw in many of my family, my friends and my neighbors.

[IrateCitizen]

42. Do you really believe that electoral politics is the only outlet...

... for expression (or seizure) of true political freedom?

Please. I've had quite enough of this kind of defeatism.

Just because we currently live in an atomized society, one in which people are more and more "living their own lives" cut off from interaction (and more importantly, mutual support) with their neighbors, does not mean that this is the way things HAVE to be.

For you, someone supporting Dennis Kucinich as vociferously as you have, to be crying and bemoaning that our ballots are our only leverage at all is simply incomprehensible. Is it that Dennis has to do all of the heavy lifting FOR you, and that all you have to do is vote?

The leverage you maintain is your cooperation -- whether or not you choose to give it. Whether you give it passively or actively is not important -- the fact remains that you can either give it or withhold it.

Perhaps this would help refocus your efforts: http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil.html

Of course, it really is only the tip of the iceberg. But it does help get you pointed in the right direction.

[Mairead]

50. Hey, ease up, huh? "Crying and bemoaning" isn't what's happening here

I'm talking Principles of Negotiation 101: the value of a service drops sharply once the service has been rendered.

Once we give them what they want--our votes--we have nothing left. Our hands are empty. We're not electing delegates who can be dismissed and replaced ad libitum, we're electing our rulers. We can't get rid of them for years after, short of violence.

Civil disobedience? How many would participate, with the spectre hovering in the background of being declared a terrorist?

If we can't even get people to do something safe, fully legal, and completely in their short- AND long-term best interests, what hope have we that we can persuade them to do something that's not safe, can be construed as illegal, and might be a short-term disaster for them?

[IrateCitizen]

71. Where's the idealism???

Dennis Kucinich is out there on the campaign trail today and every day, in the face of long-shot odds, a media that doesn't even acknowledge his existence, and a party establishment that consistently writes him off as a "fringe" or "vanity" candidate.

So, the question is, why does he keep going on? Because he believes in his vision and himself and the American people, that's why.

Once we give them what they want--our votes--we have nothing left. Our hands are empty. We're not electing delegates who can be dismissed and replaced ad libitum, we're electing our rulers. We can't get rid of them for years after, short of violence.

And what will holding out this magical "vote" do for you, in the long run? Will it increase the likelihood that you will be listened to? Will it get you a direct line to the national party headquarters? I really want to know what the short and long-term benefits are of holding out your vote, because even as a Nader voter in 2000, I still have yet for someone to offer me a convincing argument on this with regards to the current climate.

If we can't even get people to do something safe, fully legal, and completely in their short- AND long-term best interests, what hope have we that we can persuade them to do something that's not safe, can be construed as illegal, and might be a short-term disaster for them?

And if the people don't see things your way, or my way, now -- what makes you think that they will see them your way or my way if you withhold your vote? In all honesty, are we going for the "it has to get worse before it gets better" strategy? Because if so, then allow me to get off the bus right here and now -- there are a lot of people who can't afford for things to get ANY worse, and would welcome even the smallest short-term improvement.

Continuing on, what is our responsibility in all of this? Might it be to hold true to our own ideas of idealism and choose the best (if not easiest) path toward achieving our goals? I was discussing this kind of thing with one of my co-workers over lunch today, about how people are so self-absorbed with keeping their heads above water that it results in a society in which people don't care for each other. They don't care for each other because they're worried that if they do worry about someone else, it will be THEIR head that falls below water. In this sense, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. But on the other side, if people can see that if they learn to work cooperatively and depend on each other during rough times, they might begin to NOT worry so much about falling on their own hard times, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in the other direction.

Could it possibly be that our role is to help bring this about? Going back to the original question, how will holding on to your vote do this? Is this even something that has anything to do with voting? Or is it an example of one of the myriad of things that operates outside of the political process, but can be used to pull it in the direction we want it to go?

[Mairead]

84. I'm solid idealism. You can practically watch it sublime off me.

But I'm cynical and practical, too. At least sometimes :)

What will voting my conscience do? Not much, by itself. It's like owning a fax machine or telephone--if I've the only one in the world, then it's not worth much. But if I'm one of millions, then it can be quite important and valuable.

I can only control my one vote. If I could take control of everyone else's, believe me I'd be tempted! I'd like to think that at the end of the day I'd have the integrity to resist, but I'm glad I'll never be put to the test.

But I can control my one vote.

But we're getting off the track here, I think. Will contends that we have leverage that continues to exist after we vote in November. I say that as a practical matter we don't, and I offer in evidence the fact that the 2002 losses didn't produce any soul-searching or come-to-Jesus reaction this year the way that voter-leverage theory predicts.

[rucky]

15. Getting psyched up to beat Bush?

given what we have to work with

sometimes a little denial puts you in the right frame of mind.

I'll do it until the election. some of us can & others can't and one group isn't any worse than the other.

We're all doing what's right, but focusing on two different things right now - reform & beating Bush. they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

I can vote for DK in the primary AND enthusiastically pull for whoever in the GE AND stay on that Democrat's ass after I help him win. I see no conflict with that.

[Paulie]

16. 4th Generation Warfare

A very good read is: http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_generation_warfare.htm

We're not setup for the 4GW fight.

[tobius]

17. It's ok to be against the war and the IWR vote as long as

it doesn't hurt the nominee. Didn't get the memo? Marching in the streets was ok, but now it may not make kerry look good.
move along.. nothing to see here. more important issues around, where's your loyalty?

[littlejoe]

18. To paraphrase Al Sharpton, "on their worst Day, Kerry and Edwards

are one hell of a lot better than Bush."

To equate Kerry with the asshole in the White House is a GROSS disparagement.

[sangh0]

19. Let's make a list of major issues

9/11 investigation
secret energy plan
Corporate crime (Enron, etc)
War profiteering
Iraq invasion
IWR
PATRIOT
NCLB
Medicare
SS
deficits
Health care
poverty
unemployment
gay marriage


Fifteen major issues. Since a stump speech is about 20 minutes tops, you're talking about having the candidates speak for less than 2 minutes per major issue. What a way to address the issues, huh?

And I didn't even mention the military budget, reforming the intelligence agencies, electronic voting, voter disenfranchisement, and a number of others

[Protagoras]

28. I'd include or sub-list

Reproductive Rights
Stacking of the Supreme Court
Aids (not just in Africa)
Offshoring
regressive taxation
Campaign finance reform
(and I'd break down the PA into a number of issues)

And I haven't even had my coffee yet :D

[sangh0]

33. SO which of these issues do we shut up about

in order to make an argument against the War on Terror?

[Protagoras]

90. You don't shut up, but you prioritize and contextualize

and some times you are going to address one issue, other times another. Your audience, the current events of the week, and even the fact that you haven't touched on an issue for a while will all factor in.

But you shouldn't be condemned because you don't try and shove it all into each speech. That would just water you down on every issue.

And I personally loathe the term "War on Terror" since it's about as meaningful as having a "War" on poverty or drugs.

How about we find a "Cure for" or "Initiative against" terror...feed and educate people, give them a reason to like us..by using terms that don't show us to be imperialistic and militaristic...then maybe they'll stop having such an intense desire to do us harm.

It won't happen over night but guess what...neither will a solution involving lots of guns and bombs (but they cost more).

[sangh0]

96. If you won't eliminate any of the issues

your time will be so divided, you'll never have enough time to contextualize the issues. Providing context on major issues takes a lot of time, particularly in light of the fact that many people are not interested in the details. Providing context on 15 major issues takes 15 times as long.

And prioritization means spending less time on the less important issues. Which of those 15 major issues should we not spend sufficient time on?

[hippiechick]

30. Thank you, Bro ~

You manage time and time again to capture and put to verse what so many of us 'old timers' are feeling.

Genius must run in the family :hug:

:hippie:

[sangh0]

34. Kerry Outlines Anti-Terrorism Plan

Kerry Outlines Anti-Terrorism Plan
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=716&e=4&u=/ap/20040227/ap_on_el_pr/democrats

"Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) outlined his plan to combat terrorism Friday that relies on stronger intelligence-gathering, law enforcement and international alliances, rebutting increasing criticism of his national security credentials from President Bush (news - web sites)'s campaign...

Kerry said Bush has "no comprehensive strategy for victory in the war on terror."

"We cannot win the war on terror through military power alone," said the four-term Massachusetts lawmaker, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Kerry also accused the president and "his armchair hawks" of weakening the U.S. military by failing to provide proper equipment. He lambasted Bush for "stonewalling" the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks."

[sangh0]

35. WoT, Chickenhawks, and 9/11 in ONE article

Is that what you were talking about, Keph?

[WilliamPitt]

38. "Caving in"?

Not.

[littlejoe]

40. It is BECAUSE I have a memory, that for this year only I am

urging people to get "in line."

[tryanhas]

43. Maybe they are intelligent enough...

...not to be "ONE ISSUE" voters?

Maybe they are tired of representing the "WE LOVE LOSING ELECTIONS AS LONG AS WE FIGHT FOR OUR ONE ISSUE" wing of the Democratic party?

Maybe they actually want to beat George W. Bush instead of getting four more years of Bush just because the two men that might beat Bush voted for THE IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION that gave Bush authorization to do something that he already had the power to do?

Oh well...

...moving on.

[goobergunch]

47. American Foreign Policy is a single issue? (n/t)

[tryanhas]

48. No, the...

...waaaah, wwaaaah, wwwwahh, IWR resolution vote is the single issue that most people on this board complain about, other than gay marriage, which is not really a real issue at all.

[sangh0]

60. The issue is The War on Terrorism

Read the initial post

[goobergunch]

62. What war?

Terrorism is a crime, last I checked...see Chapter 113B of Title 18, United States Code.

[sangh0]

64. Stupid question

Start your dictionary flame with someone else. I'm not biting

[goobergunch]

67. Okay

So it's fine with you that Kerry supports the perpetual "war on terrorism". Just checking....

[sangh0]

69. Asked and answered

Try your games out on someone else. You don't fool me.

[goobergunch]

73. It's a yes or no question

If you have answered it previously, please link me.

[goobergunch]

61. The IWR vote was to authorize the War in Iraq, which

typifies the Bush*/neocon/PNAC foreign policy of American imperialism.

[sangh0]

65. Start your dictionary flame somewhere else

I'm not biting

[goobergunch]

68. So you don't think that the Iraq war was imperialistic? (n/t)

[sangh0]

72. So do you think you're being too obvious?

.

[goobergunch]

74. No. Please answer the question. (n/t)

[sangh0]

97. Wrong answer

You're being very obvious

[goobergunch]

105. Very obvious is not too obvious in this case

Because I don't know how to make my question any cleared.

Answer it, please.

>>Do you think that the Iraq war was imperialistic?

[sangh0]

109. The subject is "What Kephra doesn't get"

and it has something to with the War on Terror in general, not the Iraqi Invasion in particular. If you would like to ask a question, start a thread.

[goobergunch]

110. This forum is fully threaded (n/t)

[Khephra]

66. You don't think that the deaths of innocent people are important?

I laugh at your sickness.

[sangh0]

77. keph, please respond

to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=406211&mesg_id=406695&page=

so that after you pick issues to ignore, I can attack you with "SO you don't think (fill in the blank) is important?"

[sangh0]

112. I guess kephra thinks the 9/11 investigations is not important

I haven't heard him talk about it at all

Nothing about the tax cuts either. I guess Kephra doesn't care.

/sarcasm off

[janx]

70. That is one issue, you are right.

And it is a Big One.

What I find baffling is the fact that more people don't pay attention to it.

Gay marriage isn't "an issue"?


I am going to guess that you support a candidate who voted for the IWR and is against gay marriage. Am I right?

[Tinoire]

44. You're kind Keph. I'm not seeing many "strongest foes to the war"

lining up behind Kerry. I went through the archives recently and found 2 at the most from the old DUers. The majority now saying they opposed the war were totally silent, already excusing it then or whorishly waiting to see which way the winds of antiwar fashion would blow.

Some of those people even disappeared from DU for months because they were such an unwelcome minority only to reappear recently and say they were not for the war. Memories are long. Archives remain.

Don't be like Kerry. If you were for the war then, or silently complicit, the record still shows it. And no sense lying about it now cause we can dive into book-marked posts and retrieve words and phrases that were not strongly antiwar. Kind of like diving into congressional records. The words remain.

Don't be falling for this crap America. The strongest antiwar voices are NOT lining up behind Kerry. If anything, they are loudly condemning Kerry.


Great post Kephra. Sorry for ranting.

[xray s]

54. I haven't caved in, but I can understand reality

The reality is the guy I wanted was against this war but now he is out of the race.

The remaining viable candidates voted for the IWR. I don't like that, but there is nothing I can do about that now.

I have no doubt that on any issue the chance that my viewpoint will actually get an honest hearing and have a chance of becoming public policy are infinitely greater under a Kerry or Edwards administration than a Bush administration. I am confident the odds are infinitely greater because the chances of such a hearing are ZERO in a Bush administration.

I can take solace in the fact that any future Democratic administration will have to fill hundreds of federal appointments and judgeships. There is no doubt in my mind that will bring many many people who share many of my beliefs into the government, some of them for a long time to come.

And I realize that if progressives are going to make any kind of impact on the Democratic party, that impact has to be built one block, one precinct, one congressional district and one state at a time.

So now we have to focus on winning this fight, and planning for the next.

peace

[cmd]

59. Well said, xray s

We cannot allow Bush* to appoint a supreme. He is doing enough damage with federal appointments.

[buddhamama]

57. i hear ya, kef

if anything is going to lead a loss come Noevember it's being silent.

my approach, take the fight outside of party politics.
there is only so much we can accomplish within the party's structure.
i've gotten involved with a few 'anti-war' orgs
and i'm expressing myself that way.

the pressure is there, the voices are loud.
DU is part of our everyday lives
so it is easy to forget how big and loud the voices really are.

[jonnyblitz]

82. I am one of those people. I decided to cut to the chase.

who am I going to vote for in the end, BUSH? I don't see the point in posturing anymore when in the end I am going to vote for the DEM. Many times I read what the remaining candidates positions are or read comments they have made and GRIMACE but I dont see the point in yelling anymore when I am ultimately ABB.

[Capn Sunshine]

99. Please move to the back of the ABB Bus

I'm saving you a seat.

You'll note there is a large soundproof partition which means we can make all the noise we want about the war and no one will hear us, they'll just smile and wave.

Funny being on a bus you wanted to be on, but finding the people who also wanted you to ride with them really are trying to get their sleep for the long ride.

[sangh0]

103. Thats' democracy

In a two-party, winner-takes-all political system you are always going to find groups coalescing even though there are differences of opinion. Organizing requires that some defer their own opinions to the majority. It works that way for a simple reason:

It's how the Framers designed it.

[goobergunch]

108. The Framers didn't believe in political parties.

You'll note that Washington tried to stay above the fray for as long as he could, putting both Hamilton and Jefferson in his administration.

[sangh0]

111. Not entirely true

The Framers didn't LIKE political parties, but they did not think it would be impossible for them to become established under the Constitution they wrote.

And even without political parties, in a winner-takes-all electoral system, there is a need to form coalitions, and that means there will be a diversity of opinion on the various issues of the day. Do you really think there's a majority of voters who agree on all the issues?

[KoKo]

115. Kick.

:kick: