Sorry, but I WON'T be Voting for a Pro War Democrat

[mopaul]

nope, not gonna do it, not again, not ever.

guess maybe that means i won't be voting at all in 08

[KG]

1. well, that'll cost the dems another election!!!

[Tesha]

30. Or the Democrats *COULD* take an actual *STANCE* *AGAINST* the war...

Of course, that won't happen, so I guess we're back to your point.

Tesha.

[Deja Q]

49. And the point is?

When voting for two of a kind, that equates to not having a difference in which to choose from.

[bearfan454]

61. "well, that'll cost the dems another election!!!"

If that doesn't Diebold will.

[lojasmo]

149. Or perhaps the democrats will cost themselves an election

by trying so hard to appeal to swing voters, they lose their base (sound familliar? It should)

I won't be bothering to go to the polls to elect anybody who helped BUsh wage this illegal and immoral war on Iraq.

Hillary! Kerry! Edwards! (etc. ad nauseum) Can you all hear me?

[Warren DeMontague]

171. I hope you're kidding.

That kind of logic has been the problem.

[d_b]

I won't either. n/t

[lvx35]

3. I actually would, if (s)he has a anti-war one as VP.

To sort of show the lesson and respect for people who said it would be a bad idea. I would vote for Clinton/Clark for instance.

[bluestateguy]

8. Bush LIte is still better than Bush

Just not that much better.

[anarchy1999]

19. We still have BUSH, daddy and his minions just wind up Bush Lite in the

am and roll/fly him wherever and he does as told to.

Lots of perks for behaving, 4-day work week, short hours, vacation every weekend (3 days or 4 or 5), held accountable for nothing, 30 days straight every summer (only god knows why in the world, Crawford), and many more we've yet to learn of.

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. Nice work, if you can get it, eh?

The little worm has it made.

[d_b]

29. I suppose

it's too early to say I won't. Just depends on who the psychopath they're running against is.

[ohio_liberal]

50. Which one is anti-war out of the two?

Wes Clark is the one you'd think is pro-war, but didn't he say on that war is nothing but diplomatic failure that should be avoided at all costs? And Hillary, how did she vote?

[Clark2008]

85. Wes testified before the Senate in November 2002

and warned them that now was NOT the time to go to war in Iraq: there was limited "proof" that Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, Hussein was contained by NATO and posed no threat and that we needed to concentrate on our efforts to get bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan - we were already committed.

Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and many, many others, didn't listen and voted to allow the president to decide if and when we should go to war in Iraq.

Why anyone would give Bush the authority to do anything more than fall off a bicycle is beyond me. We all know that everything he touches turns to shit, from business to government.

I'm not going to rule out people because of this one vote; however, that being said, I am fully supporting General Clark in the 2008 primaries, should he run (Duh, look at my user name).

[Sterling]

59. Maybe if Hillary was terminal ill.....

Other wise I will stay at home and watch TV.

[lvx35]

2. Will the be so dumb as to run one?

After Iraq has fully blossomed into the big mess it is becoming?

[bvar22]

121. Yes! Iraq has been a Bonanza

for large, influential, Global Corporations who buy much influence in both Partys. Who careswhat the little people think. As long asBOTH Parties are FOR the War, where are the voters gonna go?
Just like 2004!

[Sterling]

151. where are the voters gonna go?

That is essentially the only defense that can be offered for why people should keep supporting DLC types. Honestly that has just made me less politically active and more apathetic. I am more inclined to be a spectator as long as the two choices are so offensive to me.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. So...

watchoo gonna do in the Novembers before then?

[Sterling]

152. Football.

Lots of football.

[H2O Man]

5. I agree.

Ending the war needs to be a priority. And, while it may sound selfish, I have "draft age" sons, and am not interested in supporting the agenda of anyone who wants young men this age killing and dying for Halliburton.

[anarchy1999]

21. H20, I have a draft age daughter and feel as you do, but only when we

have a draft will the people of this country rise up and end this nightmare.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

36. I have two teen sons. One is now "draft age" and there is no way that

these warmongers will take them for their illegal, immoral wars. PNAC states over and over again about protecting American interests all over the globe. Whereas, our young men and women are to become fodder to protect companies like Halliburton.

Remember also that Kissinger said this about our armed forces. "Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." How many other warmongers feel this same exact way??? And yes, Hillary is a warmonger.......

[w8liftinglady]

119. I couldn't agree more.

I wanted to put a face to this war,so I've added my son's picture,along with an iraqi kid he made friends with,to my sig line.This is my boy's 2nd deployment.It will kill me if anything happens to him.I don't think you can really appreciate how horrible this war is until you have kids this age(or you ARE this age).We need to proclaim our anti-war,pro-soldier,pro-veteran stance loudly.This is a war based on lies and deception.

[meganmonkey]

126. Wow - what a picture!

I pray that your brave son comes home safe and healthy.

[w8liftinglady]

Thanks

I love this picture-I wanted to convey that most of these kids are good people(American AND Iraqi)

[bluestateguy]

6. I think you owe us a definition of the word "pro-war"

If somebody is pro-war because they believe in military retaliation against a nation or terrorist cartel that directly attacks the United States, then I do not agree with your sentiments.

If someone is pro-war because they they support preemptive warfare and neoconservative nation building as active instruments of foreign policy, then I am sympathetic to your view.

The best thing you can do is to campaign and vote for the Democrat who you want to represent the party in the primary. That's what primaries are for.

[mopaul]

7. any democrat who agreed with bush about invading iraq for no reason

so, you know what i mean i guess. if there were a good reason for a war, i'd be pro war as hell.

[anarchy1999]

18. Hey mopaul, there is an easier way to say this.

Any Democrat that did not hold themselves to their oath to uphold the Constitution and serve "the people".

Only Congress can declare war and then there is the issue of this silly little treaty we (the U.S.) signed with lots of other governments from around the world, (comes down to no "pre-emptive war" can be declared upon any nation by any ONE nation and any treaty we sign and ratify (the U.S.) becomes the law of the land).

Back to Smedley B. and "WAR IS A RACKET"!

[K-W]

48. That isnt a very good definition.

Very few democrats agreed with the decision to go to war. But alot of democrats support the occupation. They are the ones who support the war right now and your definition leaves them out.

[Uncle Joe]

109. Al Gore said this, regarding war with Iraq

Al Gore came out with this speech against going to war in Iraq in the spring of 2002, the corpwhorate media said he was just ranting.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-0...gore-text_...
<snip>
To begin with, I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another.
<snip>
We also need to look at the relationship between our national goal of regime change in Iraq and our goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be more difficult for the United States to succeed alone, but still possible. By contrast, the war against terror manifestly requires broad and continuous international cooperation. Our ability to secure this kind of cooperation can be severely damaged by unilateral action against Iraq. If the Administration has reason to believe otherwise, it ought to share those reasons with the Congress - since it is asking Congress to endorse action that might well impair a more urgent task: continuing to disrupt and destroy the international terror network.
<snip>
By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network - much as we manage to squander in one year's time the largest budget surpluses in history and convert them into massive fiscal deficits. He has compounded this by asserting a new doctrine - of preemption.
<snip>
At this fateful juncture in our history it is vital that we see clearly who are our enemies, and that we deal with them. It is also important, however, that in the process we preserve not only ourselves as individuals, but our nature as a people dedicated to the rule of law.
<snip>
believe that we can effectively defend ourselves abroad and at home without dimming our principles. Indeed, I believe that our success in defending ourselves depends precisely on not giving up what we stand for.

[wtmusic]

177. I'll never vote for one that supports "preemptive self-defense"

that says it in a nutshell.

[LittleClarkie]

198. They didn't agree with Bush about invading Iraq for no reason

Bush gave false reasons. Now that most of them have realized just how false those reasons were, many of them are mad as hell, Kerry included.

Kerry has said repeatedly that Iraq is a waste of time, and that our beef was with Afghanistan, not Iraq.

The only exceptions I've seen lately are the Clinton's and Lieberman, re: still supporting the war.

So that's your definition. I thought so. Historically revisionist, black and white thinking, generally unfair to the people you're lumping in the category.

The one to be angry at is the one who lied, not the ones who were taken in.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, who would be a good example of someone you'd support. Give me a for instance, please.

[DiverDave]

9. Right, lets ALL stay home

Let the repukes build their empire.
sheesh.

[mopaul]

10. oh god, mo's gonna blow the whole election for us again!

voting for kerry did me no good last time, voting for hillary won't help either. they'll build their empire regardless of little old me.

i'll vote if i see a real candidate, but if it's a repeat of last year, i'll stay home. if that makes me a jerk, so be it.

and i recently discovered i have a conscience, and at night i see the faces of the innocent victims and they are legion.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

16. You nailed it, mo.

"at night i see the faces of the innocent victims and they are legion."

Voting for more of this is active complicity. Brings to mind the tenor of two other threads and my responses therein: 1) Americans are ignorant and stupid; 2) Was Jesus responsible for the slaughter of the innocents. Both threads have something to do with voter/tax payer complicity in all things American policy (too bad the Jesus thread was moved to the Religion/Theology board).

"voting for kerry did me no good last time, voting for hillary won't help either. they'll build their empire regardless of little old me."
***This line is genius--intended or not. The use of the vague, omni-referential "they" says it all, doesn't it?

[Tinoire]

134. And hence the difference... At night TOO MANY so-called "liberals"

neither see nor care to see the faces of the innocent victims.

Bravo to you.

Anyone whose personal interests outweigh the lives of innocent Iraqis, Afghans and other "Arabs" is either an unprincipled or an evil I even want to be in a party with.


Today the Afghans and the Iraqis, tomorrow the poor, the crippled. No thanks. Looking for people with a conscience and pro-war, war-apologizing, war-tolerating Dems ain't it.

Mopaul. You go Boy! The quicker more people heed their consciences, the sooner we'll see the start of the end of this war and start making real social advances in this country.

[chimpymustgo]

146. So - having a conscience means you WON'T vote? Sorry, that's giving up.

And I wouldn't tell anybody.

[Sterling]

155. I am telling everyone, I am very proud of it in fact.

I feel like my own person again. It's very liberating.

I don't need to waste my time supporting people who want abuse me. People who want to put people in jail for things they should be able to do legally if they chose, people who want to tell me what to watch or what video games I can play, who want to use my money to kill people I have no beef with.

It's over. It's like getting out of an abusive relationship.

[Tinoire]

164. Nope. Let's not twist things. Means I won't vote for any more war thugs

If I don't follow MY conscience & stand for my principles, how the hell can I expect vote-grovelling, say-anything Politician X,Y,Z to do so?

Nope... The buck starts here, with me, with my conscience and my vote. Paying a little lip-service to wedge issues such as gay & reproductive rights isn't going to cut it anymore. Those who want to slaughter & subjugate others to steal their resources will have to do so not only without my support but with my full opposition.

Ain't gonna study war no more, no siree, ain't gonna study that no more.

The superior ones who think the rest of us & the rest of the world owes them a living are going to have to muddle on without me.

No sympathy f*cks. No sympathy votes. Just because they're whores doesn't mean I have to be.

They want my vote? They can earn it. It's taxation for representation right? Well all I can see is I've paid a hell of a lot of taxes and not seen much of anything in representation. Things have got to change and the buck "starts" here. With me.

[sintax]

180. Perfectly on the mark Tinoire

Noone wants to take any risks or denounce their 'politics of comfort' or worse give up their liberal privilege (gasp!).

www.warresisters.org

[muchacho]

11. I'm with you...

When will the Dems learn that their tactics to move "center" they are playing into the Neo-Con framework of what passes as the political rules of engagement.

The Right doesn't win by moving Left.

[mopaul]

12. if hillary says send more troops & finish bush's war, she's lost me

if it were about anything else, but this is bush's war, not america's war.

[muchacho]

13. It's not hard for me

I'm not a fan of Hillary so it's no skin off my nose. There's a war and she playing the "what about the children' card with a video game.

If she gets the nomination I will hold my nose and vote for her, but I will send my check and hit the phones for PFEW or MoveOn.

[mitchtv]

115. Unless the Dem candidate calls for PROMPT

complete withdrawal from Iraq- I will vote Peace and Freedom Party

[Burried News]

14. You are assuming there will be elections ...

this attitude is noticed you know. Welcome to the bunker.

[mopaul]

15. some think there hasn't been a real election since Bill's.

some think that voting is now pointless, given all the info out there.

[Swamp Rat]

17. Some say THEY gave Hillary a Pod.

PLEASE SAY IT AIN'T SO!

[Mnemosyne]

28. If the balloting issues are not fixed,

I may only vote for local candidates. I agree, Mo, that we may not have had our votes count since Bill.
I've voted since 76' and have gotten many to register and vote, but I never felt it was pointless until 2000 and worse in 2004.
Hopefully these pricks will be run out on a rail before the next election and their thieving ways will be gone with them. Then I will feel the vote counts again.
Funny, with the election fraud, even the repukes votes probably didn't matter either. But their intent spoke volumes.
The house of cards must fall sometime, right? right?!
I also can not bring myself to ever vote for a war candidate. I'm tired of voting for a "lesser evil".

[UDenver20]

20. Thanks for playing....

Just take your ball and go home, then....

[Swamp Rat]

22. Sorry dude, the field is ours... and give us back our ball too!

[stepnw1f]

96. Only 66 Posts Too...

the audacity....lol

[Hubert Flottz]

23. PSSssssT...Hell, Go on and vote for Arnold Ziffel, for all I care!

Your vote won't count anyway. The attack of the fuzzy mathed voting machines has totally wiped out democracy. Jeb and the filthy five on the SCOTUS betrayed and perverted our democracy back in 2000. Lady Liberty has been violated and tarnished forever. Will there ever even be anymore sham elections, like the ones we had in 2000, 2002 and 2004? Will they even go through the motions?

Read 'The Betrayal of America' by Vincent Bugliosi and weep.

We are a nation of Johns...We pay our tax dollars and we get %@#$&d every time!

[Nightwing]

24. And we wonder why we lose elections

Who here does not want to end our long national nightmare of the Bush Cartel?? I have had it with people that refuse to support a Dem candidate for whatever reason. Rather than looking for excuses to not vote for Hillary, should she win the Dem nomination in '08, why not get your butt out there and work with the Dem community to ensure a victory and restoration of the American dream.

I fully intend to support whomever candidate we run in '08, there is no other way. Stay home and the neocons win again. Please explain to me how that helps anyones conscience.

[mopaul]

26. i will not attempt to explain myself to you

it's just me, i will do as i please, as will you. but you're right, i deserve a good scolding.

[emulatorloo]

34. knock yourself out - people that don't vote don't get to complain though

EOM

[bloom]

66. If Germany had run two candidates who were both Nazis

you think the people would lose their right to complain if they refused to vote?

Of course sometimes - emigrating is the best choice.

[emulatorloo]

92. No dem we could run is as bad as Bush

The only "pro-war" dem I know of is Lieberman, and even he is a social liberal.

[Greyhound]

101. I call bullshit. Lieberman is a 'social liberal' only so far as it...

(blatantly) applies to his senior constituents. However, he has consistently voted against their interests, in favor of his corporate masters, as long as they hide the screwing of the seniors inside as an amendment, or rider.

[emulatorloo]

103. Still isn't bad as Bush, wouldn't have nominated Roberts, or Bolton

Hey I don't like the guy and the Dems will never run him. But the worst democrat is still better than the best rethuglican. . .and staying home waiting for the perfect candidate only gets us more rethuglican rule.

[Greyhound]

107. The dems will never run him again.

and I never advocated not voting, it's the idea that the lesser is as good as you can do that infuriates me. As long as this attitude prevails we'll just get more shrubs, regardless of the species on his lapel pin.
It won't change until We change it!

[Pithlet]

110. Change it. Absolutely.

Giving up and doing nothing and letting the other side run away with the win changes absolutely nothing. I agree with everything you just said, as long as the solution advocated is not pouting, stamping feet and refusing to vote.

Absolutely nothing is as bad as the Republicans remaining in power. Nothing. I can't believe anyone would see what 4 years of Bush has done to this country, and still declare they will sit it out next election. I just cannot understand that. I will never look at the people who lost their jobs and homes, at the women who were refused birth control, at the children who's education is being gutted, at couples who are refused the right to marry and have their children ripped from them because they're gay, and think that sitting out the election and destroying a vote that could help get the Republicans out that they're out of luck because I wanted to make a statement. No one can convince me that all of this shit would have happened if Gore had been president. No one.

[emulatorloo]

113. ....

[Greyhound]

116. Unfortunately, I can imagine worse.

I also think that those 'handlers' that ran the Gore campaign should be beaten with sticks, forced to work at minimum wage jobs, and shunned.

[Sterling]

159. what 4 years of Bush has done to this country

IMHO many of the leading Dem's have aided Bush in the process.

[Pithlet]

181. So making it even easier for them

by not voting at all doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not saying we should do nothing about those Dems that betrayed us. Absolutely make it known that we will replace them with true dems. But I won't just step aside and give the White House to the Republicans in '08.

[Sterling]

183. They all betrayed us minus a handful.

Like I said those that are worthy will get my support. None in my area are worthy. I predict none that will have a chance at the nom in 08 will be either. If they are I will vote for them. If not I won't.

[TankLV]

191. And the Vichy Dem sellouts that let them!

The results will be the sa me - we're just talking about "degree" of awfulness.

I want to see an OPPOSITION party to what is happening now. What I see is a complete surrender BEFORE THE FIGHT IS EVEN ENGAGED!

[bpilgrim]

195. voting for the status quo only enables all we deplore

the DLC elite apparently got the msg or felt any pain so they STILL don't wanna compromise after so many failures.

how do we change course when we can't even get the leaders to listen?

i believe if we had POPULIST Dem's who actually spoke for and to weTHEpeople we would win no problem i.e the big dog. when you look at his POPULIST campaign speeches we can all see the potential but we need someone who isn't a 'new' dem or third-way dem (aka reTHUG-lite/DLC) the novelty has run it's course with experience but with the HUGE numbers who aren't even motivated to vote because of it need a REASON, too... and just scaring folks with bush ain't enough, apparently.

when are we going to realize that and demand MORE from our leaders? because as long as we don't and continue to demand lockstep conformity to the elite views it ain't gonna add up to the future we all are striving for.

folks who are expressing outrage need to be listened, too, or the dem party will have only less & less of the people.

imagine a business that paid such little heed to it's customers requests? they wouldn't be in business long.

why do we accept less from our leaders?

something has GOT to change or all will surely be lost.

peace

[Sterling]

157. Sure they do.

Who do you think will stop me?

[H2O Man]

27. To many people,

the words "republican" and "democrat" are not as important as the lives of the thousands of people who have died for no good reason in Iraq.

[Swamp Rat]

174. I'm one of 'em.

To HELL with D's and R's!

I'm sticking with the A's - Americans.

[bloom]

65. Some of the Democrats

are in the same bed as the neo-cons. And if people don't recognize that and just go with a candidate who is "one of them" - they can't expect those of us who DO recognize that to go along with it.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

71. excuse me but we have had that arguement here before and we still lost....

but seeing as you're new here ...you are forgiven

[Greyhound]

102. Because you keep insisting that a dem, any dem, will be better, when

all the evidence points to them just being the other side of the same coin. This is the strategy that the repugs will use to win the mid-terms. "See I'm not as extreme as *, so you can vote for me"

[Sterling]

158. ensure a victory and restoration of the American dream.

You think electing Hillary will accomplish this? Or even be a serious move in that direction? You must be referring to some other dream I am not familiar with?

[LWolf]

168. Some of us listened to this argument in '04.

We watched while the majority of Democrats, in a full frontal state of fear, force-fed us the supposedly "electable" candidate.

We watched the pro-war, pro-pandering to America's fear Democratic Convention, and we swallowed our misgivings. We donated. We campaigned. We pulled the lever for a guy who we didn't really want, and couldn't really get excited about, because, of course, he was "Better than Bush." Of course, I could take my manure fork out to my corral and scoop up a candidate better than Bush.

In the end, it didn't matter. We watched in horror as another election was stolen out from under us, and listened in a state of extreme shock as our candidate gave in and walked away.

Meanwhile, many of us have been busy working on local elections, and in local dem groups. Our butts are already out there working for progressive candidates. And that's the key; we have a finite amount of time, energy, $$, and other resources. So we'll spend them on the candidates who actually work for peace, and for social and economic justice.

For some of us, the "stay home and if we lose it's all your fault, so suck it up" argument will not work a second time.

My response to the Democratic Party and the primary voters would be:

If you want our vote, if you want us to be there after the convention, nominate someone who will stand with us for peace, and for social and economic justice.

Or you could just acknowlege the bad aftertaste that the '04 election left with many of us, and allow us to work through it before the '08 election kicks into gear.

[TankLV]

193. Exactly!

[Dogmudgeon]

25. Falling into it

The Republicans and their toadies in the press have triumphed again. They've convinced us that there are only two ways to go concerning Iraq: Either stay and fight until we "win", or bug out immediately and bugger all to the Iraqis.

In the meantime, we can tear ourselves to shreds in public. That's a BIG win for the Right. Free enterprise and regulated uteri are just another sham election away!

Hasn't anyone had the idea that there might be some other ways to solve this problem?

My own idea is that if we turned this over to the UN and a special pan-Islamic council, "we" could achieve "our" goals of "pacifying" Iraq without the traditional post-bug-out violent counter-reaction. A large amount of the violence is over the justifiable hatred of the occupier. If the UN handled this with the oversight of the world Islamic community, the situation would cool down real fast. There might still be the Sunni-vs-Shi'ite arguments, but that's about it.

The idea that anyone who doesn't support instant withdrawl is a "war monger" is pretty destructive in itself. I doubt that most of the Democrats OR Republicans are actual war-mongers, and understand how quick withdrawl can lead to an intensification of violence. They lack imagination and, more fatally, the ability to listen to their constituents.

But don't mistake this for an apology of war on my part. The primary instigators, the high criminals, the architects of this bloodbath are still George Bush and Team Bush. And even if he escapes Saddam Hussein's fate, history will still judge Mr. Bush quite harshly.

--p!

[Dhalgren]

44. Here's what I don't get (well, one of the things that I don't get):

If I don't vote for the Democratic candidate, even one that I do not support and that I am morally against, then I am held responsible for losing the election.

But the Democrats can't put forward a candidate that I can support, because the "center" would not vote for that candidate, but the "center" is never blamed for losing an election. The party is blamed for putting up a candidate that the "center" would not vote for.

If the Democratic Party puts up a candidate that the left cannot vote for, then the left should not be blamed, the party should.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Not for president, not for any other office. Green for me.

To hell with the collaborators in the slaughter.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

32. PERFECTION. DAMMIT. PERFECTION.

If I don't get a candidate who conforms to my personal standards of political perfection. I'm not going to vote. So There.

Mo Paul, I love your work, but that's the damnedest thing I've ever heard.

[dhinojosa]

33. You don't have to be perfect to know that the war was wrong...

it should've been obvious to these people. In March 2003, I was ranting that it was wrong. Why did they foul up on something like this?

[KG]

37. yeah, that silly little war.

such a trifling matter, why get all upset by that?

[G_j]

38. sorry! that is the most insulting argument of all

do you have ANY standard at all where you draw the line? Do you think taking an uncompromising stand against the murder of thousands upon thousands of human beings is some philosophical mind game?
Are war crimes ok, or am I a purist to draw the line there?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

45. So if I sit out the vote with a pro-war Democrat...

I get a pro-war Republican. A pro-war Republican who plans to rape and pillage ANWR, de-fund public schools in favor of vouchers to protestant madressas, take away a woman's right to choose and everybody's right to privacy. A pro-war Republican who doesn't think black folks can be trusted to vote, but that everybody can be trusted with fully automatic weapons.

[MadHound]

57. So let's say you vote for a pro-war Dem

And tens of thousands of innocents continue to die, billions of dollars are continously handed over to a select few corporations, and if the winner is Hillary, more free trade agreements are worked out thus insuring that whatever well paying jobs are left in this country go overseas, more of the social safety net is ripped out, our civil rights and constitution are done away with, and privatizing of everything in this country continues apace.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but for me, I'll be going Green, for I don't want the deaths of thousands of innocents on my conscience. Perhaps yours is made of "sterner" stuff, but innocent deaths are a weight I don't want on my soul.

Continuing to vote for this two party/same corporate master system of government is absolute insanity. I refuse to participate anymore.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

62. Please...

Do you think your soul will be "redeemed" by voting for a candidate with absolutely no chance of winning?

Refusing to participate means one less Democratic vote -- and that places the Republicans one step closer to victory. Try explaining your moral fortitude to an elderly person whose Social Security benefits have been cut by a third (or more). I'm sure they'll appreciate your courage.

[MadHound]

67. Nice to see that you're comfotable with innocent blood on your hands

However many of us aren't. Look, I did the whole ABB thing with Kerry, going against my conscience and better judgement. Never again friend, never again. Quite frankly I'm disillusioned with the Democrats in general over a number of issues, the main one being that they too have become corporate whores, putting the interests of their corporate masters before that of their flesh and blood constituents. The fact that many of them voted to allow Bush free reign in this illegal, immoral war only makes it more imperative that we get true representation in Washington, not this faux crap we've had for the past twenty five years or more.

And quite frankly, what the hell good is it to have a Dem in office if they're going to act like a 'Pug? Sorry, but a war mongering corporate whore is a war mongering corporate whore no matter if there is a D or an R behind their name, and I refuse to vote for them.

And I never said that I will refuse to participate, oh no. I'll be voting Green most likely, and judging from the disgruntlement I've seen both here and out in the real world, I'm suspecting that quite a large number are going to be doing the same, especially if Hillary or some other over the top Democratic corporate whore is nominated. We on the left are tired of being told to fall into lockstep, with nothing to show for our support. We were buffaloed into it with ABB, but the next time isn't going to be so easy. If the Dem nominee isn't willing to put at least some of our issues, especially the war, front and center, then we'll go bye-bye, and support the Greens. This is called compromise friend, you know, politics as usual, got to give something to get something. Well we on the left want peace, and if the Dems don't give it to us, we'll go somewhere else and work for real change with the Greens. And quite frankly, the DLC corporate whore Dems can go to hell, or better yet, the Republican party where they really belong.

You may not like it, but that is the political reality of what the party is looking at. This is what comes about when they demand unconditional loyalty without throwing the left even a bone. You want the left's support this time, then the party is going to have to fork over some big time support against the war. As the DLCers were so fond of saying during '04, politics is all about compromise. Well friend, the time for the party to work out a compromise is here. Will they come to the table and work something out with the left, or will they continue to ignore our issues at their peril? The ball is in their court now, and it is time for them to make a play.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

161. Damn straight. Every bit of it.

Blood. Check.
Differentiation. Check.
Buffaloed. Check.
Go to Hell. Check.

[Tinoire]

184. Very well said. You spoke for me!

[G_j]

190. that Koo-laid had a terrible

bitter taste and I can attest that there are many I know who will not drink it again!
These people launched us into the new millennium with war and slaughter when the world needed to embrace and explore fresh endeavors for peace and understanding.

[AlGore-08.com]

77. Actually, this argument's effectiveness depends on where you live

Before anybody flames me, I'm not saying it's right to sit out the Presidential election, but... since the President is elected by electoral vote rather than the popular vote, it's very difficult to convince people who don't live in swing states that their individual votes matter.

If you live in Florida, or Ohio, or Iowa, it's easy to see that your vote might tip the Presidential election from a Republican to Democrat.

But if you live in California, or New York, or New Jersey... it's extremely unlikely that the Republican candidate is going to take that state. Or if they do, it's even less likely that the Dem could carry enough electoral votes elsewhere to win. (And if you're in Texas, or Alaska, or Alabama, it's extremely unlikely that the Dem candidate is going to win that state. And if they do, well, they're winning in a landslide, so they don't really need your vote either.)

This is why the argument "your vote may give the White House to the Republican" has limited value, IMNSHO.

I'm just saying...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

79. I agree completely...

There is a usefulness in the "safe states" of having Democrats vote Green -- I voted for Nader in 2000 when Gore pulled out of Ohio and it was clear that he was going to lose the state. My thinking was that my vote sent a message to the Democratic Party that liberals are unhappy with their rightward drift.

My next action was to get involved with the Democratic Party on the local level -- I really don't have any right to complete about where the party is headed unless I'm actively trying to move it in the other direction. My guess is that the loudest complainers haven't even made that attempt.

[MadHound]

81. And then some of us "loudest complainers"

Have worked with the Democratic party, faithfully donated our time, energy and money for thirty plus years, only to see our issues ignored, the party move further and further right, and watch as the vast majority of leading Democrats become corporate whores who demand absolute loylaty from the left in exchange for the cold shoulder after the election.

Your guess is just that, a guess. Judging by what I've seen both locally and across the country, the most active members of the party, the most driven to give of their time and money generally come from the left. It would be interesting if you could dig up some facts to back your assertion up, for from what I've seen personally, your assertion flies in the face of reality.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

A waste of time....

You've made up your mind based on your own perception. What you're asking me to do is the rough equivalent of "proving" that lima beans don't taste terrible. I could provide you with any number of personnel testimonials from people who love lima beans, but that wouldn't make them taste any better to you.

Bolting for the Green Party? Best wishes.

[MadHound]

86. No, what I'm asking you for is some proof, numbers, stats, etc.

To back up your assertion that "the loudest complainers haven't even made that attempt." This is a pretty broad brush smear against the left wing, and I think that if you're going to make such an attack you should have something to back yourself up with other than your "guess".

If you're going to insult a group of people it is best that you have facts to back your happy ass up with, rather than just guessing or making ad hominems.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

89. My happy ass is none of your concern...

And just as you have no hard statistics to prove otherwise (or you would have surely posted them by now), I have no hard statistics to prove my opinion. Which is why I stated that it was my "guess."

[MadHound]

91. Ah, yes, but I wasn't making a broad brush attack now was I?

You on the other hand were making such an attack on the left wing of the party. Sorry friend, not good form, not good form at all. If you're going to make such attacks, you should either have the stats to back them up, or be ready to be called on your bullshit. That's what I'm doing. So until you come up with some stats, then we should just lump your ad hominem in with the rest of the bullshit that spews forth from the DLC and its minions. Nice show

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

97. I have a right to express an opinion...

Unless you've elected yourself Chairman Mao of DU, I'm pretty certain that I have a right to say that many of the loudest complainers about the Democratic Party have never been actively involved. You think it's a broadbrush ad hominem attack? Then you've got some pretty thin skin for somebody involved in politics.

But please prove me wrong. Have you personally been a Precinct Captain for the Democratic Party? Chaired a Campaign Committee?

[MadHound]

99. Yes you have that right, as I have the right to call you on your BS

However you continue to put forth your baseless BS that "that many of the loudest complainers about the Democratic Party have never been actively involved". And again I ask, PROVE IT!

And yes, I've served as precinct captain, as a Democratic Party National Delegate, both as a primary and alternate, county chair, campaign chair, plus numerous local and off year state election campaigns. I started with the McGovern campaign when I was eleven, and have been active ever since, including Gore and Kerry, during which I went against my better instincts.

You have stated before that you cannot prove your baseless bullshit, yet you continue to smear it all around like a two year old. Why? What purpose does it serve to belittle people who are nominally you allies? Does it make you feel more superior or something. Or do you just looking like a fool?

I'm sorry that I screwed up your little ad hominem attack by asking for facts, but I just can't let that shit fly without some prove. If my pursuit of the facts makes me thin skinned( ) so be it. But even though you've stated that it is only your opinion, you continue to make this baseless assertion. And you know what that makes you look like? Foolish, friend, and whiny to boot. Somehow I thought Democrats were above that sort of thing, you know a little more reality based. I guess there is an exception to every rule.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

105. Sigh...

My experience has been that the loudest complainers have been the least involved. You've been involved and I'm grateful for that, and clearly you would not be included in my observation. Having attended Green Party meetings in 2000, I can say that the overwhelming majority of those in the room were college students and others who had not been politically involved up to that point in their lives -- hence they haven't attempted to first reform the Democratic Party.

Friends of mine who live in other parts of the country have told me much the same story; most Green Party activists are political neophytes who have never been involved in campaigns or party politics.

MY OPINION: Most of the people who complain the loudest about the rightward drift of the Democratic Party have not actively attempted to stop it. Are there exceptions? Yes. Are you one of them? Looks like it. If I've offended you personally, then I apologize.

[Sterling]

163. have never been actively involved

You can say it but you won't look very smart while doing it.

[AlGore-08.com]

100. Since you yourself bought the argument that you didn't need to vote Dem

back in 2000 (and I'm not trying to guilt trip you or anything) you could offer some insights into what would have gotten you, in 2000, to fight to make Ohio a Gore win, rather than seeing it as an opportunity to lodge a protest vote.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

106. Very Simple...

If Gore had chosen to fight for Ohio, he would have received my vote. But three weeks before the election, the Gore campaign pulled all its resources from the state and left the local Democratic organizations to fend for themselves.

John Kerry fought for Ohio, and I spent the 72 hours prior to Election Day working like hell for him. Minutes before the polls closed on Election Day, I was driving a last-minute, elderly Democratic voter to the polls.

[AlGore-08.com]

So you were working on the Gore campaign until that moment?

Regardless, how would you have responded if somebody in West Virginia had said to you in 2004 "Why should I vote for John Kerry, he pulled his whole campaign out of here"?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

114. No. I wasn't politically involved before the 2000 Campaign

Regarding your specific question, I would be disappointed if somebody in West Virginia did that, but I would hardly be the right person to cast any stones, now would I?

To get back to the "gist" of this thread, there are multiple reasons to vote for (or not vote for) a specific candidate. I can't tell you where my line of demarcation is because I don't know myself. If I had a candidate who was staunchly pro-union and opposed to free trade agreements, I'd have to do some soul-searching if that same candidate was opposed to abortion. And vice versa.

Of course, it would also depend on the candidate's opponent. If I only have two candidates with a reasonable chance of winning (and we're assuming a close race here), do I vote for the candidate with no chance at all at the expense of a better, albiet less-than-perfect candidate? You've got three choices, here.

1) Vote for the Republican (who is a bastard on every issue)
2) Vote for the Democrat (who might be a bastard on some issues, but not on others)
3) Vote for the Third Party (good on all the issues, no chance of winning)

Simply put, I'd rather have a conservative Democrat (with whom I might agree with some of the time) than a Republican (with whom I won't agree at all).

[AlGore-08.com]

128. My point is not would you dis them, it's how would you change their minds?

The point you end with - - that you'd rather have a Dem you disagreed with than any Republican was not what you decided to do in 2000. Again, I'm not trying to guilt trip you, I'm trying to get us all past telling each other we have to vote for Dems regardless, to find arguments that resonate with people who would rather cast a protest vote.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

132. Similar circumstances today? I would have voted for Gore

I've often joked that my current involvement with the Party is my "penance" for having abandoned Al Gore and the Democrats in 2000. Yes. It's a guilt thing. At least a little.

I think the argument is essentially this. It's easier to force the Democratic Party to change than it is to start a new party -- just ask the religious conservatives who hijacked the Repulican Party in the 1980's. The Democratic Party already has the organization and the infrastructure -- it's up to progressives to infiltrate the Party and eventually take over the controls. We need to show up in the primaries (and run for office ourselves) in order to keep shoving the party toward the Left.

[AlGore-08.com]

137. I agree that's a good point - - although it didn't change many minds

when I used it back in 2000.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

138. Didn't work on me back then, either...

We do the best we can do, and hope that we get good candidates.

[Tinoire]

125. MadHound

Has anyone told you recently that they love you?

If not, you heard it from me!

Great post- my feelings exactly after years of bitter betrayals.

[MadHound]

133. Hey There, Thanks!

Nice to see that I'm resonating with some people around here. In fact it seems that more and more people, both here at DU, and out in the real world, are waking up to the dangers of the current two party/same corporate master system of government.

And it is good to see you back around here, I was missing you and the rest of the Green/leftist gang around here, haven't seen you for a while. So welcome back!

And hey right back atchoo

[Tinoire]

135. Oh you resonate alright!

Your posts are often a bright note of my days. Lately I've been totally swamped with work and a few projects so I haven't had much time to post... Thank you for making sense!!

And also, please check your inbox. There's an event I'd like to tell you about that could interest you...

Peace

[Swamp Rat]

175. Me too!

Tinoire!

What event?

[Pacifist Patriot]

139. Hey, we all have deal breakers.

Obviously this is Mo Paul's. I can't bring myself to vote for an anti-choice democrat. That doesn't mean I'm holding out for perfection. It just means that's my deal breaker.

I'm all for party loyalty, but sometimes personal conviction has to come first.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

141. I'm told that Dennis Kucinich is anti-abortion...

I understand your point, but if you have both a Republican and a Democrat who are anti-choice, but the Democrat is good on everything else, would you be willing to let the Republican win? Conversely, would you vote for a Pro-Choice Republican (is there such a creature anymore)?

I'm not saying that there's any easy answer on this one.

[Pacifist Patriot]

142. You're right. No easy answer.

I have voted for a pro-choice Republican (yes some do still exist) who ran against an anti-choice Democrat (yep, a few of those exist too).

Your first example is much tougher, but my instinct tells me I might be unable to cast a vote in that race even though not voting for one candidate could throw the race to the less desirable.

[TankLV]

196. It's not anywhere NEAR the "perfection" argument.

It's the fact that we've constantly and continually had to "settle" for "less" and in many instances, vote for someone who is CONTRARY to what we believe in.

We are tired of "sucking it in" and voting for "anybody but (insert repuke here)" or "for the good of the party" or "for the lessor of 2 evils" or "compromise" when it's WE who are always yielding OUR beliefs to the other!

It WILL end. NOW.

Don't like it - then YOU change it.

We've worked our butts off - walking streets in bitter cold and blistering heat - for what?

Don't you DARE lecture us! YOU have no idea who "we" are, and all that "we" have done for the Democratic Party.

The free ride is over - for you. You have to cough up something more than just platitudes and promises that are never kept and always broken.

We had the Presidency and both houses of congress, were rolling in record SURPLUSSES for the first time in CENTURIES, yet for some reason, it STILL wasn't the RIGHT TIME to share with the poor and less well off - got to cater to that "middle class" mush of "I'm just not as greedy as a repuke, but I am still selfish" mentality.

No thanks.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

207. Read your sig line....

Then change it, if the attitude you expressed in your post is how your really feel.

[G_j]

39. I've taken the pledge

I won't either

[mmonk]

40. Me either

Had enough.

[Dhalgren]

41. I'm with you 100%, Mo.

I will not vote for anyone who supports or wishes to enlarge or extend the murder of Iraqi citizens. I did it in '04, by voting for Kerry, but I will never do it again. If my deciding to not vote for a war supporter will "cost us the election", then the Democrats had better put up an anti Iraq War person; then I will vote for them and the Democrats will win - is that the way it really works?

[mmonk]

42. Where is another Bobby Kennedy

when you need one?

[T Wolf]

43. I do not recognize "my" party anymore...

From the Dems in the PA state legislature who voted themselves a raise to the punishment of those who voted against it (they lost committee leadership positions) to my new US rep (A. Schwartz) who votes with the pukes most of the time to the national party that cannot seem to do anything right, I too, am ready to leave them.
Every time someone calls to ask for money, I give them an earful about how they are fucking up. The person on the other end of the line always says they are hearing a lot of that kind of response, but they NEVER CHANGE ANYTHING!
Isn't it a famous quote about the purest definition of stupidity being continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different outcome? The Democratic Party seems to be afflicted with that.
If the party ever does develop some courage and honesty, I will be there. But I have been fooled more than once. Not again.
People (and especially politicians) do not change their behavior unless they suffer consequences for it. As long as the Dems in office continue to get reelected, they will not change their tune. And as long as repugs do not have any negative consequences for their offenses against us, others, and the planet, they will certainly not change.
I sincerely believe that the solution does not lie within the political arena. With media complicity and rigged voting machines and corporate control of everything added to the stupidity and selfishness of (most of) the American people, I have absolutely no faith that change will come about at the ballot box.
Where that leaves us....

[TankLV]

202. It's "insanity" - not "stupidity".

Small but important point.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

46. I'm curious, but do you really think that you were actually voting....

...in 2000, 2002, and 2004?

[kohodog]

47. Time to stand up and be counted. No more war mongers.

As a country we've been heading down the wrong path for too long. I will support someone with guts who will attempt to turn this country around. I'm fed up with the "Going backwards less slowly" group that is in DC now.

If another war supporting Dem is nominated in 08 they will not receive my money or actions. I will work and give to local candidates who stand for what I believe. And that has already started, looking to the midterm elections. Hillary will not get my vote nor my support, for instance. I will, however, consider someone who voted for the war but renounces that position and activly works to end it.

[Q]

51. Here comes the accusations of 'purity' again...

...from those who seem to think that lies and illegal wars are minor issues when deciding how to vote.

Now is the time to take a stand...or we'll be seeing one 'war' after another for decades. And it won't matter whether it's a Dem or GOPer that sits in the WH...if they can't face the truth right now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Along with the usual "not as bad as" rationales for collaborators.

Not to mention the "they have to support the war in order to win" excuse. The "good German" defense.

[GreenArrow]

80. but "pragmatism"

has been s-o-o-o-o effective.

[Pithlet]

104. They certainly aren't minor issues

But neither are women's reproductive rights, for example. Are you telling me that I have to forget about them? If we sit out the election and let the Republicans gain even more control, I can kiss control of my own uterus goodbye. Go on. Tell me that those issues are trivial enough to throw away for a protest non-vote.

I'm against this war, too, damn it. I want it ended. But sitting out the election and letting the Republicans continue to have control and gain even more power is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. And declarations like this only rip us apart even further and divide us. And all the other issues that are just as important will suffer for it.

[TankLV]

203. How do you know?

A lot of the dem party leadership is ANTI-ABORTION right now - starting with our very own Mormon - Harry Reid.

What makes you believe that the Vichy Dems won't drift further right in that ever elusive goal of getting more imaginary "swing" voter to vote dem by actually ADOPTING that position formally? The "momentum" is in that direction already!

[liberalpress]

210. Here's the reason we get handed our asses every election..

... for all their faults, the Republicans are wiling to do what it takes to win an election... they'll compromise their principles, their beliefs, whatever it takes to get more "R's" than D's" in power. Once that's been accomplished, they find replacements for the RINO's and further their stranglehold on the executive and legislative branches...

Democrats don't. There's a name for people like us. Losers.

[spanone]

52. My sentiments 100 per cent.

[SunDrop23]

54. Here here!

[Pithy Cherub]

55. Me either! Kerry got my one and only vote in that regard.

Never, ever again! To thine ownself be true!

[Peace Patriot]

56. It won't matter who you vote for, with Diebold and ES&S, two Bushite

electronic voting machine companies, counting 80% of our votes with secret, proprietary software, and with not even a paper trail--let alone a paper ballot backup--in more than a third of the country, and with Republican election officials using faith-based vote counting methods in much of the rest.

The litmus test for Democrats should be their vow to rid our election system of Diebold, ES&S, and all non-transparent, unverifiable voting systems, and to rid it also of both Republican and Democratic corruption in the billion dollar electronic voting boondoggle.

We need...

paper ballots, hand counted at the precinct level

or, at the least

paper ballot (not "paper trail") backup of all electronic systems, strict auditing (i.e., 10% automatic recount), strict security, and no "trade secret," proprietary programming.

Without transparent elections, we will continue to have pro-war candidates who support multi-billion dollar boondoggle wars shoved down our throats as the only choice we have in presidential elections.

--------

Personally, I swore in October 2002, after the Congressional vote on Bush's war, that I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO VOTED FOR THAT WAR. But I ended up voting for Kerry for two reasons: 1) I saw a huge grass roots movement and wondrous coalition of the left developing in 2004 to oust the Bush Cartel--I wanted to support that, and felt that it was good for the country--a real democracy movement--no matter that Kerry voted for and supported the Iraq war; and 2) a president who was beholden to the grass roots of the country, which is overwhelmingly against the Iraq war, would be better than the Bush Cartel, the most corrupt regime in our history and possibly in the history of the world, and a regime that was clearly spoiling to invade or nuke additional Middle Eastern counties.

In other words, I felt that things were so out of control in the White House, that all life on earth was threatened, and simple moderation must be chosen, if that was the only other feasible choice. Also, among war Democrats, Kerry was not such a bad choice. He did not seem to me to be personally corrupt, and he seemed intelligent and open-minded. And, he would have appointed good, intelligent people, some of whom still believe in democracy.

As things look now, we--the majority of the country--will be faced with a similar choice in 2008. The Corporate Rulers and war profiteers will not allow us to have any other choice. They will destroy any otherwise viable candidate who seriously questions military expenditures, war and corporate rule. (Howard Dean's campaign was destroyed just after he said that he would bust up the news monopolies--the propaganda arm of the corporate rulers and war profiteers--and I believe that was the main reason why his campaign was destroyed, at the hands of the news monopolies. He also opposed the Iraq war and seriously questioned the stranglehold that the military-corporate establishment has upon our country.)

Our Corporate Rulers may permit a war Democrat to be elected, to clean up the horrendous mess that the Bush Cartel has made of Iraq and of the U.S., and to run the breadlines. We cannot expect a true populist to be nominated or elected as long as our election system is under the control of rightwing corporations.

We still have a chance to reform our election system--at the state/local level, where the power over election systems still resides, and where ordinary people still have some influence. That's what we must do.

----------

58% of Americans opposed the Iraq war BEFORE the invasion. I'll never forget that stat. Feb. '03.

63% of Americans oppose torture UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. May '04.

You name the issue. The Iraq war. Torture. Social Security. The deficit. Women's rights. 60% to 70% of Americans oppose Bush Cartel policy on it.

We no longer have "consent of the governed," majority rule or democracy. We are having policies shoved down our throats that most Americans disagree with. And we are not permitted to elect even a moderate candidate.

In 2004, the Democrats blew the Bushites away in new voter registration, nearly 60/40. The great majority of new voters voted for Kerry. The great majority of independent voters voted for Kerry. The great majority of Nader voters voted for Kerry. Gore/Bush 2000 switch voters were a wash (and not a factor). And Gore 2000 voters were the ones who got all their non-voting family members, co-workers and friends to register and vote for the first time (high motivation to oust Bush).

Who else is there? Bush 2000 voters and ....? The voters in Karl Rove's "invisible get out the vote campaign"? When was the last time you heard a word of truth out of that mouth?

The truth is they lost, big time, and stole it, big time. And that is what accounts for Bush's dismal approval ratings over the last year (so low that Zogby said he could not be re-elected), which stood at a miserable 49% on the very day of his inauguration, and is sinking like the Titanic now--currently at about 40%, the same percentage as that of new voters who were attracted to the Bushites in 2004, while others were FLOCKING to the Democratic Party (60%) in a surge of disapproval of the Bush regime at the time of the election.

The Bush Cartel does not represent the will of the majority--and has not done so since 9/12/01, the day they decided to invade Iraq and let their old buddy Osama Bin Laden go free. Shortly before that, on 5/3/01, they pushed through the first Bush tax cut for the rich, on an extremely close vote, despite having, in fact, lost the popular vote in 2000. We should have known then that fascist rule was upon us--a regime that DIDN'T CARE what people thought. And they proceeded with policy after policy contrary to the will of the majority--and not in the interests of the America people--because their "re-election" was being assured by the new electronic voting system scheme, devised by Bushite corporations, to include "trade secret," proprietary vote tabulation, and billions in federal dollars with which to corrupt election officials of both parties.

We should have known then--with the first boondoggle for the rich, just after Stolen Election #1. And, with all that has occurred since then, we should most certainly know it NOW. We cannot restore democracy in this country until we achieve transparency and verifiability in our election system.

[Peace Patriot]

75. Pigwidgeon, I LOVE your solution for Iraq--a United Nations protectorate

in association with Iraq's Islamic neighbors. If a pro-war Democrat will promise this, I might vote for a pro-war Democrat again. My problem with Hillary Clinton is that I remember her husband's promise in the 1996 election that NAFTA would include worker and environmental protections. That broken promise stung me badly. I don't know if her promises about the war would be any more reliable than that--but it's probably not fair to blame her for her husband's lie.

If it's a promise that I can trust (or have some hope in) is what I'm saying.

One thing to listen for, from pro-war Democrats, are words like "success" and "winning" in Iraq--if they are cover words for more war and a prolonged quagmire. (Nixon, Vietnam.) The problem for the pro-war Democrats will be how to maintain the war/military boondoggle while scaling back U.S. participation. I am convinced that war profiteering is the heart of the matter. Bush = total looting of the U.S. by military contractors. Pro-war Democrats = more moderate looting of the U.S. by military contractors, with possibly a small bit of cash left over for social programs, if they can induce the rich to pay some small percentage of their rightful taxes.

That will likely be our choice. Despite the fact that there is not a nation in the world who could invade us, and that "terrorism" is not a military problem, by and large, we will continue to be burdened with corporate/military looting whoever is in charge. It is not possible, in the foreseeable future, to elect a president with any other mindset. But with a Democrat, we might get less looting, and some little help for the poor and the middle class, as well as compromise--a U.N. protectorate--on the Iraq war.

The Democrats' ties to Israel are worrisome, in that regard, but I think there is an increasing recognition that the Bush Cartel's belligerence and incompetence in the Middle East has created far more peril for Israel, not less. Israel could not be in a more untenable position right now--as a walled fortress, bristling with armaments, surrounded by hostile neighbors. And invading or nuking Iran or Syria is certainly not going to make things better--and may end the planet. Even a limited nuclear exchange would likely destroy all life on earth--the "Cold and the Dark" scenario that Carl Sagan laid out in his book of the same name--and it would, at the very least, make the Middle East unlivable for many centuries. That would not be a happy ending for the homeland for the Jews and the cradle of Christianity and Islam.

----------

A word about voting...

THE SOLUTION TO OUR CORPORATE-CONTROLLED ELECTION SYSTEM IS NOT TO REFUSE TO VOTE! We MUST keep voting! The solution is to REFORM the election system--while we still have a chance to do so. Anyone who says they will not vote because the election system is corrupt, and who doesn't pour time, energy and resources into reforming that election system, is a hypocrite and a cop-out.

WE CANNOT AFFORD TO GIVE UP ON DEMOCRACY!

Vote third party if that's your choice--but VOTE! Do not give up! People have died for that right. People have fought for that right for centuries--for millennia! Don't yield it up! Fight for your right to vote!

[Sterling]

58. I have no plans on voting in 08

Unless a candidate is involved that convinces me to vote FOR them not AGAINST the other guy. Party affiliation at this point means nothing.

[goforit]

60. And even half the Republicans will vote "no war"

Obviously, the Central Dems haven't read the polls lately.

Which is typical. they never care what the majority thinks,
They are the wanabes of the bushies.

But this may be further proof that our elections are rigged by the forces that be.

[MisterP]

165. they voted to interfere in the Schiavo case even after EIGHTY-PLUS

PERCENT of the U.S. opposed it

[bloom]

63. I'm not either.

So that rules out everyone connected to the DLC.

You guys rooting for those people should keep in mind that a majority of Democrats are against the war - whether you are or not.

[Individualist]

64. I'm with you, mopaul

[Cats Against Frist]

68. In my opinion, the problems that we face

are too deep to be disloged by voting for a wishy-washy Democrat of any stripe. It's very hard for me -- as I've identified as a Democrat, since I was nine years old, but I think that I'm more willing to stay home, and watch the crashcart, that is the GOP, drive the whole thing off the cliff.

We talk about "change," and efficacy. I think that, perhaps, the most effective thing might be to not endorse the "status quo," no matter what letter they have behind their name.

I'm still debating on whether I'll vote for a pro-war, DLC Dem, or the Libertarian Candidate, if given that, for a choice. It would be very hard, as I AM mentally trapped by the "if I don't vote for a Dem," that just make the GOP win." I think there are a whole host of other strategies to dislodge this harmful administration -- but everyone's too chickenshit to try and pull it.

I've long thought that moderate GOPers should punish their party for being theocrats and corpo-fascists -- maybe I think that we should punish the Dems for being such wusses.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

69. nor I

[Lannes]

70. Just curious

What category would you folks put Paul Hackett?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

73. Hacket did NOT have a vote in whether we went to war

[Lannes]

76. I see your point but that wasnt the thrust of my question,my fault.

He believes,like I do that we need to greatly accelerate the training of the Iraqi troops so we can bring ours home ASAP,he said that should be our first priority.He doesnt believe we should just drop everything and leave.

I suggested letting europeans help to speed up the process.His idea was different he spoke of how maybe 3 or 4 American soldiers are currently being made to train entire battalions.He suggested that it should be an entire American battalion training an Iraqi battalion which is a great idea.They will be better trained and it will speed up the process.

Does his wanting to stay and make sure that well trained troops are in place before we leave make him a pro-war democrat?I've heard that suggested more than once here.I disagree.

[Peace Patriot]

88. Lannes, I agree that there is no simple, quick pull-out solution to Bush's

disaster in Iraq. But the fact of the matter is that the U.S. has NO legitimacy there. None! It was an illegal invasion--resulting in an horrendous war crime (over 100,000 Iraqis slaughtered in the initial bombing alone) compounded by torture and looting.

Illegal. Wrong. Criminal. We therefore have NO right to say what happens. None!

I like Pigwidgeon's solution of a United Nations protectorate--with the help of Iraq's neighbors. And I think American corporations need to be removed from that scene at the earliest possible date, and their fat coffers drained dry to recompense the Iraqis, under U.N. auspices.

Hackett seems to be addressing just the first problem--that we need to get out--not the much much bigger and most important problem--that we have no right to be there.

We MUST solve the problem of pre-emptive wars of choice by the President. That is an imperial power--the power of an Emperor. We must not let it happen AGAIN. It's AGAINST THE LAW--both our own Constitution and international laws that WE helped write.

So, if we take it upon OURSELVES to, 1) train Iraqi troops; 2) continue to inflict OUR decisions and our presence upon Iraqis in every sphere of their lives, we are BREAKING THE LAW, and if we continue to let war profiteers control our policy, it WILL happen again.

I give Paul Hackett some leeway. He has only just jumped into politics from the military. I hope and trust he will begin to think more deeply about U.S. presence in Iraq. He may be too close to it--trying to think what the hell to do in those circumstances, with those givens. I can understand that. He seems like a very good man with a lot of potential.

[Lannes]

90. Thanks for your response Peace Patriot

He was asked if he were in congress and he had the vote would he have voted in favor of the war and he said no.I agree we had no business going over there and our occupation is illegitimate.

Its the fact that we have killed so many innocent civilians,have caused so much havoc that I feel that as bad as it is now,that we shouldnt just pack up all at once,leaving would cause even more carnage because there would be a good chance that a full blown civil war would break out and further destabilize the region.Its pretty bad right now as it is but it could get even worse.

If Iraq had sufficient troops that were well trained at least there would be a better chance to quell a sunni uprising.Im not talking about us being there for 4-5 years or decades even.If we were to accept Europe's help in training the troops and employ the suggestions Hackett made about how to improve American soldiers training the troops as well we could be out alot sooner IMO.

As far as getting the UN involved,there is a good chance that they would see them as occupiers as well.We saw what they did to the UN headquarters when they first arrived.

Im not 100% convinced that my solution is right but I am confident that leaving Iraq with a token army of poorly trained soldiers to keep order is a prescription for disaster.We already have a disaster of our making,Id rather not replace it with another one.I think we owe that to the Iraqi people after all the terrible things we have done to them.

[wtmusic]

129. And essential to reestablishing US credibility

is prosecution of Bush, Cheney et al for war crimes. Until we can admit this mistake we will be fighting a losing battle.

[no_to_war_economy]

72. F the DLC

I am with ya .. F Hillary F Kerry

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

74. I'm with you, Mo.

For those claiming that not voting for a Dem candidate ensures Repub victory, or that 3d party candidates have "no chance of winning", I ask:

How much chance do you think Hilary Clinton, or ANY Dem nominee, has of winning the next Presidential election under the current circumstances?

[Peace Patriot]

83. Mayberry Machiavelli, in answer to your question...

"How much chance do you think Hilary Clinton, or ANY Dem nominee, has of winning the next Presidential election under the current circumstances?"

I don't think it's up to us. It's up to our corporate election system rulers, the news monopolies and the war profiteers, who right now have guaranteed election for whomever they chose. They might choose Hillary, if she toes the line sufficiently on military spending and corporate rule--which she seems to be doing. In order to keep the military budget viable, they will HAVE TO rescind some of the tax breaks for the rich. They might prefer to have a Democrat do that, so they can whomp them in the next election, and put Jeb in. They may also have to do a Draft--much better to have a Democrat do it.

You see what I'm getting at--it might be to their advantage to lay some of the worst necessities of the next term on the Democrats (trillion dollar budget deficit--ye gods!). Who knows? The Dems might even get things under control and develop a small surplus that they can come in and loot in 2012.

The Corporate Rulers have made so much money and gained so much power under the Bush Cartel, they can afford to sit back a little, for a couple of years--just to see the Democrats twisting slowly in the wind--and/or to prevent bloody revolution.

But, bear this in mind. There is REASON why we are the most propagandized people in the world, and a REASON why they took away our right to vote. These are U.S.-based global corporate predators. We have the RIGHT to dismantle these corporations, and send their CEO's packing. They are chartered HERE, by the states. Whatever power they have--including their control of the airwaves--derives from US, the people. We have tremendous power to curtail their global piracy and their wars, if we can only get the mechanism of power--our vote--back into the public venue.

Where we need to fight them is on the ground of state/local election reform--by demanding transparency.

We have overcome their news monopoly propaganda by people to people communication. Look at those stats I mentioned above, on the Iraq war, on torture, and every other issue. Their propaganda has NOT succeeded. (And those are news monopoly polls! Can you imagine what truly honest polling would tell us? Probably 80% for peace and justice.)

The only way their propaganda HAS succeeded is in convincing a lot of us that we--the peace lovers and the justice lovers--are the minority. It is NOT true. Their own polls show that it is not true. Yet people get upset and depressed--and give up--because they think OTHER Americans are stupid or crazy, and that the stupid and the crazy are somehow ascendant. The rightwingers have just been given a Big Trumpet is all--the Big Trumpet of the news monopoly airwaves--to yammer on with their unpopular, minority views, creating the ILLUSION that that is the "mainstream."

We really MUST realize what it means that FIVE MEGA-CORPORATIONS--all run by rightwingers and war profiteers--CONTROL the news. THAT'S what it means--creating an ILLUSION of what the "mainstream" is.

If Americans' votes were counted properly, we would have a populist president and no war in Iraq.

I guarantee it. But as long as the election system is in THEIR hands, we are going to get THEIR choice (a pro-war, corporate-rule Democrat or a pro-war, corporate-rule Fascist). The election SYSTEM is the key--not who's running.

They may even put Hillary in, to make us THINK that the election system is working! There is quite a rebellion afoot against non-transparent corporate voting systems, which I'm sure they are out to stop--because non-transparent elections are fundamental to their continued control. Beware of that! Until we can achieve transparent, verifiable elections, we do not HAVE democracy, even if a Democrat is "elected."

[LeftHander]

78. No votes for war here - nt

[screembloodymurder]

82. I'm with you mopaul.

I'll be voting, but I'm not sure where.

[lateo]

84. I'm voting for MoPaul for President.

woot

[Ravy]

87. One issue voters have always been a problem for Dems (n/t)

[Pacifist Patriot]

140. One issue voters have always been a problem for any politician.

As I mentioned above, many voters aren't necessarily looking for a 100% match to their political beliefs but do possess deal breakers. Mine is anti-choice. I will not vote for an anti-choice candidate regardless of political party. Anti-choice speaks volumes about a candidate's perception of equal protection under the law, right to privacy and respect for the Constitution and judicial precedent.

The death penalty comes very close to being a deal breaker for me but I have found myself having to support a pro-DP candidate simply because the other candidate was way too far away from my political preferences.

As voters in a representative democracy we have the responsibility to make decisions based on the right of conscience. Sometimes personal conviction must trump party loyalty. I would prefer more people vote their conscience than by party indoctrination. I suspect we'd have a lot more democrats in office if that were the case. (barring fraud of course)

[MisterP]

167. if someone sacrifices peace on the altar of "electability," there is

nothing to guarantee that they won't do the same with choice, education, and all the other things that make American liberalism so great: therefore the threat of choice being wrecked if we do not accept pro-war Dems, as some claim, is a fallacy, as those that are pro-war will also likely be anti-choice, either on their own in secret or under "pressure" in the future.
Callousness disregards issue lines, and if one right goes the others follow in short order.

[Ravy]

205. So, how's that working out for you?

With Bush being in the oval office instead of Kerry, I mean.

[Ravy]

204. Here is the other side...

If a party, by in large, agrees with your position then you can give support to that party even if the particular candidate running on that party disagrees with a position you hold dearly.

If the Democrats controlled the House right now, for instance, John Conyers would not have to hold his hearings in a janitor's closet. Votes wouldn't be left open until enough congressmen get bribes recorded on their Blackberrys to finally cast their vote against the public interest. Social Security would not be at risk. The Patriot Act would be looked at with more scrutiny and objectionable provisions revisited and removed.

I work and contribute to make sure that my party puts up a candidate that is closest to my views, but if my fellow Democrats (and Independents, and cross-over Rebublicans) cause the party to nominate someone who is less than desirable ON ANY ISSUE, they will get my vote. That is, as long as the Democrats, as a whole, agree with my political views more than the other guys.

Right now, I have to say that the Republicans are about 180 degrees away from my views, so I will be voting Democratic, perhaps holding my nose.

If you choose to vote for a third party, or choose not to vote, when your choice is between an anti-choice Democrat and an anti-choice Republican that is your right. But the consequence of that may be weakening pro-choice Democrats everywhere by denying them comittee chairmanships, numbers and influence to defeat anti-choice legislation and court nominees, not to mention other legislation that you abhor getting through a slim Republican majority.

[lojasmo]

150. If it was only one issue, I might be a little more relaxed

But these chronic triangulators also voted for the patriot act, and the undfunded mandate NCLB.

It's ten pounds of crap in a five pound bag. I've had enough.

[LSK]

93. and whos head of the DNC???

Some guy named Howard Dean. Yeah, hes such a chickenhawk!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

95. Is the head of the DNC running for president?

I hadn't heard that. If Dean does run, and supports the war/occupation he won't get my vote.

[LSK]

98. no, he is not running

But I would think he has some say into what Party policy should be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

111. Well, if he does, he's not saying it.

Or, if he is saying it, then it's more of the same.

[stepnw1f]

94. I Won't Either...

No more war...

[greatauntoftriplets]

108. It's a damn difficult position.

I am disgusted with most of the political process in this country because virtually all serve the same corporate masters.

Personally, I'd love to see Kucinich get the nomination. But I am probably dreaming.

[Pithlet]

112. All I have to do

Is look at how this country suffers and has always suffered under the hands of a right wing leadership. How much better things are for this country when it is not.

You are of course free to do whatever you like. Vote Republican, even. But, whatever you do, you'll never convince me that another 8 years of Republicans destroying this country is worth it.

[Pastiche423]

117. Never again

will I put myself through the agony I went through a week before the 2004 election (sic).

It was only due to the fear and loathing I had of the whistle ass cabal, that I drew an arrow to a pro-war dem for president.

Nevermore.

[LittleClarkie]

118. Depends on your definition of "pro-war" Democrat

One that voted for IWR? Someone like Leiberman, who wholeheartedly supports near everything Bush does? Or Hillary and/or Bill, who appear to still support Bush on the war.

Would you accept someone like Kerry, who wanted a plan to get us out of Iraq on a sane timetable? Or were you a "dime's worth a difference" person in regard to Kerry and Bush?

Or will you only settle for someone like a Kucinich "Department of Peace" anti-war candidate?

Define please "Pro-War" Democrat.

[Zhade]

120. Same here.

NT!

[MidnightWind]

122. Damn straight I will NOT be voting for a pro-war Dem.

No way, no how.

I know some will whine about how that's self-defeating and could possibly allow a Repug to win but honestly, if our party doesn't take a stand and display a difference between ourselves and the Repugs--what's the difference anyway? I hate to feel that way but I'm so tired of seeing Dems support this war when they know damn well we have NO reason to be there.

[Pithlet]

130. It isn't taking a stand

to drop out entirely. And that is all you're doing if you refuse to vote. How on earth is dropping out and refusing to participate, and letting your vote that would have otherwise helped to remove Republicans taking a stand? How is giving up and capitulating to the other side taking a stand? Hell, I'm sure Republicans salivate with glee every time they hear one of us pout "I'm not voting!" I'm not saying you have to support a pro-war candidate. I certainly won't. But after every ounce of fight in me is gone, after I've done everything I can to support the Dem candidates I want to see elected, when it comes right down to it, I will not lay down.

I will not let the other side win. And that is not whining. That is taking a stand. I won't tell others that they have to suffer under the Repubs because I withheld my vote that might have made a difference. And there IS a difference. The country has always faired much better when not under Republican/Right wing rule.

[Sterling]

169. Better to let the RW have their war without our help.

Let History judge them for it without being able to say we made it easy for them by supporting candidates who aided them.

[indepat]

123. Neither will I ever vote to return any of my Congressmen to office who

supported a pre-emptive war lacking UN sanction: never, ever.

[catzies]

124. Yeah, like your vote counts. Or should I say, "is counted?"

Who cares what we think?

[Snivi Yllom]

127. Do the initials "HRC" ring a bell?

We know where she stands.

Here are the Senators who voted NO to refresh everyone's memory.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Iraq_War_Resolution

23 Senators voted NO: Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Chafee (R-RI), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).

All others voted YES.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

136. Yes. Unfortunately, a loud and annoying one.

Fortunately, one of my Democratic senators voted against the war. The other has been notified that she won't be getting my (or, my wife's) vote in '06 because of her vote for the slaughter.

[MisterP]

131. the CAFTA debacle recently showed that whether we have a House

majority or not is completely immaterial: we can have the Speaker position and whoop-de-Cheneying-doo for us, but we still could manage to get not a single good vote out of that chamber. Had those 15 CAFTA scumbuckets been replaced, we could still "lose" in terms of House seats but won on CAFTA and prevented Flint, Mich., and the rest of the Rust Belt from being sold to some bloated multinational with maquiladoras all over the poor countries.

[sintax]

143. What does "Pro-War" mean?

It is easy to see when someone votes for a war that they are pro-war.

It is less obvious when they vote for a militarized society that funds endless war mongering and massive war machines. The toxic consequences of such a militarized society kill millions domestically and abroad. Some of those consequences like no health care for lack of funds or poisoned water due to missile manufacturing plants nearby are not considered, necessarily "Pro-War" but indeed they are. Virtually every single Democrat is a war supporter in this less obvious manner. There are some exceptions like Conyers, Mckinney, Hinchey and a small handful of others. Sadly almost every Dem. candidate is in the pocket of the Military-Corporate complex and therefore part of the problem. Anyone who thinks Hillary, Wesley, Kerry are going to step up against the military and the imperial nature of Vox Pop Americana is either willfully blinded or unable to fully come to terms with the deep nature of how whored out the Dems are and probably always have been.

Nominated

www.warresisters.org

I applaud your stance.

[Freddie Stubbs]

144. Any war?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

145. Yes. Unless sanctioned by the UN.

[Freddie Stubbs]

206. Considering that almost every member of Congress supported military action

against Afganastan in 2001, that certainly eliminates a lot of people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

208. So it does. The UN did not sanction the war in Afghanistan.

Which makes it illegal. Those who voted for it, voted for an illegal war.

[Freddie Stubbs]

209. Even Kucinich voted for it

That would leave Barbara Lee, or perhaps some Governor as the only alternative.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

211. Well, there are a lot of people in this country who are anti-war.

I imagine one will emerge that I can vote for.

[brentspeak]

147. You didn't even bother to define a "Pro War Democrat"

I guess FDR and Truman would never have been elected, under your criteria. JFK? Too hawk-like in your eyes, I reckon. Clinton? Military action in the Balkans, preventing the outbreak of a continental war, wasn't liberal enough.

[LittleClarkie]

162. I asked for that too

Still not gotten an answer.

Leiberman would be a pro-war Dem.

Bill and Hillary too.

Others, who've proscribed sane timetables for withdrawl, or who like Kerry think we're wasting our time in Iraq when we should be in Afghanistan, are not what I would define as pro-war exactly. Pro-national defense maybe.

Personally, I don't find people like Kucinich (bless his heart) or Nader (what heart?) to be credible or practical or even terribly qualified.

[Sterling]

170. Read the thread next time instead of just posting RE the op.

He gave you your answer in the first few posts.

[LittleClarkie]

199. And just as I suspected

it was a very historically revisionist, black and white, purist sort of answer.

Painting everyone who voted for IWR as being pro-Bush's ACTUAL reason for going to war rather than the smoke and mirrors that were his STATED reasons for going to war.

Kerry has stated that he's mad as hell about being lied to. I imagine many of the yes votes are equally pissed off.

So we turn on our own for not being perfect rather than on Bush for lying in the first place.

Wonderful...

I call bullshit.

[ArkDem]

148. Anybody think the Pirates have a chance to finish out of the

cellar, this year?

[JVS]

172. Sure. They're only 2.5 games behind the Reds.

They could pull ahead of them

[Tinksrival]

153. Dear mopaul,

I am a lurker since Oct '03. I don't post to much cause I tend to be long winded on what I feel passionate about. Then the thread is gone! But your post spoke to me and I feel the same as you.
I was at a yearly "kick-off"conferrence in Malta for the global company my husband works for. It was the week "shock and awe" began. We were with people from offices all over the world and we represented the first North American office. I cannot begin to describe the shame I felt for being an American. I never want to feel that way again. So I started searching for someone I could be proud to represent me as an American.
I was surprised but so thankfull to find what I was looking for in Wes Clark. I have been a complete supporter since I first reseached him as a candidate in Sept. '03. Everything I learned seemed to be too good to be true and I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. Well it's been two years and still waiting. He continues to impress me as an intelligent, compassionate, humble leader that truely wants to serve his country.
I have seen him numerous times and one thing that has always struck me was how *ush's war in Iraq has effected him. You can see and hear the anguish he feels when he speaks about this ill conceived war he told congress not to wage and it's effects on our military, our country, and the world.
After being wounded in Vietnam, Wes Clark as a Rhodes Scholar and first at West Point, had many opportunities before him. But after seeing the devastating effects of the draft and the Vietnam war he felt he could best serve his country by working to restore the all volunteer Armed Services. I believe with the lifetime of hard work and dedication Wes Clark and other military leaders had achieved this goal. I was a military wife for the first six years of my marriage from 86' to 92' and I can attest to this.
He is a true patriot that has fought hard for the ideals and values this country was founded on. The America that the majority of us know and love and feel we have lost. He has fought for the soldier and his family and now he wants to fight for us.
But you don't have to take my word for it. You can research for yourself.
www.securingamerica.com

Wes Clark Quotes:

"I believe there is a powerful yearning around the world for an America that returns to its principled traditions. An America that listens, and leads again, not just by the force of arms but by the force of argument and example. An America that is respected, not resented. Not for its military might or material wealth, but for its values and vision; for the greatness of its goals, and for the generosity of its spirit. An America governed by people with ideals, not radical ideologies. An America that projects its hopes again, not just its fears. An America willing to give of itself what it demands of others."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. You will choose whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in His Name, we can find a higher civilization and a better means of settling our differences."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Freedom and dignity spring from within the human heart. They are not imposed. And inside the human heart is where the impetus for political change must be generated." -- From Broken Engagement by Gen. Wesley K Clark

*********************

"Neither nuclear proliferation nor international terrorism can be successfully addressed without international cooperation. The world is looking to us for leadership. We have provided it in the past; the main reason why anti-American feelings are so strong in the world today is that we are not providing it in the present. " -- Wesley Clark, International Leader

*********************

"And this soldier has news for you tonight. Anyone who tells you that one political party has a monopoly on the best defense of our nation is committing a fraud on the American people." -- Wesley K. Clark Dem convention 7 29 04

**********************

"I think we're at risk with our democracy. I think we're dealing with the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest administration in living memory. They even put Richard Nixon to shame." -- Wesley Clark

[KnowerOfLogic]

154. Ditto. Voted Nader in 2004; will not vote pro-war in 2008either. nt

[paineinthearse]

156. Attended a meeting last night, Rep. Barney Frank was the featured speaker

He was one of the few to vote against the Iraq authorization to grant war powers to *.

He did not mince his words, he has no quarter for any Reps or Senators who voted for the resolution.

[Jacobin]

160. me either

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

166. Well I sure as f** am not, either.... so I dunno.

Then again, maybe my vote got hacked/stolen last year anyway.
Sorry, I guess I'm just a hopeless optimist.

[Warren DeMontague]

173. Let's hope they don't run one

then it won't be an issue.

But, assuming you're talking about Iraq, I agree with you.

We should have run Howard Dean last year.

[Larkspur]

176. I'm with you. I'll vote though I just won't vote for a pro-war Dem and I

don't vote Repuke anyway.

I'll either write-in a candidate or vote Green or Socialist. Depends on how I feel on that election day.

[WI_DEM]

178. There's always hope that they will nominate somebody who

actually opposed the war. A couple of them are contemplating a run.

[BamaLefty]

179. Whoop De Doo!!

Oh boy, another lost election on the way! YAY!!!!

You rock for not voting!!

[Beaverhausen]

182. Pro-war or Pro Iraq war?

[jbane]

185. See ya later Nader Raider

Your just what the Repukes are looking for.

[MisterP]

194. better Green than spattered blood-red

[Hardrada]

186. O I have missed the Green vs. Dem threads!

Glad they are back but we need more light and less heat. I am with Mopaul and won't support a WarDem again.

[mitchtv]

187. Count me in. I have reached my last compromise

The continuing deaths in Iraq are the totaly overwalming factor. As we used to say in CWA "Take a Stand".

[satya]

188. No DINOs for me. Back to our roots or the neocon/theo-fascist virus will

kill our party too, just as it has overtaken the GOP. The Dem powers-that-be need to know that they must support the peoples' candidate--it's not the other way around. If they fail to do that, they will not have our time, our money or our votes.

I have no experience with inside the party politicking, have only been involved on the periphery of campaigns (GOTV, etc). What, if anything, can be done at the grassroots level to build a coalition influential enough to regain control of our party?

[TankLV]

189. That's my thinking exactly.

But it's based more on a combination of things, all of which have to do with the fact that the democrats, especially since they don't seem to change their rightward drift, are spineless, mealy mouthed appeasers to the repukes - a "Me Too! - but not as much" mentality.

Don't blame the base for abandoning the party that abandoned them long ago.

If you want our votes, give us something to vote FOR!

They won't even make a scene for paper-verified ballots - what's the use anyway?

I am sick and tired of all this "triangulation". I will only vote for those who I believe in.

[welshTerrier2]

192. i will not be voting for those who have enabled bush's agenda ...

interesting to look back to my thread with virtually the identical subject as this thread ... my thread was posted last February ... sadly, very little has changed ...

here's the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[dweller]

197. almost identical first responses too...

but there ya go.

dp

[welshTerrier2]

201. yeah ...

they love that "you might as well just vote republican" nonsense ...

if you read the whole thread, i was pushing the same themes then that i am now ... we need to empower each and every Democrat to have a real voice in the Party and we're going to lose if we don't ...

the "just go along" crowd just doesn't understand that ...

[Fescue4u]

200. Well Hillary hasnt won the Primary yet

But I suppose thats your right to refuse her support.

[Moderator]

212. Locking....

This thread has run its course.



DU Moderator