"Democrats" lost the election with the Iraq War Resolution

[TahitiNut]

That single vote, more than any other, nailed the lid shut on 2004. It was "Damned if you do and damned if you don't."

Clearly, there are many other factors ... the abysmal dumbing down of people by their churches, the media, and their crippled schools ... the corruption and fraud in the electoral process ... the 'ownership' of America (a dollar = a share in America, Inc.) ... the appalling cowardice and the propaganda of fear ... all of these are more than enough.

But the "Iraq War Resolution" was a Profile in Cowardice and Corruption ... orders of magnitude worse than the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Not only does such an action by the legislature violate the Constitution, it successfully fragmented the left. It obliterated it.

Here's a key paragraph from the IWR ...

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

In this paragraph, every Senator and Congressman who voted for it compounded the BIG LIE!! Nonetheless, the (so-called) 'left' deemed any Senator and Congressman who voted against it as "unelectable."

When the 'left' regards the truth as irrevocably "unelectable," that 'left' is complicit in their own demise.

[TahitiNut]

1. What's this?

:eyes: Nobody want to argue that it's all Nader's fault??? :puke:

[jayfish]

3. No Arguments Here.

It's this "go along to get along" mentality that fucks us every time. You go along, eventually get it thrown in your face and never really achieve the get along part. Someday we will learn.

Jay

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. Not much Nader bashing today, with the exception of one post

that blamed him for setting the stage for this back in 2000.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT for election reform at the municipal and state level!
Clean up the American government from the ground up!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform

[SoCalDemocrat]

54. That vote had nothing to do with the Nov 2nd results

What made a difference with respect to Iraq was the administration and the media successfully linking Iraq to the war on terrorism. That factor swayed voters to Bush, including Democratic voters.

It's a lie, but one that was repeated often enough to be believed by a great many Republicans, and too many Democrats.

[Nordic]

2. I think that's a big part of it

Kerry couldn't really offer anything different

[TahitiNut]

4. Even if he did, would the "Democrats" buy it?

Not as long as the IWR was there.

If Kerry had voted against the IWR (both times) then we'd hear nothing but "he's unelectable."

In voting for it, he became an accessory to a BIG LIE ... and that's the "no win" position. Literally. That complicity castrated the truth and left this country with 62% of 'people' who believe the BIG LIE because it's more comfortable than dealing with it.

[billyskank]

11. One day

people are going to have to stop listening to other people who say particular candidates are unelectable.

Fuck it. By rights George W Bush should be unelectable. Then and now. Go with whoever you think is a good candidate. Not with who you think other people will like.

[Nordic]

13. "George Bush should be unelectable"

Truer words were never spoken at DU.

That whole "he's unelectable" thing is FEAR. Fear always creates that which you fear.

I wish people would figure that out.

[TahitiNut]

15. "Fear always creates that which you fear." ABSOLUTELY!

What we resist controls us. When we abdicate control over our selves, we abdicate control over everything. (I'm a "recovering control freak.")

Nobody can force me to abandon principle. I can only do that voluntarily.

[Rose Siding]

25. Some of "them" would have bought it

Pelosi's finest success to date was her leadership in securing a majority of House Democrats for a "no" vote. That was where the split occurred- Pelosi's struggle pitted against the more politically oriented, like Gephardt. It made her rejection of Dean (a letter circulated to media after his "even handed" remark) all the more difficult to understand.

It was exactly at the point of that vote that Democrats had the choice, not only of the circumstances surrounding the resolution, but of dispelling or affirming the myth of Bush as "strong leader".

[TahitiNut]

26. There's little question it was Pelosi's finest hour.

Strangely, the "San Francisco" Democrat isn't regarded as 'liberal' in the Bay Area as her neighboring colleagues such as Barbara Lee or Mike Honda.

We should also note that Paul Wellstone was the only Senator running for re-election who voted against the IWR. Arguably, it cost him his life instead of re-election.

Death (Lynn Cheney's Grim Reaper) seems to be a Reichpublican partner. I wouldn't be so sure, however, that the Grim Reaper won't stalk Smirky in days to come. After all, the downside of martyring him seems more "up" at this point, doesn't it?

[Rose Siding]

27. Oooo, good point there TN

Everywhere I look, more dark corners. The eternal image of W The Valiant would be yet another nail in the Liberal coffin. (I'm committed to using the L word in street conversation whenever possible)

edit! I forgot this is the acromony forum: Why, you...you... TahitiNut, you !#@%&@##!!!

[TahitiNut]

28. Thank you. Or should I say ...

... well $%^&* you and the whores you rode in on? :evilgrin:
I'm puzzled by the "Fighting and Acrimony" rules. :silly:

[Neecy]

5. I agree with this

We just couldn't get past the fact that, despite how badly Iraq has been mismanaged, we enabled this act of immorality in the Congress. It was Kerry's biggest bugaboo, and he never was able to really present a coherent reason why he voted for it. What's sad is that I think it went against his better instincts TO vote for it - but he knew he was running in 2004, and he rolled the dice and lost.

[rniel]

6. Weeks ago Dick Morris said

If at the time of the election we feel like we're still in the middle in a war bush wins

-or-

If at the time of the election we feel the war is over and now we need to focus on demestic issues Kerry wins.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Came back to bite Kerry in the ass...repeatedly.

"But you voted for it Senator".

It took the one issue that Bush was most vulnerable on and neutralized it.

It was "It's the war, stupid", all along and Kerry and Edwards both could do nothing but try and defend their pathetic votes for it. Which fooled nobody but the willfully ignorant.

[TahitiNut]

12. Well, let's talk about that ...

If the 'left' is the constituency of principles and the 'right' is the constituency of interests then isn't it reasonable to conclude that the candidate who abandons his constituency will lose??

Read that again. Notice that the right continued to pander (rabble rouse) to every 'interest' through out the four-year campaign. Those who hate found themselves unconcernedly allied with others whom they hated but who also hate. Racial minorities in which homophobia is greatest (black and Hispanic) offered signficant support to the right - when their hatreds became more important than their self-interest and, more important, the interests of their children and their children's children! The right even found a way to pander to anti-semites along with those who would gladly flock to a global ghetto in some obscene "separate but equal" con game on a global scale.

The left ate their young and abandoned their foremost principles: truth and justice. Economic justice was abandoned. In accommodating the BIG LIE, the truth was abandoned. In abandoning labor (part of economic justice), every blue-collared redneck who depends on "the man" to keep his underpaid and over-worked job safe from those "(insert bigot label here)" had nowhere to go but to the right.

To be a "party of principles" those principles must never be abandoned.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. I'm not sure about your characterization of "the left".

I'm of the left. I haven't abandoned any of the priniples you mentioned. If you are saying that the Democratic Party is "the left", then I think you are mistaken. It hasn't been for quite some time. It has become the party of "interests" over principles as underlined by the IWR vote when "interest", in the form of what was seen as political expediency trumped principles. The same may be said for Welfare Reform, Gun Control, Globalization, the Environment, etc, when "compromise" became the watchword.

The Democratic Party as a whole doesn't represent "the left" but, rather, a collection of competing factions.

The "left" faction are fairly easily identified by the ones who voted against the IWR and other "interest" driven issues in which it was deemed "safer" to vote with the majority rather than stand against the wind.

I, for one, struggled with idea of supporting Kerry or, at least, voting for him. In that sense, I did abandon my principles, to my regret.

[TahitiNut]

21. Well, I speak as a (dedicated) non-partisan.

I see a party that's unashamedly 'right' ... ultra-right from my aged (61 yo) perspective. I see only one other major party that's, by default, the party of the 'left.' I seriously wonder whether the 'left' would be better or worse off in the longer run if everyone on the left merely voted for the candidate that best represented their individual principles. In my opinion, the Democratic Party has not yet gotten the message that it must adhere to principles, while interests are then able to take care of themselves.

It's a funny thing about "interests" ... people who organize and affiliate under the umbrella of such "interests" are always able to take care of themselves no matter who's elected. "Interests" however are synonymous with "appetites" - and those appetites have become insatiable. And that's irrespective of whether people who vote their appetites select "(D)" or "(R)" - partisanship itself is an appetite!

[no name no slogan]

31. BRAVO!!!!!!

Your points re: justice are spot on. The party truly did abandon this issue, and it has cost us-- dearly. We abandoned voting rights (BBV and purge lists), healthcare justice ('cheaper insurance' is NOT gauranteed coverage) and economic justice (tax breaks for corporations is NOT the same as creating fair trade agreements).

Kerry ran on the issues that BUSH defined-- not his own issues. In fact, it seemed as if he never really had a 'vision' beyond that of "I'll do a better job than Dubya will on ________________ (the war, the economy, health care, taxes, Vietnam, etc.).

The whole race was dominated by FEAR, regardless of the campaign slogans. Fear of Terrorism. Fear of job loss. Fear of socialized medicine. Fear of foreigners. Kerry played by their rules, and lost at their game.

[TahitiNut]

33. The perverted seduction of "ABB" ... when Junior is but a mere tool.

It became a 'who' rather than 'what' campaign. While fine for People Magazine, it hardly answers the question of 'why' in voting at all. To the degree that the Democrats were seduced into the corporate media-driven popularity contest, they lost the elction and we all lost the heart and soul of our nation.

[killbotfactory]

8. Yep.

The whole "I'd do the same thing, only BETTER!" approach didn't work.

Surprise.

:(

[G_j]

9. you nailed it

you can't make a deal with the 'devil' and not pay dearly for it.

[greatauntoftriplets]

10. There was a referendum on my ballot to pull out of Iraq.

I voted yes.

[found object]

14. we think alike

must be a Northwest thing.

[robbedvoter]

16. That and it was stolen as well.

[Malva Zebrina]

17. Yes and he did back himself into a corner and so did Edwards

andhe did stumble several times in what did appear to be flip flops, leaving the impression with people that both candidates would prosecute the war in the same way so it was not a big issue. Kerry's rather complicated explanations of what he would do in Iraq fell rather flat in the face of the cowboy from Crawford's bombastic posturing. Further, the Swift boaters did great harm to Kerry.

So the issue of the war was checked off the list by people deciding on who to vote for and they went on to other domestic things such as abortion and gay marriage--issues easy to understand by the simple of mind. The economy, taxes etc. are a little more difficult to understand--most probably do not understand the implications of a huge deficit and how that would affect them--but they do understand abortion and gay marriage.

[Seabiscuit]

18. BINGO!!! Howard Dean was right all along.

[TahitiNut]

22. Not enough "Fighting and Acrimony" ... let's see if the mods will move it.

:evilgrin:

[Moderator]

23. Nah, we'll just come in and egg you on

:hi: you big nut, you!

[TahitiNut]

24. Well, I'll take any kind of mony I can get ...

... acri or long green. :evilgrin:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. Yup, Kerry, Hillary, and other Senators who voted for it

were told that voting against it would ruin their chances for re-election.

One our Minnesota DUers told me about attending a fundraiser for Paul Wellstone right after he voted against the Iraq Resolution. Even Wellstone half-believed that the Iraq War was popular and that he had ruined his chances by voting against it, but the room exploded with cheers when he walked in. Afterwards, this DUer talked to Sheila Wellstone, who told her that Paul had worried all the way back to Minnesota that the voters would reject him for his stance.

It really was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of situation. I can fully believe that if a majority of Dems had voted against the resolution, then the Busheviks would have made sure that a cache of nuclear weapons was "discovered" in Iraq.

This does not excuse their behavior, but it shows how out of touch some of these Senators are. I know that all of us showered them with letters and phone calls, but we don't know that the other side wasn't doing the same. They seemed to be unaware of what people back home really felt like.

Significantly, a larger percentage of House members, who serve smaller constituencies and are usually pretty much in tune with their local people, voted against the Iraq Resolution, including all the Congressional Dems in Oregon.

[TahitiNut]

30. Well, they got some letters a year earlier, too.

The warning was clear. Is anybody asking, "Where's the anthrax, George?" Nope.

Wellstone clearly didn't get re-elected. Thus, the warning from the Reich came to pass.

[Tatiana]

32. We continue to "misunderestimate" how IWR hurt us.

This is a repost, but it basically agrees with what you are saying:

But when did Kerry fight so hard and sincerely for us within the last 4 years or so? He went against his own principles, I'm convinced when he voted for IWR. Edwards, as a conservative, yeah he supported it. But Kerry, in his heart knew it was wrong. Shit, he voted against the Gulf war and we hardly had to pay a cent and had the mother of all coalitions in that war. But yet, now he supports the invasion of Iraq. The man who put his rep on the line and stood up against the people in power, speaking out against the Vietnam war? He didn't support the IWR. It was a political vote, and what we needed from Kerry was courage, not politics.

That's just one example of Kerry fudging. You could never get him to explain clearly why he voted for IWR, and when he tried, it never quite had the ring of truth to it. Hell, Clark did a better job of explaining Kerry's IWR vote than Kerry did. We overlooked the issue in the interest of unity. The rest of the country didn't.

[TahitiNut]

34. Millions of us who marched in the street, including me, knew this totally.

I shed no tears for the Democratic politicians ... I shed tears for we the people.

[candy331]

40. Amen!

[TahitiNut]

35. FWIW, I think I nailed it back in July, when I said:

You'll pardon me if I don't even bother climbing into the ring ...
... or "playing" (where I don't agree to the rules) on a "field" (owned by someone inimical to my rights and freedoms).

The biggest problem "liberals" have is a total and abject failure to educate Pat Public about what "liberal" means so that (s)he knows what choice (s)he has. Most don't see a choice.

Yes, I agree that the DLC makes any "choice" even less apparent. Why? Because they're pretending that the "game" is about getting their opponent's fans to cheer for them, too. So, half the time they're not even opposing the other side ... but they're not getting a quid for their quisling-quo-pro.

Right now, even "honest" politicians are playing Prisoner's Dilemma, not with a goal of winning but of making the other side lose. Unless both sides agree to play "win-win," it's a "lose-lose." Under that circumstance, there's only one other choice: Don't "play."

Some think the strategy in Prisoner's Dilemma is tit-for-tat. It's not. That's the lose-lose strategy. The DLC is under some delusion that it's tit-for-two-tats. Stupid. Really stupid. Suicidal.


Let me be clear. To me, "liberal" means win-win. "Liberal" means justice - equity for all. The only opposition to "liberal" is 'privilege' - and the only vested constituency for 'privilege' are those who benefit inequitably: the wealthy and powerful. Everyone loses, even those suffering under the fatal delusion that any system of 'privilege' can survive. Playing the conservative game of 'privilege' means playing a lose-lose strategy. Hell, that doesn't even rise to being a Pyhrric victory.

Se, we're really not "playing a game" as much as we're fighting about the rules. "Liberal" means rules, not anarchy or 'might makes right.' Once we accept the 'rules' of privilege, we've all lost.

Systems of 'privilege' can only collapse in bloodshed and death. Anyone contemplating a 'win' under such circumstances is completely insane.

[AZCat]

38. Game Theory is (sort of) in my area

I'm (slowly) getting a master's in Systems Engineering, and game theory was one of my classes last fall. While I don't think game theory provides the answers to political questions, I do think that it can provide some interesting ideass.

Your statement about "liberal" meaning win-win, and the opposition being "privilege" strikes me as spot-on. In game theory, one of the ways to enhance the odds is to cooperate. In fact, this is a big part of the Prisoner's Dilemma - that when the two parties are allowed to cooperate, it CAN be a win-win situation. This is, to me, the essence of Liberalism/progressivism - that we have all entered into a voluntary contract to help each other, and that in doing so, we all live better lives.

Somehow, it has been twisted so that people no longer understand that we are all in this together and that to help one's fellow citizens is to help oneself. We cannot improve our lot in life without our neighbor, but the modern Republican Party seems to have repudiated this idea and embraced isolationism on an individual level.

I think we need to address this somehow - because I don't believe that America is a nation of idiots. I just think that people don't understand the effect of political choices on their quality of life. You cannot vote for a George Bush and expect a culture of reaching out to others to survive.

[TahitiNut]

44. When one takes the analogies of Game Theory and employs them ...

... in certain kinds of moral awareness training (even meditation), one can gain insights on living ethically. Some (superficial) understanding of basic ethical systems (deontological and utilitarian) and Kant's Categorical Imperative has added to my systemic understanding.

You see ... :evilgrin: ... my 35 years in MIS/IT and Business Systems (including practices and controls) has forced me to become a "Systems Thinker" (in Weinberg's sense). It's a little like juggling imaginary n-dimensional clouds.
:silly:

With your last paragraph ...

I think we need to address this somehow - because I don't believe that America is a nation of idiots. I just think that people don't understand the effect of political choices on their quality of life. You cannot vote for a George Bush and expect a culture of reaching out to others to survive.

... I couldn't agree more! :applause:

[jpgray]

36. Not if all the GOP folks were voting on "morals" and "terror"

Where Iraq was cited as an impetus, Kerry won hands down. The 58,000,000 didn't really give a shit about Iraq, they cared about dudes kissing. That doesn't mean we should change our stance on dudes kissing, because that would politically expedient bigotry. But it does mean that we have to make some progressive issue more important to these people than gays marrying.

[TahitiNut]

45. Those are perversions of liberal strengths!

Liberalism is all about morals and ethics. Slavery (when liberals were Republicans) was about morals. Women's suffrage was about morals. Civil rights was about morals. Reverand Martin Luther King was a religious leader. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference was about morals above all!

Now, about 'terror' ... does FDR's "Four Freedoms" speech talk about that? Of course it does. Liberals are all about Freedom from Fear. Remember, "the only thing we have to fear, is Fear itself."

Here's a relevant excerpt from FDR's Four Freedoms speech on January 6, 1941 ...

In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

• The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.
• The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.
• The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.
• The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor -- anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called "new order" of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

As I say, the Democratic Party "leadership" seems to have abandoned and forgotten the principles of liberalism itself! Why, then, are we surprised that people went for the cheap, plastic imitation? I'm not surprised. Just deeply disappointed. (Could Nader be right?)

[KoKo]

37. Tahiti...just a heads up...In Red NC we re-elected two House Members who

voted AGAINST the Iraq War Resolution! Both of them in Tom DeLay's House controlled Congress! They Won! Even though NC went for Bush, the two who stood up against voting for it were re-elected handily. We worked hard on the ground for them, but they remained popular.

Why? Yet Edwards who voted for war and was not very nice to his consituents like me who wrote and called him and joined protests against him to try to get the War stopped before it started were put off with form letters and in the protest case some of our NC State Students were put in jail...

So, you make an excellent point. And, Kerry would look visibly uncomfortable whenever the vote for Iraq Resolution came up. I think he was terribly conflicted over his vote and it ruined his campaign always have to explain that, and then being attacked on his own honorable service record. Edwards always seemed comfortable with his vote and that's okay, even if those who supported his Senate campaign were mad as hell...that was his right.

Good post..

[AP]

41. Congress is gerrymandered to the point of stalemate. Reelection rates is

super high. How many incumb's lost this year? 2? 4? Out of over 400.

I don't think that's a good comparison.

[KoKo]

42. Ah but two incombs who voted against Iraq Resolution in a Red Southern

State? How many of those are their?

[AP]

43. They must have felt pretty confident about their chances in districts

[GreenArrow]

47. one in Indiana

Hostettler -- voted against IWR, re-elected twice.

[AP]

51. Congressmen rarely lose reelection.

You'd have to do something really stupid to lose reelection, like have an affair with a woman half your age who has the misfortune of getting mudered by a complete stranger.

[GreenArrow]

53. as may be

Hostetler is however, a super fundy wing nut, and he did vote against it and he did get re-elected. This was a Dem seat not too long ago, Indiana's "bloody fourth."

Meanwhile, a little further to the east, Baron Hill, a dem who voted for IWR, was done in by another wing nut. He was greatly outspent.

[AP]

39. Whose votes did he lose because of this?

[TahitiNut]

48. The best way to answer that might be to look at exit polling ...

... (if it exists) for those who voted for Democratic Congressmen who opposed the IWR. I wonder how many split their tickets? If extrapolated, some better understanding might be gleaned.

It's my guess it includes some of the women who voted for Bush* (26% of those who voted), some of those for whom "Iraq" wasn't "the most important issue" maybe because the difference between Bush and Kerry wasn't apparent enough, and some of those who voted for Bush* for whom "Moral Values" was "the most important issue" (17% of those who voted). It might include some who didn't vote. It might include some of those who voted Nader or Green Party.


The question, however, may betray a bias toward looking under the streetlight for one's lost watch ... not because that's where it was lost, but because the light's better there. :evilgrin: (This is, after all, the 'Fighting and Acrimony' forum.)

[sampsonblk]

46. I agree with you, 100%

"Iraq War Resolution" was a Profile in Cowardice and Corruption

Claiming later that it wasn't really a vote for war...well that just made it all the more ridiculous and damaging for our side. Voting in favor of the IWR was immoral and was counter to the wishes of our party's rank-and-file. Didn't help much with the swing voters either, did it?

[TahitiNut]

50. You're not allowed to agree 100%.

This is the 'Fighting and Acrimony' forum. :evilgrin:

(I wonder whether I should hit Alert.)

[JCMach1]

49. I absolutely agree... this was what cost us the election

There were a number of swing voters who didn't vote for Kerry just because they were 'unsure just exactly what he would do about iraq'

Dean and Clark were right...

Also, having a FIRM position on Iraq in some ways would have taken the 'discussion' on the issue off the table. More of the campaign talk would have revolved around economic issues that played to Democratic strengths.

Ultimately, Kerry tried to beat W. on his home turf with a weak position.

Remember, sometimes when you turn that boat into shore you are going to get your ass shot up...

[TahitiNut]

52. Let's be fair and balanced ...

... and realize neither Dean nor Clark had to occupy Senate seats and vote on that abomination. The game's easier from the cheap seats. (Can we hear it for Kucinich?)

Yes ... taking the issue off the table and depriving the psychopatriots of air time might've been the goal. Didn't work, though. :shrug:

(I'm trying to keep with the spirit of 'Fighting and Acrimony'.) :evilgrin: