Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Peace Supporters

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:16 AM
Original message
Poll question: Peace Supporters
Where are you? Are you against Bush, voting Green, or do you have a dem candidate.
IF YOU opposed the invasion of Iraq, please take the time to explain your poll vote.

In 2004, will you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
morgan2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. other
vote kucinich or green
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
2. I was against the war
So I'm voting for Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. why Edwards?
I think that he is our best "pro war" candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Why Edwards?
Because the only candidate who actually voted against the war supports him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. So you support Edwards
because, in part, DK suggested that his IA caucus supporters caucus for Edwards IF they didn't have a viable group?
Do you see DK as not viable?
Is the anti war movement not viable?

Interesting.

If DK ends up endorsing someone else, will you follow?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snoochie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. DK will not endorse before the convention
He will endorse the eventual nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Edwards voted for the war
What I was trying to explain in another thread is that Edwards would have to choose in between having a war abroad and having a recoverying economy at home.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=145202

Another reason that I want to add is that the rest of the world is going to further punish the United States economically if it chooses not to withdraw from Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Edwards Kerry Leiberman Clark (and even Dean)
supported the war. Sure Dean wanted UN approval, but so did Bush (in theory, but UN support was not "possible").
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #18
25. There is a huge difference in between Edwards and the other
four.
Edwards has been running on an employment/economy/education platform.
Edwards has made it clear that he is pro-union, for fair trade and that he will do his best for the common man.
Kerry, Lieberman, and Dean are free traders. I'm leary of Clark for other reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. Doesn't Edwards still say going into Iraq was the right thing to do?
I asked this in another thread last night, and no one challenged it. I seriously would like to know. The last time I saw Edwards speak about the issue was a few weeks ago, and, as I recall it anyway, he was unapologetically pro-invasion.

If I'm wrong, please fill me in. And if I'm accurate on that, how can you be anti-war (anti-invasion is the term I use) but pro-Edwards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Edwards has it both ways
he supports the war. he opposes Bush.
Pro war, anti Bush... winning combo, not very peacenic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
19. I was trying to look at this from Kucinich's angle since he
helped push Edwards into the number two position.
Kucinich is extremely calculating.
Look at my explanation and link above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #9
23. More than that
Edited on Tue Jan-20-04 09:01 AM by HFishbine
Here's what Edwards says about his pro-war position:

1) He wasn't mislead by the "intellegence." He thought "Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat."

2) We were right to go to war despite lack of international support.

3) Even if he knew AHEAD of time that there were no WMD in Iraq, he says, "It wouldn’t change my views."

Edwards had a justification for war that was even more tenuous than the near-immenent threat the administration was playing up. Yet, he allowed the administration's claims to go unchallenged, even though he "wasn't fooled."

Sorry Kucinich supporters. You were duped.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #23
35. DK supporters in IA were not duped
They had to caucus for someone. Who better than Edwards? Dean? Why - Is Dean that more progressive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
3. I'll be voting anti-war. Green if necessary.
If a pro-war Democrat gets the nomination, I'll be voting Green.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
4. i'm voting for Clark
because he won't send troops to war on a lie. Also, he won't be swayed to go to war on political ideology or advantage and he knows who in the world is a threat or not and can accurately assess a situation from a geopolitical perspective as well as accurately knowing our capabilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Its hard to imagine
Edited on Tue Jan-20-04 08:24 AM by mdmc
Dean or Clark voting for Bush's war, but, given the chance, I doubt that either one would have opposed the Iraq war. Only Sharpton didn't vote, but would have voted NO, if given the chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #6
20. What makes you so sure?
Edited on Tue Jan-20-04 08:44 AM by mmonk
Clark seems careful. He would vote for a resolution as long as it had a trigger (provision to come back to congress and debate before a vote to actually begin fighting). He also has the knowledge on what is an imminent threat or not or at least, a more realistic assessment. He's also less inclined to go to war based on a fear that his party might be perceived as soft on defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Given the info
Edited on Tue Jan-20-04 08:51 AM by mdmc
it sounds like only crazy nuts would have voted against the war. In fact, only a few politicians voted for the war, and their rational was basically, "we don't trust or believe George Bush!"
Clark was praising him and his group at the time. I don't think that he would have joined the few progressive dems to oppose the war.
You think that Clark would have said no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. Clark praised them
Edited on Tue Jan-20-04 08:57 AM by mmonk
at a speaking engagement they invited him to. He has also praised the military's swiftness in its operation. He has been critical of the reasons given, way before he decided to run. He has called it a flawed strategy for US policy. But if you don't believe his spoken word or written word, its up to you. But those painting him differently are opponents and you should keep that in mind. I personally do not support anyone who thought the war was necessary or who thinks pre-emptive war is ok. I support Clark so that should answer your question (along with Michael Moore and George McGovern).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Bottom line
Theorettically, Sen. Clark (D?- AK) votes on the Iraq resolution. Does he vote yes, or does he say that Bush and Co. can't be trusted? Hillary voted for the war. Gore said (at the time of the invasion) that he would do no different.
So, do you think that "Sen. Clark" would oppose Bush, and say that Hillary (and the rest of the Democratic senate) are wrong? Nope! He would have voted yes, just like Dean.
Dean became pro war by embracing the perception.
Clark was embracing gop fundraisers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. Pure spin
I believe what he says and I know he would analyze more deeply commiting our men and women in the armed forces to a conflict someone else suggested we do, especially politicians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. So you think that Clark would have called Bush a liar?
And voted against what 70% of citizens supported? Vote against everyone in his party? Come on!
I'm a Dean supporter, but I conceed that he would have voted for the war resolution.
The only reason to oppose the war was if you thought that BUSH IS EVIL! Can you imagine Clark calling Bush evil?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. He won't call him evil
he will and has called him wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. While we're on the subject
(this is a serious question because I don't know), what candidate, besides Clark, has mentioned or written about the PNAC and its aims and views and what's wrong with them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. None that I know of
the PNAC is a scary document.
D. Kucinich might talk some re: PNAC, but most folks could care less about a right wing think tank revision of the New World Order. You and I, on the other hand, recognize this as a playbook of evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. Yes
and I feel confident Kucinich wouldn't give it the time of day. Some of the other candidates, I don't know and that nags at me a little.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
45. Remind me again of how
Edited on Tue Jan-20-04 10:33 AM by SheilaT
Clark spent his time on CNN last year opposing the coming war.

on edit:
The majority of people in this country OPPOSED the war. Funny how that's been forgotten.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. Clark does not think
it was a good idea. To pretend otherwise is to be misinformed or disingenuous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #47
49. But he did NOT
use his time on CNN to oppose the war. As far as I'm concerned, it's that simple. So if anything is disingenuous it's pretending he was opposed to the war all along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #49
60. There are some who won't change their minds about Clark
so I won't waste your time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
7. Vote for Bush? Why would anyone who opposed the war

do that?

Your limited range of choices doesn't allow me to respond to your poll. It's not "Nobody But Kucinich" for me.

If Kucinich doesn't get the nomination, I will still probably vote Democratic, as I have since 1968.

However, if Dean's the nominee, I will not vote for him because he's run an arrogant, divisive campaign, engaged in a lot of dishonesty, and has been inconsistent in opposing the war, anyway.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #7
22. perhaps you could vote for "another dem"
I grouped the dems in pro war and pro peace. Sounds like you would vote for Kerry, Edwards, Leiberman, or Edwards. That would be the pro war dem group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
8. other
I'm in a safe state(NY) where Gore won 60% to Bush's 35%. Gore won by 2.5 million votes.
Depending on how things look at the polls, if the Dem has a comfortable lead then I'm going to vote Green.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
26. me too
I live in NY and my candidate will oppose the drug war, the death penalty, and the Iraq war. If we don't nominate Kucinich, I'll be voting Green.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
11. I'm voting for Clark
and was against the illegal invasion of Iraq. Clark will NEVER take this country into war unless it is a LAST, LAST, LAST resort. He has been there, he knows the destruction war reaps. It's not anything he takes likely. I trust him. He will always do the right thing, for the right reasons. Diplomacy first!

WES CLARK'S TEN PLEDGES



I pledge to all Americans that I will bring our soldiers home, with success in Iraq assured and America standing strong.
My strategy in Iraq will be guided by the following principles:

End the American monopoly. From the beginning, the Bush Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the Iraqi reconstruction and occupation. This has cost us the financial and military support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. Ending the American monopoly will change the way this enterprise is viewed -- in Iraq and throughout the world.

Change the force mix. The Bush Administration has failed to formulate an effective tactical plan. No such plan will be viable without substantial contributions from military leaders on the ground. Still, I would approach the problem as follows: consider adding troops; adapt to guerrilla war; better use intelligence resources, train Iraqi security forces, free up U.S. troops; engage neighbours for better border security; and secure ammunition.

Give the Iraqis a rising stake in our success. Iraqis will be more likely to meet the security challenge if we give them a greater stake in our success. That means establishing a sovereign government in Iraq right away. Because Americans chose the current governing council, many Iraqis see it as illegitimate. I believe we cannot transfer full authority to Iraqis before they have the capacity to succeed, but we should help the Iraqis quickly establish their own government to replace the existing council.


I will never ask our troops to risk the ultimate sacrifice or ask their families to pay the ultimate price of patriotism except as an absolute last resort.
As President, I will rebuild our relationships abroad and the alliances which maintain them. And I will strengthen them, so that we can solve problems together, so that the use of military force is our last resort not our first, and if America must act with force we can call on the military, financial, and moral resources of others.

Restoring our alliance with Europe is the first essential part of my broader strategy for American national security. President Bush has created a go-it-alone approach and declared the use of preemptive military force as the defining characteristic of his national security strategy. A Clark Administration would place our work with Europe and a reinvigorated NATO as a centerpiece of U.S. policy -- and then seek not to rely on preemptive force, but instead to use diplomatic, political, economic power and international law in support of preventive engagement. We would reserve the use of force for an absolutely last resort and then act together if possible and alone only if we must.


I will never send American soldiers into combat without a realistic plan to win and the forces necessary for victory.
The Administration failed to plan realistically for post-war Iraq. Instead of listening to the experts at the State Department and throughout the government, who predicted the danger of chaos and looting, the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his aides ignored their advice. Instead they relied on hope, hope that the Iraqi exiles would be accepted as legitimate, hope that the Iraqi police and military would provide security, hope that Iraqi oil revenues would finance reconstruction, and hope that we would be treated as liberators. How wrong they were -- you can't build a plan on hope.

Meanwhile, the President rejected the advice of the uniformed military that we deploy enough troops not only to defeat Saddam's military but also to secure Iraq after Saddam's defeat.

As a result, we saw chaos, we lost the trust of the Iraqi people -- and the enemy was emboldened.


The statements and actions of a Clark Administration will restore America's moral authority.
The Bush Administration has squandered in two years the moral authority America spent generations building. It started when President Bush said to the world, "you're either with us or against us." As a result, even some of those who were with us are now against us. And those, like Tony Blair, who are still with us pay a political price for it. America is hurt as well. We are less secure when our friends suffer for standing by our side. With fewer partners, we are left to meet dangers alone.

Even in Eastern Europe, there is dismay. These were some of the first countries in the world to support the Bush administration in Iraq. And what does this Administration do to its friends? In July, it suspends all U.S. military assistance to Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, and Bulgaria because they have not yet promised Americans blanket immunity from the International Criminal Court.

One after another, American presidents have laid a foundation of moral authority for the United States. That foundation was built through our leadership in containing Communism, in promoting human rights, in helping the poor and the sick, and in promoting international law. That foundation has been splintered in a few short years.

Also, a key part of my strategy of preventive engagement is to lead the global fight against rising tide of AIDS. Although AIDS is a preventable and treatable disease, in 2003, 5 million people worldwide were newly infected with HIV and a record 3 million people died of AIDS -- more than all the deaths from wars and terrorism in the world combined.

I have a four-part Global AIDS Security Strategy:


Keep the U.S. commitment to combat AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria worldwide - doubling funding to $30 billion by 2008.

Dedicate a large majority of U.S. funding to multilateral approaches like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria, while demanding results and additional commitments from our allies.

Base prevention and research efforts on the best available science, including overturning the global gag rule.
My Global AIDS Security Strategy will:


Prevent 14 million new HIV infections

Provide care and support for 20 million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans

Provide treatment for 5 million people living with HIV/AIDS, including supporting the WHO goal of putting 3 million people on treatment by 2005

Accelerate the development of vaccines and cost-effective treatments to stop HIV, TB, malaria, and other infectious diseases

The guiding principle of our foreign policy will be to lead, not to bully.
This Administration has been all bully and no pulpit.

Simply put, this Administration is wrecking NATO -- and thereby doing incalculable damage to our security and well being. They have alienated our friends, dismissed their concerns, rejected their advice, and left America an isolated nation. I served in NATO twice, last as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. I know its value, see its promise, and if elected, I won't let it be destroyed.

General Eisenhower once said leadership is "persuading the other fellow to want to do what you want him to do." When America led the world for the last half century, others followed -- not because we compelled them, but because we convinced them. America needs a President who can lead.

As President, that's what I will do. I will rebuild our relationships abroad and the alliances which maintain them. And I will strengthen them, so that we can solve problems together, so that the use of military force is our last resort not our first, and if America must act with force we can call on the military, financial, and moral resources of others.


I will never challenge the patriotism of Americans who question my policies or express their disagreement.
In a recent ad, the Republican National Committee claimed: "Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists."

The Republicans have tried to monopolize patriotism; I will not permit the Republican Party to steal patriotism.

I am not critical of President Bush because he is attacking terrorists; I'm critical of the President because he is NOT attacking terrorists.


In a Clark Administration, America will always have the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped military in the world.
During my 34 years of service in the United States Army, I held numerous staff and command positions - including Commander in Chief of the United States Southern Command and Director for Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff - rising to the rank of four-star general and NATO Supreme Allied Commander.

As SACEUR, I led Operation Allied Force, NATO's first major combat action, which saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and did not result in the loss of a single American soldier.

I know the utility of a well-prepared U.S. military, and I know what it takes to make sure that the U.S. has the best military in the world.

As Commander in Chief of the United States, I will carefully examine our defense budget to ensure that we are providing our military the money and support it needs to adapt to the new challenges America faces and to have the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped military in the world.


America's military will be a complement, not substitute, for diplomacy, law, and leadership in the conduct of our international affairs.
We must reorganize our government so that we can bring to bear the economic, diplomatic and political tools in our arsenal. When we use the power of international law and diplomacy, we can achieve decisive results, even without decisive force.

A Clark Administration would place our work with Europe and a reinvigorated NATO as a centerpiece of U.S. policy -- and then seek not to rely on preemptive force, but instead to use diplomatic, political, economic power and international law in support of preventive engagement. We would reserve the use of force for an absolutely last resort and then act together if possible and alone only if we must.

The United States needs a cabinet-level or subcabinet-level agency that is charged with developing plans, programs, and personnel structures to assist in the areas of political and economic development abroad. Call it the Department of International Development. Focusing our humanitarian and developmental efforts through a single, responsible department will help us bring the same kind of sustained attention to alleviating deprivation, misery, ethnic conflict, and poverty that we have brought to the problem of warfare. These efforts will reduce the anger and alienation that gives rise to terrorism, and win us more friends and partners around the world. It will be far easier to gain international support for our concerns when other countries see us helping them on theirs.


I pledge to use all of my experience and determination to fight the terrorists who have attacked our country, to defeat them and to work to prevent them from rising again.
I will go after terrorists wherever they are - in Afghanistan or any other country. As a result of the Bush Administration's inadequate and misguided efforts, Osama bin Laden and many of the leaders of al Qaeda are still at large and continue to pose a great threat to the United States, our friends and allies, and various other states. I propose the following three-pronged strategy to refocus our energies on hunting down bin Laden and destroying the al Qaeda network.

Press Saudi Arabia to join U.S. forces in creating a U.S.-Saudi commando force to work the Afghan-Pakistani border where bin Laden is thought to be hiding. It's time for Saudi Arabia to take real action to destroy al Qaeda from the top down. It's not enough for them to pursue terrorism within their own borders. They need to join us in the battle worldwide.

Fully utilize the assets we already have on hand to hunt down bin Laden and destroy the al Qaeda network. Too many of our intelligence specialists, linguists, and special operations personnel are investing too much time and energy in Iraq in a fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction -- a task that could better be handled by international weapons inspectors. These inspectors are ready, willing, and able to perform this mission. This is a clear case where getting help from the international community to share the burden in Iraq will free up crucial resources to allow us to better fight the most significant threat to our homeland.

Repair our relationships with our allies and friends, and rely on international and regional institutions, like the United Nations and NATO. These institutions can provide vital support to American diplomacy, bringing in others to share the burdens and risks that we would otherwise carry alone.


And finally, by these pledges and with your support, as President I will make America more secure than it is today.
As President, I will ensure that we succeed in Iraq, that we focus our intelligence, diplomatic, financial, law enforcement and military resources on defeating al Qaeda, that we restore respect and support for America, and that we re-orient our foreign policy to meet the challenges of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, international crime, and environment threats. Taken together, all of these steps will make America more secure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snoochie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
13. Wedge issue
I'm voting for Kucinich or the nominee, and I'm anti-war.

It's not just Kucinich's anti-war stance that I want though -- it's his anti-occupation stance. And his free trade stance. And his healthcare stance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
17. bogus!
Dean doesnt belong with Kucinich, so why are you posting a bogus poll?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #17
28. Dean allowed an anti war image to shape his campaign
Many Dean supporters consider him anti war. The only reason that I support Dean is b/c of his opposistion to the war.
I conceed that he would have voted for the war. THE POINT is that Dean allowed this perception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #28
40. yeah but how do you group him with the real deal
and call it a useful poll question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edzontar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. Kucinich made a deal with "pro-war" Edwards, for god's sake...
His much vaunted purity is vapor, at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #42
51. Kucinich is smarter than any of us
I told you there were surprises coming, and that was only one. The votes made by any wanna be candidate should be looked at in that light. Kucinich's stand/vote on Flag desecration disarmed the right wing at no real cost to civil liberties, while the "centrist" dems attempt to pillory him for it. Edwards has the support of one of our leading anti-war activists, which shocked the crap out of me, but in total, he offers a lot. The ones I will not support are Dean, Clark and Lieberman. And you WILL see them coalesce by the end. One agenda, one bank account. Wrong party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. This is why I put Dean in with Kucinich and Sharpton
NYS AG Eliot Spitzer called Dean "unelectable" due to his opposition to the Iraq war.

You and I know that only Sharpton and Kucinich really opposed the war. Dean was included because he is perceived as anti war.

This poll, like politics, is about perception. Specifically, elect-ability, and the perception of whom is the most electable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalmuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
21. I'm voting anti-war.
Edited on Tue Jan-20-04 08:48 AM by liberalmuse
If the Dem candidate is one who supports this war and is one who gave Bush carte blanche to fight it, and one who has supported most of Bush's policies, then I don't know that I can vote for him. So let's say we have a Dem candidate who doesn't agree with 10% of what Bush has done in the past 3 years.

If Americans don't care enough to vote against this war, and to vote for change in social policy, about the poor and the elderly, then we deserve Bush and all the bad karma that comes with it. People who don't care enough to prevent their kids from possibly being drafted to fight in an unjust war, or to stop a huge financial burden from being dropped on them and their grandkids are reprehensible.

A pro-war, Bush enabling Dem would have to impose the draft. I thought I could ABB, and maybe I still can if convinced that the Dem candidate would indeed be significantly different from Bush, but that would mean I support the war in some way, and condone the shedding of innocent blood when I absolutely abhorr it. I'd have to be convinced that my vote for the pro-war Dem would result in getting Bush out of office, and it won't.

On edit: I should add that I live in Utah, so ABB would matter. The best I could do is campaign like hell for the Dem candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
30. hiya pieman
nice to see you here!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iverson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
31. I'm fundamentally pro-civilization.
That means no wars of aggression, which preventive invasion certainly is. It means no shredding international agreements upon a whim (e.g.- UN Charter, Geneva Convention, etc.). It means neither support for war nor mealymouthed technocratic objections that endorse the fundamental war mentality.

My preexisting bias is Green, but if the Democrats nominate Kucinich, then I'll support him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. another green for Kucinich
welcome!
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
34. NBD
I will only vote FOR a candidate in 2004. I am finished voting against Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edzontar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
41. For me, it's now ABC...
I don't like Kerry, Edwards on the war, but their supporters here, with a few MAJOR exceptions, have been civil...and they have otherwise claer and more or less acceptable public records.

Clark is just too unknown and shadowy a figure, and after the pile-on by his supporters last night, I can't see how any Dean supporter familiar with these forums could even support this man.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
44. It will be very hard for me
to vote for anyone who approved the war powers act. Especially when thousands upon thousands of citizens were calling Congress and the WH begging them not to go to war.

I think that's what Dean should focus on now, the whole war thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
youngred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
46. Kucinich is my candidate
but should he not get it my vote will go to Clark, Edwards or Kerry. Should they not get it its anyone but Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
48. I'm very anti-war, but Dean, Kucinich or Sharpton can't win . . .
therefore I'm supporting John Kerry, but would be comfortable with Clark or Edwards as well . . . one thing I've learned over the years is that running ideologically "pure" candidates is a sure way to lose elections, and this country can't afford another four years of Bush . . . I'm very liberal, but I'm also very pragmatic . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
50. I am not just anti war anti imperalist and pro peace
Edited on Tue Jan-20-04 11:38 AM by corporatewhore
thats why i am for DK he stood up to bush he will get us out of iraq (my father wont be redeployed) He will get rid of the SOA and NAFTA
He will also cut defense budget back to where clinton had it (i wish he would cut it more) i believe that we cant have peace on earth while there is still domestic and urban violence and DKS dept of peace will be a step in the right direction
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
52. Dean is not anti-war
as to the rest, I can say I'm solidly undecided
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
53. Kucinich, of course
Didn't click the poll because he was lumped in with others... but it's Kucinich, hands down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. come on
click Kucinich!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. OK I clicked it
Happy now?

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Horray for America!
gOD BLESS ALL you peacenics!!!
May you have peace in your day!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. Hooray for Peace Lovers Everywhere!
Thanks - you just put a big ole smile on my face. :D

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThirdWheelLegend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-20-04 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
59. Dean in the same group as Kucinich?
Besides Dean's bandwagoning on the anti-war movement, most of his policies and record are very centrist.

I cannot vote :(


TWL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-04 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. please vote
I included Dean in with Kucinich and Sharpton because he is perceived as unelectable due to his "anti war" posistion. This is based on perception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC