Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

There is a TON of misinformation about Duckworth v. Cegelis re: Iraq

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
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:28 AM
Original message
There is a TON of misinformation about Duckworth v. Cegelis re: Iraq
And who benefits by spreading that misinformation? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

It appears that we are constantly being told that Cegelis and Duckworth are world's apart on the issue of Iraq. In today's Daily Herald both of them answered a series of questions and I'm sure those who have been MISLED about Duckworth will be surprised to see her answers. Even Cegelis is not advocating IMMEDIATE withdrawl, she is for setting benchmarks. Here is a sampling of both candidates, as well as Lindy Scott, in their own words.

Cegelis:
I have opposed this war from the beginning. However, Americas military actions mean that we have a commitment to the citizens of Iraq. We must do all that we can to bring peace and a stable and sovereign Iraq can emerge when the U.S. becomes an ally, not an occupying force. We must spell out a reasonable and detailed plan to transfer power to Iraqs military and police forces and bring U.S. combat troops home by Dec. 31, 2006.

This means setting reasonable benchmarks to indicate when Iraqi forces should be satisfactorily trained, equipped and ready to take over security operations.
-snip-

Duckworth:
To bring our troops home, we need a more aggressive plan than the Bush administration has offered for training the Iraqi police and military.

The administration has yet to develop a set of measurable benchmarks to determine when a reduction in forces is possible. We should do so, and proceed to stand down a certain number of U.S. units for every Iraqi battalion that becomes combat-ready.
-snip-

Scott:
We must also renounce any desire to control Iraqi oil and we must renounce our plans to have permanent bases there. We can begin removing 50,000 troops from the areas where they are not needed (largely in the south and in the Kurdish north) and where they can be replaced by national police. Moving toward a 12-month timeline for the redeployment of troops would motivate the three sectors of Iraqis to begin to work together as they resolve differences.

As we withdraw troops, we allow Iraq to get on with the process of governing themselves without having to tolerate a huge foreign occupying force in their land.
-snip-

http://www.dailyherald.com/politics/ele_story.asp?id=16...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
undercoverduer Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. The thing about Cegelis and reasonable benchmarks
The think about Cegelis and reasonable benchmarks is that she contradicts herself in that if those benchmarks are not met there is no way we are out of Iraq by 12/31/06. You can't just go out and declare a deadline without plan to meet that deadline. Furthermore since you dealing with something as volatile as war you can't declare a deadline, what if you are not where you need to be by that deadline? Do you still leave?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. What she is saying sounds lke an attempt to say
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 09:18 AM by karynnj
what Feingold said in August 2005 when he spoke of a "flexible target date" for withdrawal. He articulated that as there is usually an effort to "make" target dates, setting one for withdrawal would bring focus to doing it. He also said the same things about withdrawing only if political benchmarks were met. In his case, he specifically said you do NOT leave if the goals aren't met.

I actually agree most with Scott's which has many elements that I liked in Kerry's and Feingold's plan.

Duckworth's comments here are so vague that she could be anywhere on the spectrum.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undercoverduer Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. So now we know what Feingold said, but what is Christine saying?
Did she mention a "flexible target date?" Also up until now some of us were under the impression that Cegelis was calling for immediate withdrawl. Don't expect voters to assume that Christine was trying to say what Feingold attempted to say, especially when we don't know if that is the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. I was agreeing with your comments
and suggesting that she might have been attempting to articulate a Feingold-like position - but that where Feingold was putting up concepts hoping to move the debate forward, when questioned he had more solid things to say. (His explaination of flexible target dates was close to what she said. There is no other definition of flexible target date, which is a redundant phrase anyway.)

It was just my observation, that the words were pretty close and these were the only words I was basing this comment on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undercoverduer Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. I know. . .I over reacted. . .that does not happen on DU, EVER. . .
LOL Sorry about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
80. Feingold suggested end of 2006 withdrawal - Kerry drafted the plan Cegelis
seems to be in favor of that actualy brings the troops home targeting the end of 2006.

Kerry, Cleland and Clark are endorsing a Dem vet MOVEMENT and march on DC, and I don't believe there is any other reason for his endorsement of Duckworth beyond that - however, Kerry and Durbin are very close allies, so Durbin likely would have influenced him, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
26. maybe; maybe not ...
i see no basis to determine that Cegelis was necessarily providing any flexibility in her 12/31/06 target date ...

drawing this conclusion would require you to put more emphasis on the objective of training Iraqi troops than on the idea of "given bush a budget" and demanding that he stick to it ... i see no information in Cegelis's statement to lean either way ...

fwiw, it's what i see as the shortcoming of most of Senate Dems and Dean and Clark as well ... it's the "we can't just leave" school of let's hold bush accountable ... the problem is, there's never a deadline ... as bush fails and fails and fails, the war and occupation go on and on and on ... the problem is, there's never any accountability ...

for those of us who believe we will never succeed in Iraq and that the whole mess will end in civil war, the "flexible target dates", i.e., any plan without a "date certain" (even given the "uncertainties" of war), is nothing but a prescription for never-ending war ...

anyway, left undefined by my interpretation of what Cegelis said is whether she supports "flexible target dates" or whether she is providing a date certain after which all US troops should be out of Iraq ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
59. Wasn't that what Bush keeps saying?
When this, this and that happens than we'll leave? And whatever happened to all those "elections" in Iraq??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. How come Cegelis gets the free pass?
Most of her supporters here write that it is the same plan as Bushco when they write about Duckworth. Do they find it necessary to mislead just to claim they are right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. A lot of this is courtesy of Double standards For America. . .
. . .one set of rules for candidates they like, another set of rules for candidates they don't like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Impressive shot at Kevin and WillPitt there wndycty!
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 08:10 AM by LincolnMcGrath
Not :eyes:

Clever editing as well.

Duckworth

A scheduled departure would make our troops vulnerable to attack as the date approaches. Or, the insurgents might lay low until the pullout is complete.

To bring our troops home, we need a more aggressive plan than the Bush administration has offered for training the Iraqi police and military.

The administration has yet to develop a set of measurable benchmarks to determine when a reduction in forces is possible. We should do so, and proceed to stand down a certain number of U.S. units for every Iraqi battalion that becomes combat-ready.

Enjoy your Saturday morning purge! I have to leave for County Convention.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Well let's be honest here Lincoln. . .
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 08:19 AM by wndycty
. . .this is not really about who is more progressive or who is better on ideology. Its this BS "us versus them" crap that is often perpetrated by those who claim the grassroots can only support ONE candidate in this race. Its a divisiveness that used to the advantage of one candidate, BUT DON'T F'ING FOOL YOURSELF that its about the soul of the party. Tammy Duckworth could perform gay marriages on the weekend, escort women to abortion clinics at night, chain herself to Dirksen Federal Building until we withdrew from Iraq, etc., but since she is supported by insiders and Cegelis is a former Dean's Dozen member, with support from Cindy Sheehan, PDA, DFA, et al, she (Duckworth) is the F'ING DEVIL!

This is sad, I keep hearing about letting the people choose, that is exactly what's happen. The people who support Duckworth are not using some procedural move to appoint Duckworth as the nominee, they are just giving her vigorous support in an effort to HELP HER. Leave it to the people of the 6th CD to decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. No argument there. . .
. . .and if you look at the Duckworth/Cegelis threads you will notice that there is a pattern. One camp prefers uses every opportunity to question the "progressive" credentials of the other camp's candidate, calls her all sorts of names, etc., LITERALLY MAKES SHIT UP (Duckworth and a pro-war neocon. . .literally it has happened) and acts as if a contested primary is the worst, most undemocratic thing ever.

This aint about ideology, it AINT EVEN ABOUT GRASSROOTS v. the MACHINE, its about the dividing the party to support a weaker candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. I guess calling Cegelis an Incompetent Boob was an example
of your team taking the high road? Much like your thread here, what with the clever edits, distortions, and the like.

As to your last sentence, well, I don't believe any Cegelis supporter pushed party leaders to back Duckworth, or for that matter helped her pack her bags to move to the district.

You can shriek till the cows come home about the other side calling for divisions and purges, that doesn't hide the fact that you are right here doing the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undercoverduer Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Who called Cegelis an incompetent boob?
I think there has been a ton of talk about her electability, her campaign management (including cash flow), but I don't recall someone calling her an incompetent boob. Are you making more shit up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
33. You get your answer?
"Are you making more shit up?"


BTW What else have I made up? Or was that a made up accusation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. I got the answer and responded appropriately
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. I saw that.
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 03:42 PM by LincolnMcGrath
:dem: I was inquiring to the other poster as to what other stuff I supposedly made up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Huh? Please provide a link for that. . .
. . .I never saw anyone call her an incompetent boob, if so it was wrong. For the record I stand to support the winner of the primary in the 6th CD, be it Christine or Tammy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. here is the link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. The poster was wrong for that. . .
. . .I do not share his opinion of Christine. I do not believe calling Christine names, while I may back Duckworth, Cegelis may very be our nominee so I have no desire to burden her with any name calling that will come back to hunt all of us should she get the nod.

I can't control others but I will go on record by saying I condemn that comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #16
17.  I have donated to Christine -- but If Tammy wins the prime I will donate
to her campaign as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. That is what is best. . .
. . .begining 3/22/06 I plan on donating regularly to whomever wins the primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #19
20.  as I alway remind my progressive friends

If the Democrats take the House this November

10 members of the Progressive Caucus would become chairmen of committees

John Conyers becomes Chairman of the Judiciary Committee


https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
37. I see someone was kind enough to provide a link in my stead.
There are more where that came from as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #37
53. yes that comment was far from the worse..but I didn't want to belabor the
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 06:49 PM by Douglas Carpenter
point

If Tammy wins the primary, I for one will support her. But for now Christine has my enthusiastic support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undercoverduer Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. And in this race its being used by the Cegelis supporters. . .
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 08:47 AM by undercoverduer
. . .who pretend that any support of Duckworth is an afront to the grassroots and a threat to the sould of the party. Its sick, sad and despicable. People who support Duckworth, like the people who support Cegelis, love the Democratic party and there is a strong desire on their part to see a Democratic majority in Congress. Without a Dem majority a like of things that Cegelis or Duckworth and progressives everywhere support won't see the light of day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cults4Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
22. It cuts both ways, to ignore that is to be hypocritical in the extreme
when speaking in generally contentious tones regarding a broad brush attack on one side or the other.

Both sides are guilty of playing politics and this is what has happened in politics ever since there were politics. This happens every election cycle on DU, there is still bad blood from the primaries 2 years ago floating around this place.

It also happens on other sites and it also happens with the other parties out there. If you dont like the trash talk wars, then pick a candidate and stay out of the mudslinging but to come up with this "its the other sides fault" argument (and I dont mean just you but all sides, all the time) online and especially at DU is... very 8th grade in its advancing of issues at hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #22
35. Very Well Stated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
61. And when do they have the say who is "grassroots"?
That's very insulting to Duckworth and her supporters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. Hearing that she had that kind of support,
it seems hypocritical to use the words they have about officials backing her opponent. Especially Dean's endorsement in 2004 was a huge thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
39. Hypocritical in what way?
Obama, Durbin, and Rahm picked Duckworth to run in IL 06. They did it. There was a good candidate already running. DFA national had not endorsed her, PDA stayed out of it at first, all to let the primaries play out.

But all the party big wigs, so called, started having national contests to see who could raise the most money for Duckworth, and insane sort of contest of power.

So how does hypocrisy fit in here? It is just plain choosing the candidate for that district, and practically slapping progressive groups in the face by doing it so loudly, so nationally.

Hypocrisy? NO. Power. They have the power. They got us into Iraq, they want us to stay there. They got the bankruptcy bill so the little people wouldn't hurt the big guys. They got the Patriot Act renewed so all the database corporations could make big dough.

Should I go on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #39
47. Obama and Durbin got us into Iraq, voted for bankruptcy bill ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. The Democrats overall, you knew what I meant.
Our Democrats overall supported most of Bush's agenda. Now they are picking candidates all over the country. Worries me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #48
74. no they didn't
i don't know what the fuck "democrats overall" means. but Durbin and Obama who you hold responsible for Duckworth did not do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #47
63. Than next time make yourself clear
People aren't mind readers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #39
62. So were you kicking and screaming when Christine got
Dean's endorsement in 2004? So now if one opponent has more support and you don't like this person they're being played around by the party leaders? Wow, you sound just like Bill O'Reilly talking about Cindy Sheehan. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
84. Bovine Excrement. If Duckworth were running on Cegelis' platform
There would be no real problem here. Also, if there were any polls showing Duckworth running a better race, it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
60. Bingo
Just like with the endorsements. When Kerry came out supporting Duckworth (he's supporting numerous democratic veterans around the country and other canidates as well) people on her opponent's side got all in an uproar but when Paul Hackett got the support from John Glenn, Max Cleland and Wesley Clark they praised him. I can't stand it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
23. This thread ain't nuthin' but a crocka DLC chickenshit bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. Oh really. . .name calling. . .please tell how it is DLC BS?
Come on out of your little hole and spell it out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Cegelis got 44% last time. She would've easily won this time.
That's why the DC Dem scumbags decided to knife her and the party's base in the back.

Corrupt fuckheads, one and all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. I don't really see that
44% is, of course, very good. If they beieved she would easily have won, why wouldn't they back her or stay out of it? That's not logical. And it's not about "grassroots," either. Money management seems to have been an issue. Compare Cegelis to, say, Francine Busby in CA-50, who is backed by *both* DFA and the DCCC. Busby, too, came in around 40% in her last try against Cunningham and now is in an open race, but Busby managed to hold onto much of the money she raised mainly from retirees and housewives. She's raised a half million dollars over the course of her campaign and has almost $400,000 of it in hand; Cegelis has one tenth of that amount in hand. There are other Democrats in the CA-50 race, too, who are not receiving DCCC support, but they are not receiving DFA support, either, and Busby has both. So no hue and cry from any quarter. Meanwhile, the party has to take all sorts of factors into account when they choose a candidate to support and part of it is simply a business decision. They would be irresponsible if they didn't examine where they'd expect to get a return on our money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Exactly. . .
Well said!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Why not run Duckworth in her own district?
Why go into another district?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #34
43. There is a Democrat Representative in her District.
This District has just opened up with the retirement of Hyde. Many feel Duckworth is a better fit for the demographics of this District.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Wasn't there an opening in another nearby district?
Why did Duckworth fit the demographics better if Cegelis won 44% when it was supposed to a district that was not competitive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undercoverduer Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. Is Cegelis ENTITLED to the nomination?
It seems like you are opposed to her getting a challenge and you are using the who issue of her backers to distract from that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. I think you know better.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undercoverduer Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. I've been lurking for sometime. . .
. . .and it seems as though you don't want Cegelis to have run a primary race. If Scott were a viable candidate you would be attacking him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #54
57. No, I strongly support primaries. I support competition.
I support fair competition, without the power brokers picking the candidates.

I am all for anyone jumping into primaries who wants to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:57 PM
Original message
Ahem.
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 07:58 PM by LincolnMcGrath
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #45
56. Because 44% is not 50+%.
The fact that Kerry did better than Cegelis indicates to me that Cegelis was deemed less desirable to the majority of the electorate. The fact that a candidate, who has since dropped out, was outpolling Cegelis just last August. There was not an opening nearby without an incumbent. But I do not have the input from this area that our Illinois Democratic Party leaders have, so I respect their strategy more than any one else. They have won elections here in Illinois. That is one reason it presently has "blue state" status.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #31
65. So why isn't anybody screaming on how unfair it is for Busby?
Gee I don't hear any kicking and screaming from that group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #65
72. It's the same for the vets
With all the pissing and moaning about how many vets are running and how terrible that will be for the American way, have you heard negative word one about John Courage, Fighting Dem, running in TX-21? I didn't think so. But then he's a DFA All-Star and that makes everything peachy. :crazy: I don't care who endorses who and John Courage certainly deserves the support - it's the hypocrisy I can't stand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #72
75. because nobody was attacking the overall strategy of running vets.
And if Duckworth was running on the kind of values Ron Kovic(or the John Kerry of '71)stood for, there would be little objection to her.

This has NEVER been about vet-bashing, andthe Duckworth supporters know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #75
79. Well, you may have missed a dozen threads or so
But I never said that expressed sentiment was about Duckworth, but about the overall strategy of running vets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #30
64. Riiight.
No proof whatsoever though right? Duckworth is doing like a lot of Iraq veterans are doing. They're pissed off and not taking it anymore and want to try to change things and help. I'm tired of this DLC bullcrap. Everytime something bad happens you all blame the DLC right away with no proof whatsoever whether with this race or Paul Hackett. It makes you look like a loser.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #64
73. If I look like a loser to EWWWWW, I KNOW I'm on the right track.
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 10:42 PM by Jim Sagle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
24. the OP is MISLEADING
if you're going to put things in bold, it's important not to be misleading by failing to put in bold the most important statement ...

trying to make the two candidates appear to have almost identical views on Iraq by emphasizing the term "benchmarks" fails to acknowledge that one candidate set a real deadline and the other did NOT ... that's a huge difference that you clearly tried to hide by the way you wrote the OP ...

consider the difference in these two statements with regard to the two candidates' views on Iraq:

Cegelis: "We must spell out a reasonable and detailed plan to transfer power to Iraqs military and police forces and bring U.S. combat troops home by Dec. 31, 2006."

Duckworth: "The fact is we are in Iraq now and we can't simply pull up stakes and create a security vacuum. It wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undercoverduer Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Christine's deadline is false. . .
She has benchmarks as well. We don't know what those benchmarks are or if they will be met, so she can throw out a date w/o any knowledge as to if its possible to meet the deadline. False deadline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. "benchmarks" can co-exist with a "date certain"
any deadline in any situation may or may not be met ... that doesn't necessarily mean the deadline isn't real ...

a real deadline says to bush: "we're out of there as of this date whether you achieve the objectives or not - you don't get to just fail to meet the deadline and then let the war drag on for another 25 years."

my position is that bush has to be given an absolute deadline ... period ... i take this position because i don't believe we are making any progress at all in Iraq; we're making things much worse ... benchmarks, i.e. a phased withdrawal plan until the "date certain" arrives, are always a good idea ... but when the date arrives, that's it ... we're done ...

the issue is not whether the deadline is false because it might not be met; the issue is that bush should be given a deadline beyond which he cannot continue the war ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
66. And those dates are???
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 07:23 PM by FreedomAngel82
2006? 2007? 2008? 2012?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. not sure what your point is ...
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 07:40 PM by welshTerrier2
it is the sole domain of Congress to allocate funds for war ... the Constitution gives Congress the ability to fund wars and cut-off funding for wars ...

Congress can say that no funds are to be spent after any date they choose ... that date would be a deadline date ... providing such a date for the cut-off of funds would force the President to operate according to the will of the Congress ... it would force the President to make a plan that is controlled, at its end point, by a "date certain" ...

no ultimate outcome is guaranteed ... the President and the military might or might not achieve whatever stated objectives they have provided by the "date certain" ... they would, however, have been put on notice that the Congress will not allow an open-ended conflict ...

it is certainly valid to argue, as too many Democrats have argued, that the situation in Iraq should dictate events rather than a cut-off date ... I disagree ... if you want me to pick a date, my date certain is Sunday, March 5, 2006.

my argument with those supporting "benchmarks" without supporting a cut-off date is that I don't believe anything positive is being achieved in Iraq ... we'll be talking about benchmarks 10 years from now while the US continues to exploit Iraqi oil through PSA's and pressure from the World Bank and continues to destabilize Iraq's internal politics for their own greedy objectives ... if I had an ounce of faith in the goals of those who control the levers of power in the US, I might consider, given demonstrable progress, a phased withdrawal based on benchmarks ...

because I do not trust those in power or the objectives of the US government, nor do I see any progress in Iraq after 3 years of war and occupation, I see no viable path beyond immediate withdrawal ... for those who like to toss around "purist" labels, yes, I would be willing to compromise to some degree ... but the compromise can never result in an open-ended war ... absent a "date certain" or clear proof of progress in Iraq, compromise on either immediate withdrawal or a "near-term" date certain is not possible ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
29. Your hatred of her is unbelievable. Here is a link.
http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/node/167

The War in Iraq


The war in Iraq has taken the lives of more than 2,000 American men and women and killed and injured tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. More than $200 billion tax dollars have been poured into the effort. Our credibility in the eyes of the world has been severely damaged. The Bush Administrations conduct in starting and executing this conflict has been a disaster from the very earliest stages.

I have opposed this war from the start. But revisiting what brought us to this disastrous point does not solve the problem. It is time for us to bring our troops home. The Bush Administration must provide a comprehensive timetable for withdrawal of the majority of our combat troops at the earliest possible date. We must bring home our 46,000 citizen soldiers of the National Guard and Reserve home as soon as possible, where they can continue their lives as our police officers, our firefighters, our workers and our neighbors. The U.S. must spell out a reasonable and detailed plan to transfer power to Iraqs military and police forces.

Defending our nation against the threat of terrorism is a top priority. The issues of Iraq and terrorism are now the same. Al-Qaeda had no link to Iraq before our invasion. Now it is a breeding ground for hatred and terror, and an ideal recruiting pool for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks. Extending the conflict in Iraq only gives terrorists more opportunities to foment hatred against America. Instead of lessening the threat of terrorism around the world, our war has accelerated it. We owe it to ourselves and the world to reverse this trend, and to use our foreign policy muscle to truly lessen the global reach of terror. A stable and sovereign Iraq can only occur when the U.S. becomes an ally, not an occupying force, and it is only then that we can rebuild trust in the Middle East and with the Islamic communities of the world.

We need to let the Iraqis determine their own future. This means letting them run their own political process, instead of meddling in it for our own political gain. That also means pledging that we will not operate permanent military bases in Iraq and renouncing any claims to Iraqi oil. We need to make sure that the Iraqi people understand that we have no intention of permanently occupying their country. If the Iraqis want international peacekeepers, we need to work with them to make that happen. The U.S. also needs to immediately involve other countries in the effort to rebuild Iraq. Dozens of countries have a stake in creating a stable Iraq.

The failures of this war must prevent the United States from making similar mistakes in the future. And the only way we can make sure that lesson is learned is to elect leaders who understand that lesson.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. If I hated Christine WHY AM I WILLING TO WORK FOR HER AND DONATE
TO HER IF SHE WINS THE PRIMARY. You want me to hate her, you need me to hate her BUT I DON'T HATE HER! To rally support for her you WANT PEOPLE TO HATE HER so that it can be an "us versus the world" type of scenerio. GROW THE F UP! Quit trying to divide us to help Christine win the primary, its divisive and it doesn't help whoever the eventual winner is. Please explain to me how my willing to work for her and donate to her should she win the primary be a sign of hatred. You made the damn bullshit accusation now back it the fuck up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Then why are you spending your days going after her and her supporters.
I don't understand it. You guys have the power. Big money, big business. You got it. Why rub it in?

A lot of us are still working on rebuilding from the ground up. We don't have your power yet, and God help me, I hope if we do get some things changed we won't rub noses in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Answer the damn question
If I hate her why have I committed to supporting her if she wins? I asked you a question and you answered it with a question. . .I AINT LETTING YOU OFF THE HOOK, answer the damn question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Why do you go after her so much?
And her supporters? You changed the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. You are still not answering the question. . .
. . .as a matter of fact I contributed $50.00 to her in 2004, do you want my credit card statement. You want me to hate her, but I don't. You are desperate because you need that hate to rally support. Go right ahead. Keep it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undercoverduer Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. Answer the man's question! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. Tagteaming now?
LOl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LincolnMcGrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #49
71. !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #42
85. I'll try..it's because you assume Duckworth will magically win
with the help of her big conservative friends and so you believe you won't actually
have to face the possibility of needing to support Cegelis.
Beyond that, there's no way of answering the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. So if Cegelis DOES WIN and I do donate, what are you going to say then?
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. I'll say thank you, and, if I happen to be in town that day
Edited on Sun Mar-05-06 06:20 PM by Ken Burch
(unlikely, but who knows)I'll buy you a beer. So there, smart guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #40
68. Aw the poor victim scenerio
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 07:26 PM by FreedomAngel82
If Christine is so great why isn't she getting support from other democrats? Why isn't Obama supporting her or any other democrat from the House or Senate? She's supposed to be this great person but yet why haven't I heard of her getting support from other democrats? Doesn't she know how to network? Doesn't she know how to campaign? My district canidate surely does and he got the endorsements from Gore and Cleland and a former big wig local canidate who has been running for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. Big money, big power should not boast of beating up on the little guy.
That is just wrong.

They are doing the same thing in Florida to a woman who got 45% of the vote against Katherine Harris in a district that is 32% Democrat.

Yet they are putting their big muscle behind the woman she beat last time in the primary.

There does not seem to be a set of rules. In Florida Rahm, Karen Thurman (state chair), and Bill Nelson make the rules and decide. It appears to have little to do with anything but power.

How will you act toward others when Duckworth wins? Are you going to rub it in? Skinner had a post up about this the last day or so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #70
77. Still not answering the question I see. . .
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #70
83. Cegelis GOT big money, and pissed it away LAST year
She's got just $39,000 left...and all but about a hundred is eaten by debts....

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00394007/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
67. So when is "as soon as possible"?
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 07:24 PM by FreedomAngel82
So now you're determing who someone hates? Wow, I didn't know you were a psychic. So now critisim is hatered. Right. Sounds just like the freepers whenever we critize Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #67
78. Viva la Double standards For America!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
58. Thank you
I'm not against either of them and I think whoever wins the primary would do us all proud as democrats/progressives. I'm getting tired of all the misleading, hypocriacy and how others are trying to push out Duckworth when they don't even know where she is on the issues from all the misleading. So I thank you for the post. For the record I'm not supporting either/or since I don't have a say in IL-06's district. I have my canidate for Congress and I'm happy with him. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #58
76. If you don't care who wins this primary, why did you go simian caca
When people were offended by Kerry asking progressives to back Duckworth?

What's it to you if you don't have (well, given that both candidates are women, I think we should try to avoid the
"dog in the hunt" metaphor)a favorite in this race?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
81. You're exactly right
Duckworth has been maligned on several levels. I hope being a lying sleaze ball isn't what is required to be a part of the "Democratic wing".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. Kick
:kick:
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 Thu Oct 23rd 2014, 08:31 AM
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