Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I LOVE THE CANDIDATE

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 (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:05 PM
Original message
I LOVE THE CANDIDATE
Edited on Mon Aug-25-03 01:34 PM by WilliamPitt
(order adjusted on edit to salve the concerns of people who see advocacy in all sorts of odd places)

Graham: Graham has been in politics since 1966, and has never lost an election. An avowed centrist, Graham has been one of the most vocal critics of the Bush administration's handling of September 11. His questions on that issue alone rush him to the fore of important people in American politics today.

Dean: Here is a doctor who was right about the war back when a lot of other candidates were wrong, whose 60-day wait-on-the-war policy, if adopted, probably would have furthered the argument that no war was necessary simply by dint of the fact that time was on the side of those of us who were right, who is a compromise candidate regarding guns, thus taking the NRA out of the game in the West and South.

Gephardt: After 26 years in Congress, here is a man who knows the process. Recall that it was Johnson, and not Kennedy, who knew how to manhandle the Congress to get progressive policies passed. This is because Johnson knew that body like the back of his hand. Gephardt has stood for years with Unions, with teachers, for ideas like an international minimum wage which would begin the process of reversing the damaging process of pro-corporation globalization, and for the bread-and-butter Democratic issues that define us for who we are.

Braun: Having a woman running for President is historic and important, no matter where your opinions fall. Ditto the fact that she is an African-American. Here presence kicks down barriers that have dogged this nation for its entire history. Braun was a staunch critic of the Iraq war, and sponsored several progressive education and civil rights bills, was a staunch advocate for stricter gun control laws, while in Congress.

Kucinich: Here is a man that speaks boldly from the stump about opposing the Iraq war, about taking money from the Pentagon war machine to actually help the people, who has fought the utilities that steal from us and leave us in the dark, whose election to the Oval Office would, quite completely, change the world.

Sharpton: "I am running to take out the DLC, which I call the Democratic Leisure Class, because that's who it serves -- the leisure class and the wealthy," said Sharpton. Anyone who has seen him on the stump - he spoke vehemently at every anti-Iraq-war rally in Washington DC - knows the man can light a fire in a crowd. Sharpton heads a civil rights organization entitled the National Action Network. Sharpton's strength has been traditionally underestimated in his past primary campaigns for New York City Mayor (losing by a surprisingly close 40% to 32% vote in 1997) and US Senator. In recent years, Bill Bradley pursued his endorsement in 2000 and some of the NYC Mayoral hopefuls openly courted his backing in 2001, thus proving that his clearly controversial status is offset by his standing within the activist community.

Edwards: The bright new face on the national landscape, Edwards' pro-choice, environmentalist, pro-health care reform record makes him a standout on the liberal-to-populist range of candidates. He also deserves massive praise for ousting GOP incumbent US Senator Lauch Faircloth in what was a stunning upset victory in 1998. Edwards is from the South, which makes him worth his weight in electoral gold.

Clark: Though he is not a declared candidate yet, Wesley Clark stands as a formidable possibility. His foreign policy esperience is daunting, thus making him immune to the "McGovernization" process the GOP will try to foist on the other candidates. Though he is not talking in detail yet, there is enough data out there about his opinions on domestic policy issues to make him very worthy of support, or at least a long hard look. He also, by the way, scares the cheese out of the war-shouting GOPers who know that is the only leg (fear) they have to stand on.

Lieberman: A consistent recipient of high ratings from virtually all progressive-issues rating services, including the all-important issue of women's reproductive choice, Lieberman would be in the same category as Gephardt regarding support for many of the issues that Democrats hold dear.

Kerry: Here is a man with years and years of experience in the foreign policy realm, whose environmental voting record is second-to-none, who earned medals for his service in Vietnam and for getting wounded in that service, who was a bulldog in chasing down the Iran/Contra fiends, whose mere presence in the Oval office will do wonders to repair our standing with the world.

So there it is.

Of course, each and every one of these candidates have their problems, both real and imagined. Any DUer can make an equal list of all the dents, problems and disasters that come along with any and all of these people.

That is not the point.

The point is that, in our advocacy for the candidates we like, we tend to take a glass-half-empty look at the other candidates in the field. My own preferences are clear: I think Kerry has the best shot, but I am an avowed advocate for every candidate in the race. Yes, each and every one of them. When I hear one of them say or do something good, I celebrate. I do not look to punch holes in their ship because it may cast my candidate in a bad light.

My reasons for this?

Dick Cheney
Don Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
John Bolton
Andrew Card
Robert Zoellick
Lewis "Scooter" Libby
John Ashcroft
Karl Rove
Colin Powell
Condoleezza Rice
John Poindexter
Paul Negroponte
Eliot Abrams
Gale Norton
Elaine Chao
Spencer Abraham
Harvey Pitt
John Snow
Tom Ridge
Tommy Thompson
Henry Kissinger
George W. Bush

Each and every one of these people is or was part of this administration. All of them continue to hold influence, with the probable exception of Bush. Compare the records of these people individually and collectively to the records of the candidates I have listed above.

I love the candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
phillybri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Great post, Will....
Big kick for this one....

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StopTheMorans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. incredible post!
would like to see more like this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
molly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. You are absolutely 100% correct and THANKS for
this post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. Amen
Anyone but bush in 2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
95. Mega-Dittoes, ProudPatriot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #95
116. I knew somebody would post that
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. Order of preference?
....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Order of preference
1. Kerry
2. Dean
3. Kucinich
(that's pragmatic-to-hopeful-to-idealistic)
4. Edwards
5. Graham
6. Clark
7. Gephardt
8. Braun
9. Sharpton
10. Lieberman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Yes, I noticed
That was the commentary. Had you listed Sharpton first and Kerry last - now that would've lived up to the intended spirit of the post without the underlying rating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Welcome to being part of the problem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. You mean...
The one Sharpton described?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. You miss the point by parcecs
Edited on Mon Aug-25-03 01:25 PM by WilliamPitt
Perhaps deliberately.

Again:

Of course, each and every one of these candidates have their problems, both real and imagined. Any DUer can make an equal list of all the dents, problems and disasters that come along with any and all of these people.

That is not the point.

The point is that, in our advocacy for the candidates we like, we tend to take a glass-half-empty look at the other candidates in the field. My own preferences are clear: I think Kerry has the best shot, but I am an avowed advocate for every candidate in the race. Yes, each and every one of them. When I hear one of them say or do something good, I celebrate. I do not look to punch holes in their ship because it may cast my candidate in a bad light.

My reasons for this?

Dick Cheney
Don Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
John Bolton
Andrew Card
Robert Zoellick
Lewis "Scooter" Libby
John Ashcroft
Karl Rove
Colin Powell
Condoleezza Rice
John Poindexter
Paul Negroponte
Eliot Abrams
Gale Norton
Elaine Chao
Spencer Abraham
Harvey Pitt
John Snow
Tom Ridge
Tommy Thompson
Henry Kissinger
George W. Bush

Each and every one of these people is or was part of this administration. All of them continue to hold influence, with the probably exception of Bush. Compare the records of these people individually and collectively to the records of the candidates I have listed above.


I love the candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. I hear what you are saying, Will
but I see what you are doing.

You may dismiss it, maybe you are even unconscious of intent, but there are favorability ques despite the appearance of balance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Why?
Because I put Kerry first? Are you operating on such a simplistic level?

Fine. Consider it fixed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. No
I am paying attention to ques.

Always study them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. LOL
Edited on Mon Aug-25-03 01:34 PM by CWebster
bet it was painful too....right? ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diamondsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
7. Just in case nobody has mentioned it lately-
YOU ROCK!

Here's to any one of them taking out the mob of thugs listed at the end.:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. standing O
Very good Will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonAndSun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
13. Right on,Will...
I have my preference, but to continue bashing someone else's candidate does no one in the Dem party, and here at DU, any good. We all have our preferences, but at the end of the day, the one main objective is to GET RID OF BUSH*!!



:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
14. I agree wholeheartedly
I wish that these guys, our wonderful and candidates all, would get together for a rally for unity of Dems before the untidy task of debates and campaigning starts in earnest. It is not only we here on DU that need to support every and all but the candidates themselves!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
75. Excellent idea, Steviet!
This is something that really needs to happen! All the candidates should get together and have one, big, Democratic Love-in before the primaries start in ernest. This is just to let everyone know and see that Democrats are going to stick together regardless of how hard we fight one another over the next half year! A reconsolidation party where all the candidates reaffirm their commitment to ousting Bush and supporting Democratic ideals and positions.

Just a great idea!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #75
111. Exactly!!
As well as a pledge to keep the primaries as clean as possible. Let's see if personal aspirations can be put aside for the good of the party and the nation. Save ALL the negatives for the pugs!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
16. I've got to admit the
Edited on Mon Aug-25-03 01:28 PM by Clete
roster of candidates for this election makes it easy to vote for any one of them who rises to the top. The only one I would have to hold my nose for is Holy Joe. Also, I would prefer the top candidate to not be one who voted for the Iraq war resolution.

Other than that: :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #16
76. I agree completely
about the war resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
17. Bravo! Bravo!
As usual, you can see through the bullshit and keep your eye on the number one goal we Democrats are working towards. No matter who is nominated to lead our party, ANY of them will be better than what's in power now. Thanks for a breath of reality. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demnan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
20. I whole-heartedly agree
Anyone who believes the current list of candidates is not outstanding just hasn't been paying attention. Each of them have their strong points.

The wonderful thing is, when we all come together at our convention, each of the strongest components of these individual candidates can be the strength that holds our platform together.

It's going to be an interesting campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UrbScotty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
21. Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I LOVE you, William Rivers Pitt!!!

Okay, I don't LOVE you, but I like you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
22. Thanks
As you have probably noticed, there are a lot of DUeres who have been saying this for some time. However, it is important that it also be said by a person who is so well respected by so many of us. Be careful Will, you're demonstrating leadership!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
23. I applaud your loyalty to the Democratic Party
Reality demands that I point out, many of us feel the Democratic Party has been less than loyal to us and we therefore cannot demonstrate your level of loyalty to the party.

This is not bashing your position in any way. If this is the way you feel, more power to you.

This is a wakeup call, nothing more. There are four people on your list I refuse to vote for. It's up to them to EARN my vote back should they walk away at the end of the convention as the nominee. That's going to be a tough road to hoe because I do not want to give up what I feel is the moral stance about the Iraqi war. I do not want to vote for somebody who has blood on their hands, and these four do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. I do not ever disdain those who vote their hearts and minds
but "earning" is a funny thing. Here, at the teetering edge of bloody chaos, one might argue that a vote has been earned by a candidate whose name is not Bush, who will not have the aforementioned list in their Cabinet. It's incrementalism at its finest, to be sure, to say this. But one might say it and be 100% right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Who has the moral highground, the enabler or the enabled?
That's the question here, Will.

For my part, there are many members of the Democratic PArty I hold 100% as responsible as Bush for the level of chaos as I do not distinguish between the enabler and the enabled in politics.

Four of those Democrats are candidates for the Democratic nomination for President. I can consider them as absolutely no different or less guilty than Bush, ergo, my vote for them would be no different than a vote for Bush from a moral stance.

There are certain lines I cannot cross. This is one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Personally, I have no use for "Pyrrhic Victory."
With the Supreme Court at stake (and as we have seen, the Court of Appeals already under attack), I see nothing moral about letting these monsters wreak havoc that will affect the body politic for then next generation.

Sorry Walt. I see nothing positive about hastening the fall of the Republic to prove a point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StopTheMorans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:50 PM
Original message
I agree with you 100%.
Pyrrhic Victory is an oxymoron.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. There's an issue that could get me back in the fold
Should one of the four self-blooded Democrats win the nomination, but I will have to hear these words out of their mouth for that to happen, "As president I will make a woman's right to choose a litmus test for each and every court nomination I make."

Otherwise, I would not conisder it a "Pyrrhic Victory" but moral justification to choose another candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. I think that would not be out of order, Walt.
Even though I don't think anyone on the larger list would not sign up for that in THEORY, having it in print would be excellent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. I doubt seriously if the self-blooded four would ever say that
Simply because there would be "political fallout". I believe all four of them have demonstrated their political cowardice in the face of Whistle-ass more than once.

Oh well, them's the breaks. There has never been a presidiential election where I did not vote for the Democrat.

There's always a first time for everything...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #36
46. Huh?
You constantly complain about how some of the Dems "voted for war", but you'll vote for them if they issue a statement on abortion?

That sounds like an escape hatch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. It would prove they've lost their political cowardice to me
As I said in another post, I doubt seriously they would ever go that far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #48
59. They've already stated their support for abortion
so they've already demonstrated their "courage".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #59
62. Their stated positions does not meet my requirements
I must hear that support for the right to choose will be a litmus test. No Democratic candidate for the presidency every says that. It's a poltiical firestorm and only somebody who has overcome their political cowardice will ever say it during a run-up to the presidency.

The precise words are the most important thing here, otherwise the self-blooded four remain political cowards in my book and are unworthy of my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #62
77. Kerry and Schumer have made it a litmus test
Schumer actually used the words "ideological litmus test". Kerry said he will not vote to approve any judges that don't support Roe v Wade, which is the definition of "litmus test"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. I want to hear the words, "litmus test"
Anything short of that is still political cowardice.

Schumer is not seeking the presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uzybone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #78
108. Laughable...
not only must they say they will not confirm a judge that might overturn Roe vs Wade but they must say "litmus test". What next, have them dance around the Congress with with phone books balancing on thier heads? All or nothing politics is a failure, you cant expect every last candidate to agree with you 100% of the time. And in this case they agree with you, they just havent said it in those soothing words you want to hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #108
112. Because the words "Litmus Test" are political fireworks
Saying those specific words would signal to me they have given up their ways of political cowardice.

Until then, I will consider them the political cowards they are who are willing to sacrifice lives on the altar of political expediency. That sort of lowlife scumbait morality is unworthy of my vote, EVER!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diamondsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-27-03 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #78
165. Here's one direct quote for you-
Sorry it took me two days to produce it, I've had connection problems over the past couple days and just saw this.

"Reeling off his stands in a speech to the National Organization for Women convention in Arlington, Va. Friday night, Kucinich proclaimed, “I’m from the universal-health-care wing of the Democratic Party. I’m from the Roe v. Wade-litmus-test wing of the Democratic Party. I’m from the abolish-the-death-penalty wing of the Democratic Party.... I’m from the gun-control wing of the Democratic Party.”

http://msnbc.com/news/937252.asp?0cv=CB20#BODY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #33
45. You should try looking up the phrase "Pyrric Victory"
It refers to "winning at any cost". Just what this thread is advocating. The cost being the integrity of the Democratic Party if one of the four sellouts should win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #45
54. That is not the definition of Pyrrhic Victory
"In 281 bc the people of Tarentum (now Taranto), a Greek colony in southern Italy then at war with the Romans, requested the aid of Pyrrhus. Early in 280 bc he sailed for Tarentum with a force of 25,000 men and 20 elephants and in the same year defeated the Romans at Heraclea, in the Roman province of Lucania, but at great cost to his army; hence the expression Pyrrhic victory." - Encarta Encyclopedia

Pyrrhic Victory (n) - bitter victory: a victory won at such great cost to the victor that it is tantamount to a defeat. - Encarta Dictionary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StopTheMorans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #45
55. I thought it implied "winning at any cost"
but sacrificing everything you had (like the battle?). This isn't "winning at any cost", to imply that would assume that electing anyone of these dems would be a loss on all fronts (i.e. reproductive rights, education, the environment, etc...)> None of these candidates is a "win at all costs" candidate, none of them are as horrible as most here make them out to be. So they made a few horrible choices, yes, I hate the PATRIOT ACT and the war too, but they have still done a lot of good over the years, and they would continue to do so in the White House IMHO. You can't say that any of them are really even CLOSE to *, and if you do, sorry, but you're delusional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #55
84. "a few horrible choices"
Look, we're not talking about some meaningless vote about municipal water, or a resolution making Dec. 16, National Pumpkin Day to win the votes of pumpkin growers. That vote was about killing people. Innocent people. Men, women and kids. A minimum of 6113 of them to date.

I'm not saying that any of them would be as bad as the fratboy. I simply refuse to vote for, endorse, support, or keep quiet about, what can only be described as collaborating with the forces that killed, and are still killing, innocent people.

If you are able to overlook those deaths in the name of winning..well you're certainly a lot better Democrat than I am.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. It comes down to what is more important for a voter to be "better" at
Being a Democrat, or being a human.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #86
89. Exactly. Well said.
All of us have to compromise. Life demands it. We sometimes do things, make choices, with unknown, or merely hoped for consequences.
I've held my nose and voted for candidates that I hoped would be better than I suspected.

But, this vote, by those four politicians, had known consequences. People were sure to die. Innocent people. A country was to be invaded without UN approval. Not to remove a bloodyhanded dictator, or to save lives, but to provide a 3rd rate, politician with what passes as stature. This whole thing was about waving the flag and appealing to the base instincts of fear and hatred. The four jumped on the bandwagon to prove that they were real "patriots", "tough on defense", and the other slogans designed to make people feel good and vote for them.

It isn't so much that they were willing to sell their integrity for votes. They were willing to sacrifice peoples' lives for votes.

That's just a bit too much for this lifelong Democrat.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arianrhod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #86
167. This I agree with 100%.
I'm tired of being "governed" by soulless men whose sole god is their belly. That's why I became a Democrat in the first place. I want a candidate who actually cares about other people, about human rights and human compassion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #45
60. Don't try to debate Roman or Greek History with me.
I took too much ancient literature for it to be a fair fight.

When Pyrrhus said "One more such victory and I am lost" in 281 B.C.E., he made famous forever the idea that in winning the victory must be worth the aftermath of the battle. The rePukes have no such concern; as firm believers in their political version of the "Rapture," how they win and who they trample is of no consequence.

We on the other hand do not have that luxury. The Pyrrhic Victory I refer to is the moral victory of the purist over the compromiser. If you wait for angels to run as Democrats, I think you have too long to wait. The point of our version of political victory is to insure that the next administration does the most good for those that need it most. Whether or not they compromised to get there becomes irrellevant compared to the devastation the Neocons will do to the country.

Pyrrhic Victory has little to do with winning at any cost (such as done by the Bush cabal), and more to do with proving a moral point at the expense of 4 decades of political progress. Your victory of NOT electing one of your "Gang of Four" is not worth the loss of Roe v Wade, Affirmative Action, the Right of Privacy, etc.

At least in my mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #60
74. I've voted striaght Dem tickets for more than two decades
I've compromised more times than most DUers have posts.

I've drawn a proverbial line that I do not intend to cross on this one. I'm making my stand and I'm sticking to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #74
83. got you beat by a decade and 2 years.
I voted in my first election in 1971. I've never voted for a Republican, and never voted against a Democrat if the election was in doubt in the slightest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. got you beat by 5 years
Voted for Jess Unruh against Ronald Reagan for governor of California.

I've never voted for a republican either. But, I have voted against Democrat in close races. Voted against Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon and the war in Vietnam in 1968 and never regretted it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #60
153. Use the Texas Democrats as an example
Sometimes the best strategy is a calculated retreat (i.e. compromise)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #33
51. They are always pulling this card -
you must vote for us to vote against them otherwise bad bad things will happen. Here is the thing, isn't the war vote and the glaring display of militarism in the face of a military and moral nightmare, an example of voting for a candidate who continues to support what we are supposed to be voting against?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #51
56. And I've been listening to it, and following it, for more than two decades
This time, I vote my hopes, not my fears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainbowreflect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
25. Thank you, great post.
Every single dem candidate is a ray of light in a very dark time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
27. And we must REPEAT this, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN....
...POUND it into skulls until it finally sinks in.

BUSH and his administration of fellow travelers are the ENEMY, the only and ultimate enemy.

If they are allowed to continue in their illegal and immoral rule, we ALL lose.

I have said it myself and you have said it here very eloquently: in order for any of us to WIN, BUSH must LOSE.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
97. Post this evry day..
and keep posting until we stop the in-fighting and name-calling. There is NO perfect candidate. As much as I despise him, I would vote for Joe Lieberman before I would vote for George Bush. Not voting at all is a Bush victory. Voting for Bush is genocide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syn_Dem Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
28. Right on Will
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippywife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
30. Amen!
I know, and have said on more than one occassion, that while everyone is passionate about their candidate, it can't come at cost of what we all hold dear...regime change.

We are all warriors in the same battle, we serve different generals in this coalition maybe, but the goal of vanquishing the evil that illegally resides in our House is one we share. We weaken our own army and our chances at victory when we take emotional jabs at one another and our respective candidates.

That is one problem you can bet the Freepers don't have. Why should we? Surely, we're brighter than that. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
31. Can I 'borrow' this?
I think that there are some people on the campaign board that might benefit from reading it.

What a great way to look at things and you have expressed some of the things I have been trying to articulate so much better than I have been able to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Borrow away
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
32. Another, "Just Don't Mention That Vote", thread.
Hurrah for all the Democrats!! Even when they vote for republican policies.

Hurrah for all the Democrats!! Even when they pose with the fratboy in chief to back his empire building.

Hurrah for all the Democrats!! Even when they vote for the slaughter of Iraqi civilians. Only a minimum of 6113 so far - but, hell they don't vote.

Hurrah for all the Democrats!! They stand for the People. Of course, anyone living outside the USA and doesn't vote isn't a people.

Hurrah for all the Democrats!! They aren't as bad as the republicans. Well, not quite as bad. Well, no worse, anyway.

Kerry - Voted for the slaughter in Iraq.
Edwards - Voted for the slaughter in Iraq.
Lieberman - Voted for the slaughter in Iraq.
Gephardt - Voted for the slaughter in Iraq.

It's not going to go away. I for one will not vote for the above collaborators under any circumstances.

Excusing them for that vote is sort of like saying, "Just ignore the floating turd, have some punch."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Mention it all you like
There's no denying it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. collaboraators?
I dont know who you support for president but I am a Kucinich supporter all the way and damn proud of my guy but I do like those 4 collabrators they have done some damn good stuff. Kerry has been an all around good democrat for years. Edwards is a sucessful lawyer and a rising star in the party, and I think he has the right idea on things. Lieberman despite all his faults is a democrat and does some good things. Gephardt the man champions the working man and has probably after DK the most populist economic policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StopTheMorans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. good post Kleeb:)
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #42
102. I try
I support Kucinich but I have a hard time using the war as a litmus test, we should honest to god have Kucinich be the nominee but if for some reason I really am a dino of the party and the past, I dont think we should bolt, I would hate to do that, this party, the democratic party I was born in to it and I will likely die in it it has done much good and theres a lot I dont like, theres a ton of shit Clinton did I dont like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. I say marking lines that you will not cross is the ONLY
way to reform the Democratic Party.

Read my signature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-27-03 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #102
160. about DK's Flag Burning Amendment vote...
has he said anything about that since the vote itself?

I know a person who would probably vote for him but is having doubts after hearing about that vote. I just wanted to know if he's retracted it or anything like the way he acted about abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #37
72. Collaborators
Kucinich is my third choice, behind Sharpton and Mosely-Braun and I will have no problem voting for him.

Kerry has been a "good" Democrat for many years. So, "good Democrats" who are responsible for the deaths of 6113 Iraqi civilians should be given a pass because they've been "good" for may years.

Edwards the rising star. 6113 dead Iraqi civilians won't see the rising star who voted for their deaths.

Lieberman has done some good things. Terrific. Too bad 6113 dead Iraqi civilians won't be around to benefit from them.

Gephardt who champions the working man. A lot of those 6113 Iraqi civilians were working men. Of course, most of the women and children weren't working men.

I remain unconvinced that those who collaborated with Bush to kill 6113 Iraqi civilians (so, far) are "good Democrats", "supporters of the working man", "rising stars", or should be given a pass because they've done some "good things".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #72
121. Please try to keep in mind
How many more innocent deaths would be added to that 6113 should whistle ass be elected, both in Iraq and the next few countries on their hit list. Please try to keep in mind the quickest and fairest path to true freedom and liberty for the Afghanis and Iraqis is through the UN and not by having our boys there because shrub won't give up our slice of the booty. Please try to keep in mind the further damage that can be done domestically to the economy, environment, civil rights, freedom of information to DEMOCRACY damnit, should the cabal remain in power.

I would prefer a candidate that did not endorse the resolution allowing the war, but I'll be damned if I don't do everything I can to try to right those and all the other wrongs. That HAS to start with deposing the current regime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. And when he puts up MORE and MORE conservative judicial candidates...
...because he's still in power?

Who is the worse enabler? One on your "hit list," or someone who helps the PNAC/BFEE crowd pack the Supreme Court with another Scalia, Thomas, or Rhenquist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Court nominees matter little when you're dead
War is the issue. War and who has the blood of war on their hands.

The draft is coming, my firend, and the blood of even more young Americans will be on the enabler's hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. I think you're correct, but without the COURT, we'll belong to the Neocons
Congress will likely not switch, and if Bush were to actually be elected, how can we mass an argument against him?

The Court is where we get our rights protected when we are in the minority, and I don't think a single Democrat of ANY stripe will support the draft: Remember Chicago in 1968?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Rangle proposed the current draft legislation
Last I checked, Rangel was a pretty liberal Democrat.

Believe me when I say, there will be a draft reinstituted in this nation and it will happen by March of 2005.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #50
70. Rangel did that to force the issue with the rePukes.
He has said as much in speeches since, that to support a draft is the fastest way to end the conflict.

In my mind, making the Rich kids as vulnerable to the draft as the poor, OR bringing back a draft and allowing Bush-style opt out by the upper classes will both work toward the fast end of this and any future conflict, along with the demise of any conflict initiating administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #32
47. It does have that
"don't worry, be happy" feel to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nostamj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #32
53. do you believe they were LIED to prior to the vote?

are any of them SAYING they were LIED to prior to the vote?

is Dem anger over the Iraq vote really going to cause a significant number to let BushCo remain in power???

i'm angry about that vote, i'm angry about the lies that preceeded it but i'm NOT angry enough to dismiss a candidate based SOLELY on that issue--esp. if they throw the LIES behind their votes back in *'s face.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #53
57. I knew they were lying
DU knew Bush was lying.

The world knew Bush was lying.

If I am more qualified to know when Bush was lying than members of the House and the Senate, then these people do not belong in public office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. None of the candidates
at the time said that Bush* was lying. According to your logic, the only qualified candidate is "None of the above"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. The other five candidates do not have blood on their hands
My problem is with the four candidates who chose to directly get blood on thei hands by their choices and actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #64
91. They all have responsibility
Not one of them said what we ALL knew; That Bush* was lying.

But you'll excuse some, but not others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. I'll excuse the ones that do not have blood on their hands
But I cannot in good conscience excuse any of the four who voted to kill 6113 Iraqi civilians.

They are directly responsible and I will hold them that way.

The saddest part about the entire thing is the only reason they have blood on their hands is because they are political cowards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nostamj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. did I say: "at the time" ???

i thought i was referring the the LIES that have been (and continue to be) exposed about the BushCo LIES that led to the war...

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #66
92. Was I responding to you?
A: No
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #61
69. It is not necessary to state the fact
Edited on Mon Aug-25-03 02:20 PM by CWebster
that they were lying. It does not change the fact that they were...and STILL ARE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
molly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #57
65. Walt, these people voted for the people they represent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Which means they are political cowards
and are undeserving of my vote.

If they prove to me they have overcome their political cowardice, I would again consider them as possibly being worthy of my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
molly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. OK - I'm looking at your post number 36 - I hope you mean it
because we need you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. I seriously doubt if any of those four will ever say that
Edited on Mon Aug-25-03 02:27 PM by Walt Starr
They've branded themselves political cowards who would rather have blood on their hands than do the right thing. I doubt seriously if any of them would be brave enough to announce a litmus test for judges centered around the abortion controversy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
molly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #73
80. They have already said it, Walt!!!
Here's my candidate...

“In case after case, President Bush’s actions have made American women less safe and less secure - on the job and on the streets. As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women. I will stand up for their security, ensure their safety, support their rights, and guarantee their dignity. This nation can do no less.”

-- John Kerry, March 8, 2003

John Kerry has an unparalleled record working on behalf of women in this country. As a prosecutor in Boston he established one of the country’s first offices to assist rape victims. His first speech on the Senate floor defended a woman’s right to choose. He cosponsored and helped pass the Violence Against Women Act. He worked to expand the rights of women in the workplace and pass the Family and Medical Leave Act to help working parents balance work and family. As President, John Kerry will stand with women to guarantee that they have the ability to go as far as their talents can take them.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. No, Kerry did not say it
He must say, "As president, I will make support of a woman's right to choose a litmus test for all judicial appointments."

He never said that, and my guess is he never will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #53
58. when we can get a better one?
hopefully this is about more than winning the election--it is about setting the party back on course again with an involved, interested and hopeful country -not a jaded insider clueless, absolutely clueless about what to say and do evertime the wind blows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snyttri Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
38. I agree now (after past sins). Lots of the bad Dem field image is GOP
Edited on Mon Aug-25-03 02:01 PM by snyttri
spin on a massive scale. The spin should be fought uniformly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nostamj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
43. we can only *hope* that all nine (or ten) candidates

ALONG WITH ALL OF THEIR SUPPORTERS

stand together to take down BushCo when the primaries are done.

the only thing I know for sure is that I'm AGAINST BushCo.

I won't read candidate-bashing threads any more than I'll read a Green/Dem flamefest or the lastest pile of steaming crap from freeperville or coulter.

I'm interested in WEAKENING * and then backing a STRONG candidate, with broad support to finish the job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
styersc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
52. I feel an internet Group Hug coming on.....
I love this post and have been waiting for it for a long time. At the end of the day I hope we all rally behind the candidate.

Like Will Pitt I believe that Kerry is the most electable but like Mr. Pitt, I believe that any one of the candidates is superior to the criminals that are now residing in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
molly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #52
68. I would hope that anyone of them would be willing to take
a cabinet post behind our new pres.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
63. Nice post. (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemLikr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
79. Oooooooh baby, you're GOOD! Thanks, Will n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiegranny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
82. any and all of them are preferable to the unelected monkey
and they will all bring our issues to the table during the primaries. we must unite to kick the monkey and his evil handlers out of d.c. no principle is worth taking the risk of how many more people will die needlessly if this cancer is allowed four more years to mestacisize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
87. I vote for the "Democratic Leisure Class", Al Sharpton and Slap..
The Donkey, :kick:

Some moms are embarrassed to talk to their toddlers about that #2 thing that they have to teach about how do in that private room, but it don’t matter because it still happens.

The only thing I hope is people don’t resort to pre-school dialectics for ways to debate, discuss, query and inform with and or about fellow DUers, otherwise it might start to seem like an AM radio station run by Clear Channel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeHereNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
88. Ah Will, you NEVER
cease to amaze me...
Bet the fire alarm in your house goes off on a regular basis-
what with that smoking pen and all.

I will toast you at cocktail hour tonight for this post.
BHN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
90. I will never vote for Kerry.
His "reasons" for the invasion vote are pathetic and sounded too much like someone who "drank the cool-ade" as far as Bush's lies for war. No way I can vote for this guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
styersc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #90
96. Perhaps you can make a lot of $ in 2004-2008
selling "Don't Blame Me I voted for Bush (by default)" T-shirts and bumper stickers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imhotep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
94. I have a theory about
the "anyone but Bush" crowd.
This lack of standing for anything while standing for everything must be some conjecture to make oneself immune from charges of hypocracy when "anyone but Bush" becomes President. This also gives a virtual free pass for potential failures and any actions that mirror Bush. In fact, I will save this thread in order to make sure that the "anyone but Bush" crowd is held accountable when the next President certainly fucks up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imhotep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #94
98. in addition
I have a hunch that the motivation of these people is pretentious honor. Unfortunately, this path was also chose by many republicans who are unable to criticize Bush precicely because they made the same choice as the "Anyone but Bush" crowd.

When "anyone but Bush" is President, Do not complain, bitch, or moan about anything "anyone but Bush" does.....
because I will be here waiting to expose you all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #98
106. I find that somewhat insulting actually....
I have made a conscientious descision that any of the Dem cannidates (or Wes Clark if he runs) is simply a better choice then Bush, and you accuse me of having pretentious honor?


Sorry, but maybe I simply don't agree with your stance.


If Bush was elected over, say Kerry, in '04 and you voted green or whatever, then I would not hold you to not critizing Bush. So stop hammering us for the same choice.

Tell me, did you vote for Clinton? If so, were you happy that he lied about the whole Monica thing? Were you happy about NAFTA? I sure wasn't and I critized him. But I am still glad we had him over Bush Sr. or Dole and I am proud of the vote I made for him in '96 (I was 16 in '92).


We need to have a big tent, and if you cannot vote for those people if they are nominated then so be it. I will forgive you if we lose despite how ever angry I might be at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uzybone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #98
115. Nonsense
has anyone said anything they do will be ok since it was not Bush? No they want ABB becasue ABB will do BETTER than Bush. I dont think many people here are ready to give A Democratic president a pass just becasue he is not a repug.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FredScuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #98
147. pack a lunch, then....
I'm so glad that smug troglodytes like you live only for bringing down others, rather than grasping the point of this wonderful thread.

By the way, I will complain, bitch and moan about anything I damn well please when "anyone but Bush" displeases me because that's my right...and I would be no hypocrite for doing so. I would rather leap into the arena and take a stand against the abject evil that is the current administration, than sit on the sidelines and carp like a petulant child.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #94
99. I'm just surprised I didn't see people simply post Subjects that read
"Ditto" with N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #94
100. No,
Being "anyone-but-Bush" means that we recognize that Bushco is simply a much larger threat than any Dem cannidate could be. Its that simple. We are not cowards, we are pragmatic.

I would say that the people who are advocating not voting for anyone who voted for the Iraq war are seeing the world in black and white, when it is in fact made up of many shades of grey. Lieberman may be a rather dark shade of grey, but it is still alot better then the inky darkness that the Bush Administration has brought to the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. We do not see the world in Black and White
Edited on Mon Aug-25-03 04:37 PM by Walt Starr
We just came to the realization that four Democratic Candidates are so dark a shade of gray they have the blood of innocents on their hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #94
104. Every President will...
..."fuck up" as you put it. There is no perfect candidate. Why? because all candidates are human, and therefore imperfect. I have a choice in 2004. If I am stuck with one of the four "collaborators" I will proudly cast my vote for him. Iraq may be a quagmire which no one can fix, but witout the the current commander-in-chimp at the helm we also lose that litany of criminals Will Pitt so capably listed. And that is worth my vote.

Peace, brothers and sisters... and pull the lever in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. I'll be pulling the lever
Hopefully the Democrats will put up a candidate I can pull the lever for. If not, I'll still pull the lever for a candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
styersc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #94
107. I have a similar theory.
There are those who will support a candidate who cannot possibly be elected solely so they do not have to bare the responsibilities of leadership.

You can lounge around coffe houses and bemoan how you fought the good fight and how the world should be different blah, blah, blah.....

Meanwhile Bush and company are appointing judges, rolling back regulations, passing harmful legislation.

But you will be able to maintain a smug, holier then thou attitude.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #107
109. Woop
There it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GalleryGod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #109
148. SHeeeeeeeeeesh! I thought I was at a "Clean for Gene" Meeting!
:smoke: that feeling,that "We're walkin'" feeling:crazy: I fear that it's comin' around a-gain.

First time we got Tricky.......
HHH was the "murderer" back then.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #107
110. Exactly!
Pragmatism strikes back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #107
113. Theory rarely works in the real world
I have to live with the choices I make for the rest of my life.

I cannot vote for somebody who has the blood of countless innocents on their hands because they voted to give whistle ass his war.

I can't. If you want to deride me for that, it's your choice, but as far as I'm concerned, anybody who is willing to vote for Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, or Liebermna is just as guilty and has blood on their hands as well.

Think what you like, but I damn sure would not have voted for Humphrey in '68 had I been of voting age at that time. And voting for any of these four is the moral equivalent of a Humphrey vote.

You can be a good Democrat, I choose being a good human being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #113
117. "You can be a good Democrat, I choose being a good human being"
There's that holier-than-thou argument.

Stating that voting Bush out of office at all costs means I am not a good human being is a pretty foul thing to say, Walt.

You can take it back if you want to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #117
118. It's the way I feel about voting for a Democrat with blood on his hands
Edited on Mon Aug-25-03 05:38 PM by Walt Starr
If you don't like it, :shrug: ...

edited for spelling and grammar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #118
119. So yes, I am not a good human being?
Yes?

Come on...a man of such powerful and righteous convictions can speak his mind. Say it:

"You, Will Pitt, are not a good human being."

Say it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #119
122. I do not respond when baited
Take what you will from my statements, Will. If you feel the shoe fits, I suggest you may already be wearing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #122
124. I'm not baiting you
You made the statement. I am asking you to stand by your own statements. For a man so bold in your convictions, so able to dismiss other people as not good human beings, you are very gun-shy about standing on your own words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #124
126. Read what I said
If you feel the shoe fits, I suggest you are already wearing it. Take from that whatever you will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #126
128. You said
Edited on Mon Aug-25-03 05:50 PM by WilliamPitt
"I have to live with the choices I make for the rest of my life. I cannot vote for somebody who has the blood of countless innocents on their hands because they voted to give whistle ass his war. I can't. If you want to deride me for that, it's your choice, but as far as I'm concerned, anybody who is willing to vote for Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, or Liebermna is just as guilty and has blood on their hands as well. Think what you like, but I damn sure would not have voted for Humphrey in '68 had I been of voting age at that time. And voting for any of these four is the moral equivalent of a Humphrey vote. You can be a good Democrat, I choose being a good human being."

Am I a bad human being? Yes or no, Walt. Out with it. Just say it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. Again with the baiting
I will not violate DU rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #128
130. I can say this much, however
I honestly cannot understand how anybody could be supportive of any of these four men for the presidency and be able to sleep at night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #124
127. BTW, asking me to attack you personally is baiting me
You know that stating something such as what you suggest is a violation of DU rules. What you are asking me to do is violate rules I agreed to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #127
131. Fascinating for you to say this
You state that anyone who does as I advocate is a bad human being. You do this in response to my thread, making the direct connection between myself and bad humanhood. You then cry foul when I ask you to say directly to me what you have obviously inferred.

Weak.

I'm not asking you to attack me. You already have done that. I'm asking you to have the courage to say directly what you have only weakly inferred. If you don't have the courage to do this, I call into question everything else about this courageous stand you've made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #131
132. I didn't make up the DU rules
Take what you will from my statements, Will. I did not make the DU rules but am bound to abide by them just as you are.

General statements such as I made are acceptable under DU rules.

Statements directed at a specific member are not acceptable under DU rules.

Take from all of this whatever you choose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #132
134. What, you think you'll burst into flame or something?
I won't hit alert. Neither will anyone else. You won't get banned. Or will you scuttle back to the rules as if they are holy writ, as if you are all the more righteous for hiding from your own comments?

Say it to my 'face' here, Walt. Say it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #134
137. Will, I'm done responding to your baits
Take from my statements what you will. I must be able to sleep at night and I cannot do that if I vote for a candidate just as responsible for the carnage as Bush. I honestly cannot understand how anybody could sleep at night after supporting such a candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #137
138. I will sleep like a baby, Walt
because I will have helped remove Bush and his deadly cabal.

I will also believe I am a good human being. I will likewise feel bad for you, good sir, and your apparent ability to condemn your own allies with such harsh and cruel words.

I am a good human being, Walt, and so are the people who agree with what I speak of in this thread. If you can't see that, I deeply and honestly pity you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #138
140. I'm glad for you Will
I hope you can understand that I must do what I must do to be able to sleep like a baby too.

Hopefully there will be a Democratic ticket we can both support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #138
143. Will's argument sounds a lot like Bush's*....
...in that he seems to think his opinion is 'good' and those who disagree with him 'bad'. Or is it 'evil'?

- Voting for those who sat afraid in the shadows or actually approved of Bush's* war is a vote for everything this country used to be against: first strike and unprovoked aggression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #143
145. Actually, Q
I was arguing against someone who termed people who don't vote as he does as "bad human beings." So actually, I was doing the exact opposite of what you infer.

But you knew that, didn't you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diamondsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #145
150. No, see, Will
Q never actually reads what you wrote. He sees your name and gets stoned on verbal blood-lust.:eyes:

Reminds me of Illinois mosquitoes when I was a kid. I used to get bit on almost every inch of my body that was exposed, and my Grandmother always said "It's 'cause you're so sweet it's even in your blood.".

I won't even get into the things we did to mosquitoes.:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #150
155. Nah...I read the whole damn thread before responding...
...and I 'get' Pitt's rather self-absorbed sense of humor.

- But it's not a pleasure to see that Pitt and so many other 'democrats' have become a lefty version of 'dittoheads' in their lockstep march toward more unaccountable government.

- I don't have a drop of 'bloodlust' in my body....but I can spot a phony from a mile away. Let's all meet back here after the 2004 election to count the excuses as to why Bush* or a Bush* clone is still in the WH.

- If you want the Bushies out of office...you'll have to indict and prosecute them. Depending on a rigged election system and a conservative media is a formula for failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #155
157. "you'll have to indict and prosecute them"
I wait with baited breath for your foolproof plan to do this, a plan so foolproof that it leaves all else including electoral politics and these candidates in the dust.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GalleryGod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #122
149. That's a Limbaughesque Rejoinder
:puffpiece:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #119
135. Is that a litmus test?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #119
152. You are a good person, Will
After readin and contemplating post #141, I can understand how good people could come to the conclusion they should support on of these four men.

Please see my post #151.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
styersc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #113
123. This argument is short sighted and assumes that
we have seen all the blood we are going to see.

Anyone who fails to work pragmatically to remove Bush, in a way that can and will be effective has the blood of every war that takes place from 2004 to 2008 on his or her hands.

You want to throw rocks at tanks while I am trying to stop the tanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #123
125. How can I trust somebody who already has blood on their hands
to do anything but roll over me with those tanks?

I cannot trust Lieberman, Kerry, Graham, or Edwards on this issue any more than I can trust Bush. They already proved that by giving Bush carte blanche.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
styersc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #125
133. You're either part of the solution
or part of the Republican Party. Your call.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #133
136. Thanks, it's been a while since I was called a Republican
:shrug:

Think what you will. I have to be able to sleep at night and voting for a candidate just as responsible for the carnage as Whistle Ass is simply something I am not capable of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FubarFly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #113
141. Interesting...I can vote for a bloody Dem...
Edited on Mon Aug-25-03 06:12 PM by FubarFly
(if it comes to that),

And I believe it is the most principled decision I'm ever likely to make.

Not because I'm not concerned that with the blood on their hands, but because I want to remove the blood from my own.

All Americans who enjoy this countries liberties have blood on their hands. This atrocity was done in all of our names whether you like it or not.

History will not give a fuck whether we thought we thought we were principled, but rather, whether or not we removed the overwhelming menace that is b*sh from power.

I honestly believe that if b*sh stays in office, he will go on to kill more people then all four of the bloody dems, and all of DU will have in our lifetimes combined. As I am typing this, b*sh is murdering people in your name.

Getting him out of office though peaceful Democratic means is my moral imperative. Even the vague chance that a Democratic candidate will be as bad as b*sh is better than the absolute certainty of atrocities that b*sh will commit if is allowed to solidify power.

You may disagree with this, and that is your right, but if for a second you think you can use your principles to look down your nose at me, then I'm going to let it be known right now, that I'm looking right back at you. I'm not accusing you of this, I'm just bringing to your attention another side of the "principled voting philosophy" which you may be willfully ignoring.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #141
142. Now that's the best argument I've heard yet
I'm bookmarking this thread specifically to re-read your post because this is one argument I have not seen posted yet. You make a legitimate case because you are correct, there is blood on all our hands.

I am leaving now, but I will get back to this....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #141
151. After contemplating this I can now understand how good people can
vote for evil people. Seriously, it goes to the inherent flaws of our broken political system where people feel they have a choice between evil and more evil. And to make certain everybody understands, I consider Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards all to be evil men. Their votes on the Iraq war make them evil in my opinion.

That said, I can certainly see the justification good people can make for voting for evil men even in the primaries. If faced with a realization that your hands are bloodied by these decisions, and believing that any of these four evil men will make things even a little bit better, coupled with a belief that any one of these evil men is the only opportunity to remove the current evil man out of office, then I can see how this stance can be justified in a good person's mind.

I don't hold any of those beliefs, however, I will go this far. I will not be an advocate of "Anybody But Bush", but I will state that should one of the evil four enablers gets the nomination, I will be officially undecided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-27-03 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #141
164. Disagree with you? Your post should be trumpeted.
It's an amazing post, FubarFly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imhotep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #107
120. I can understand that perception
All I can say is that it is not true in my case.
I would never pick a loser on purpose, but maybe some do.
Choosing one politician is a difficult investment, choosing them all is suicide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigo32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-27-03 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #120
163. We won't
we'll vote in the primary for whom we see fit, and support the ONE who is our nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
114. Great post!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElementaryPenguin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
139. Right on, Will!! "Anyone but Bush" must ALWAYS be our mantra!!
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wetzelbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #139
144. Now this
was one helluva entertaining thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
146. No! No! No! Robert Byrd for President! He saw it all on the floor of the
Edited on Mon Aug-25-03 06:30 PM by KoKo01
Senate.......None of the above......Byrd is my man.........He could bring in a team.....be totally commited to "term limits" because of his age and Ernest Hollings (Mr. Communications Reform) could be his Vice President.......

That's my team............Looking through your list I see so many good/great candidates......I don't know at this point......but if I could choose .......I would go for the "old guys." Wisdom, Experience.......and Legacy.......Sorry....but that's the way I feel at this point...
\
Edited for typo's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
154. WOW! Excellent post
that has to be one of the best posts I 've seen around here in a long time.

Thanks for the pep talk...I need about right now!!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ellen Forradalom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
156. NINE FINE DEMS
When leafletting, I introduce Dean as one of 'nine fine Democrats running for the nomination.' I never talk smack about the other candidates--when the primary's done, we'll have to close ranks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-25-03 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
158. Here's A Dean Supporter That Agrees With You For the Same Reasons:
Dick Cheney
Don Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
John Bolton
Andrew Card
Robert Zoellick
Lewis "Scooter" Libby
John Ashcroft
Karl Rove
Colin Powell
Condoleezza Rice
John Poindexter
Paul Negroponte
Eliot Abrams
Gale Norton
Elaine Chao
Spencer Abraham
Harvey Pitt
John Snow
Tom Ridge
Tommy Thompson
Henry Kissinger
George W. Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-27-03 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
159. Bravo!!!!!
Note my avatar? :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-27-03 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
161. Judicial Nominees = LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS
Bush puts a few holy-rollers on the appeals and supreme courts and it will never matter what our Congress does since the neo-cons will just take it to the court of their choice and have it overturned.

I'm not a fan of Joe Lieberman, never will be. But he's supported every filibuster we've had against the right-wing ideologues appointed by Bush. Joe will NEVER get my support in the primaries, but I'll gleefully vote for him in the general election SHOULD he get the nomination. Heck, I'll even go out and campaign for the guy if he gets the nomination (although I'd really be out there campaigning "Against Bush" and not "For Joe").

Thanks for the post Will - great reading (although I found about 3 typos - I always edit other people's work better than my own)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GalleryGod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-27-03 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #161
162. A Salient Point,Lynne. Gettin' Real Dicey Around here
Edited on Wed Aug-27-03 03:13 PM by GalleryGod
We're heading for OBX anyway...two weeks!
:evilgrin: Like a shuttered shore house,I think DU needs to be aired-out for a while. Indeed, the discourse sounds and smells like a Philly playground in August.:boring:

Stay well,Lynne:loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
166. thanks
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UrbScotty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
168. I love you, Will!
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #168
169. This sucker just keeps popping up, dunnit?
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #169
171. As well it should n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
170. Labor Day Weekend kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UrbScotty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
172. This thread shall not die!
Not yet anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendofbenn Donating Member (383 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-03 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
173. by voting for all but 2 or 3 of those candidates
1.america wont change
2.the world wont change
3.things will probably continue to decline

go ahead! throw your vote away! its useless anyway
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 Fri May 03rd 2024, 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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