I'm no longer ABB.

[poskonig]

Knowing that the war is going to cost 70 BILLION this year and not the expected 30B, I cannot support ABB. It is bad enough when candidates support something stupid and immoral, but when it is going to come out of **my** ass financially, I will not get on board. Some candidates support the war half-way, support the tax cuts halfway, and support taking away our civil liberties halfway, and while others support these completely. While candidates may have liberal records and credentials, it makes little sense to vote for a person who lets us down when it matters most, since I end up paying for it anyway.

The candidates, in the order I now support them.

1) Dean
2) Kucinich
3) Sharpton
4) Mostly-Fraud (Hey, I'm from Illinois :P )

I categorically will not vote for:

5) Edwards
6) Kerry
7) Graham
8) Gephardt
9) Lieberman

[blm]

1. Biden-Lugar version of the resolution was OK with you.

We would still be in Iraq.

[JNelson6563]

6. Iraq

Dean said he would have voted instead for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which he said supported disarming Saddam using multilateral action, and which did not call for a "regime change."

He said Bush had approached the Iraq issue from the wrong direction - he should have taken the issue to the United Nations first, before he threatened unilateral military action to oust Saddam.

Bush has still not produced the evidence necessary to convince the world - and the American people - that military intervention is necessary, Dean said. He called Iraq "maybe the third, at worst" biggest danger to American security. North Korea's moves toward revamping its nuclear weapons program present a greater threat, Dean said, adding that that that issue will probably be resolved through diplomacy.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/012303dean_2002.shtml

If the weapons inspectors had been allowed to continue their work while a broad international coalition was formed to take action if case things went wrong it would be a different story today and you know it.

For one thing to cost to us in blood and $$ would be substantially less. Besides the costs of a war being shared, war might have been avoided or at least on a smaller scale with regime change not the top priority (being necessary in order to usurp the nation's wealth).

Julie

[blm]

29. That's no different than the Kerry position.

Bush met the requirement for multilateral force. Bush would have STILL invaded Iraq. Bush had the votes for a real blank check. Some Dem lawmakers prevented that blank check to bypass the UN and invade Iran and Syria, too.

Who cares? Minds are set in black and white. Just like the freepers who have no understanding of nuance.

[JNelson6563]

45. what a snide remark blm

Who cares? Minds are set in black and white. Just like the freepers who have no understanding of nuance.

Well I was clear-seeing enough to get your implication here. Unnecessary and disappointing.

Julie

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. Didn't B-L tie Authorization to a UN resolution?

[blm]

27. BushInc would have met the min. requirements of ANY bill.

And they STILL would be in Iraq. You see, they also had the argument that they were meeting the original UN resolution.

Sorry you can't give credit to those Dem lawmakers who took steps to curtail Bush where they could. It cost them their votes but, they got Bush to present evidence to the UN which is backfiring on him, and it prevented Bush from bombing Iran and Syria right after the initial fall of Baghdad as he wanted.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. I most certainly CAN give credit to those Dem lawmakers.

Here's a list of those that deserve credit:

Senate:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)


House (includes 6 pugs):

Abercrombie Hinchey Oberstar
Allen Hinojosa Obey
Baca Holt Olver
Baird Honda Owens
Baldacci Hooley Pallone
Baldwin Hostettler Pastor
Barrett Houghton Paul
Becerra Inslee Payne
Blumenauer Jackson (IL) Pelosi
Bonior Jackson-Lee (TX) Price (NC)
Brady (PA) Johnson, E. B. Rahall
Brown (FL) Jones (OH) Rangel
Brown (OH) Kaptur Reyes
Capps Kildee Rivers
Capuano Kilpatrick Rodriguez
Cardin Kleczka Roybal-Allard
Carson (IN) Kucinich Rush
Clay LaFalce Sabo
Clayton Langevin Sanchez
Clyburn Larsen (WA) Sanders
Condit Larson (CT) Sawyer
Conyers Leach Schakowsky
Costello Lee Scott
Coyne Levin Serrano
Cummings Lewis (GA) Slaughter
Davis (CA) Lipinski Snyder
Davis (IL) Lofgren Solis
DeFazio Maloney (CT) Stark
DeGette Matsui Strickland
Delahunt McCarthy (MO) Stupak
DeLauro McCollum Thompson (CA)
Dingell McDermott Thompson (MS)
Doggett McGovern Tierney
Doyle McKinney Towns
Duncan Meek (FL) Udall (CO)
Eshoo Meeks (NY) Udall (NM)
Evans Menendez Velazquez
Farr Millender-McDonald Visclosky
Fattah Miller, George Waters
Filner Mollohan Watson (CA)
Frank Moran (VA) Watt (NC)
Gonzalez Morella Woolsey
Gutierrez Nadler Wu
Hastings (FL) Napolitano
Hilliard Neal

[blm]

41. Which ones were stuck negotiating?

Or are you going to pretend that someone as bright as you doesn't understand that when you negotiate and get most of what you want, you have to pay with your vote?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

50. "get most of what you want" ????????????

Please explain.


On edit: I would point out that every paragraph in the IWR that begins with "Whereas" are not pre-conditions, demands or requirements. The second half has all the teeth.

[prolesunited]

2. Well, I'm certainly glad YOUR principles

will be intact. To hell with the rest of the world.

[clar]

3. Please, please remember that

four more years of Bush endangers us on almost every level, from the macro(out of control wars) to the micro (loss of civil liberties). I've read your posts, I know you know this. Don't let frustration and anger with other candidates and their supporters influence you. We must get bush out of office.

[DemBones DemBones]

4. What about Dean saying we should send more troops to Iraq as

part of what we need to do to reconstruct the country? That would certainly run up the tab. Is he now saying he wouldn't send more troops?

[displacedtexan]

5. bush re-selection committee thanks you!

i know how you feel about individual candidates, but the reason repukes are successful is their unwavering party loyalty: they fight bitterly during the primary season, but they all support their candidates in the general election campaigns.

if you don't vote for the dem candidate on election day because of your list (posted above), they win.

[Iverson]

17. no, thank YOU

Democratic victories with Republican agendas are no victories at all. Pardon me if my understanding of democracy attaches ideas to the right to vote.

[treepig]

8. totally agree

but i'd rank the not-voting-for list as

5) Graham
6) Kerry
7) Gephardt
8) Edwards
9) Lieberman

(getting worse going down)

heck, if you want a republican, vote for a republican - at least you know what you're in for up front!

[Booberdawg]

9. And how will that make less come outta your ass if

5) Edwards
6) Kerry
7) Graham
8) Gephardt
9) Lieberman

get the nomination??

You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Not a prudent strategy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Even Liberal Luminaries

like Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, and Tom Harkin voted for the Patriot Act....


And Gep has worked tirelessly for workers rights. He's the true working class hero in this race.....


But we are all entitled to our votes just as we are all consigned to living with the consequences of them...

[JohnKleeb]

55. I agree

I would say that DK and Gep are the same on working class heroism though, very simliar in ways, truck driver dads, but I will agree he has a higher profile with unions, Gep that is. Those three senators are some of my favorites.

[meegbear]

11. I'm still ABD

[quinnox]

14. lol

cute - ABD (took me a sec to figure it out)

[CWebster]

18. Anybody But Dean

Is freeper speak.

[Cha]

19. Yeah, real cute...it didn't take me Any time all the way that poster

is the first one in a lot of cases to jump on a Dean thread and start the gratuitious Bashing!

[sujan]

33. you're ABL

[Cha]

54. ABL?

I will spend the rest of the night trying to figure out that one! :-)

[quinnox]

12. Three of my favorites

are on your 'not vote for list' Edwards, Gephardt, and Kerry.

Of all the rotten luck... but seriously, if you aren't in a swing state (you are in a Repub state or Dem state) it won't make a whole lot of difference, so no scolding from me.

[pinerow]

13. What puzzles me is the speed in which the so-called Patriot Act

was drafted,vetted and passed in the short time that it was.

Then Represantative, Cynthia Mccenny(sp), yelled all the way to the rafters and she recieved nothing but death threats and the targeted loss of her seat in Congress.

My inner tinfoil smells something rotten in the White House.

I don't even think it went into committee; although I may be mistaken.

[liberalpress]

15. No, really..

...if one of those five gets the nomination, you should vote for Bush. Seriously. I mean Bush and his economic policies, and job creation and respect for civil liberties are a WHOLE lot better than any of those five losers.. in fact, you should also support his brother Jeb in 2008.. not that you'll have any choice, of course. The voting machins will take care of that for you! If Bush wins, we'll remeber what you said...and who to blame.

[Booberdawg]

20. Indeed n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

16. I disagree with your conclusion

I understand your reasoning and I, too, am REALLY sick of voting for the DLC candidates. Additionally, I am usually the LAST person to put a checkmark next to a candidate merely because there is a "D" next to his/her name. They have to EARN that vote.

HOWEVER . . . I sincerely believe that the unelected Bush* regime is the greatest challenge to our Democracy and to our Consitution our country has ever faced. The Constitution is being systematically destroyed. The Fourth Amendment basically no longer exists. The Republicans have packed the courts with Judge Moore's throughout the country, including the Supreme Court. Civil liberties has taken a bad beating in the last several years with the help of DLC-style Democrats.

NONE of this happened overnight -- it happened through a long, systematic process orchestrated by the monied, patrician class in this country. Consequently, it's going to take a long, systematic process to change it. As much of an ideologue as I am, the ONLY chance we have to do this is with a Democrat -- even if, at the beginning, it has to be a DLC-style Democrat.

We're seeing the greatest threat to our Democracy/Constitution than we've ever before. Electing even a DLC Democrat will at lest slow down that process until we can get more traditional Democrats back into office. That includes Congress, the Senate, the state houses and local seats. The way to "take a stand" is by getting involved and ensuring traditional Democrats run for these seats. If you can't find a qualified candidate -- run for the seat yourself. The "my candidate or no one" is self-defeating and, if you'll pardon the expression, the chickenshit way out. If your candidate doesn't win, bite the bullet and vote for the "new Democrat" FOR NOW. There will be 2, 4 or 6 more years to work on getting more suitable candidates. Once again, this process didn't happen overnight and it's going to take YEARS of diligence and dedication by millions to overturn the fascist trend this country has taken.

[Booberdawg]

21. Well stated

It has to be done a step at a time. If bush* stays in there is no chance at all.

[quinnox]

22. Excellent post

Although I tend to be a live and let live with people's choices, I think your post lays it down very well.

[CWebster]

23. Well-said

but the argument is growing thin. There is a certain amount of ambivalance that goes along with that argument. Why should we be forced AGAIN to vote for a candidate simply as a vote against the alternative when the candidate we are forced to vote for may have been instrumental in enabling the alternative? The circumstances are grave but how long will we be forced to vote for candidates who can only garner support by comparison to the opposition?

[indigo32]

25. Then don't compare to the opposition

look at Wills thread describing Kerrys votes... those are things to be proud of. I'm betting a similar thread could be made for Gep...
I am extremely pissed off about the Iraq war, and I worry about the Patriot Act (though I'd really like to do some non-biased research on it).... but frankly I wasn't in their shoes, and I don't know what was told to them. I know thats not much of an excuse. I just think we could look at the bigger picture... and not just in comparison to *

[CWebster]

26. We can do better

We have a choice in the primaries so that the ultimate choice won't be as disappointing.

[Le Taz Hot]

28. I know yours is a rhetorical question

but I'd like to answer it. We'll be forced AGAIN to vote against Republicans until We the People work to get qualified traditional Democrats to run. We seem to be under the impression that these candidates just magically appear -- they don't. There has been and is currently a vacuum now, because We the People choose not to become involved in the candidate selection process, the "machine" is the only thing filling that void. If We the People become involved in the process on a greater level, We the People will have much more influence on what type of candidates runs for office. All of this takes time and until we can get We the People involved in this process -- INCLUDING RUNNING OURSELVES, we have to do all we can to at least slow down this fascist movement.

[treepig]

30. ok, let's review recent democratic presidents

it won't take long, there haven't been many . . .

carter, good job growth (perhaps an unappreciated aspect of his administration), but atrocious foreign policy - one example: initiating the involvement with islamic fundamentalists that ultimately led to 9-11.

clinton, once again good job growth (a much hyped aspect of his administration), but atrocious foreign policy - how do you justify unnecessary sanctions, against a country that in no way was a threat to us, that the pentagon delibrately designed to target the iraqi people (not saddam's regime) that killed, by conservative estimates, 500,000 iraqi children.

the time for baby steps is over - if another dlc democrat is elected, it'll be nothing but appeasement of the right wing lunatic "fringe" that probably makes up about 20% of the population, but due to corporate backing is the dominant voice in today's society. perhaps they must first become discredited before anything productive can be accomplished, and perhaps that will require going off the deep-end. the incremental process you speak of has been nothing but a disaster over the past 30 years.

[Le Taz Hot]

36. A reponse

I disagree with your assessments of Clinton and Carter, however, the issue is ABB.

Even DLC Democrats will not appoint right-wing judges, will not sign away a woman's right to choose, will not eliminate affirmative action programs, will not accelerate the elimination of our Constitution.

Once again, WE need to make those changes, from the ground up. If the Dean campaign has taught us anything it's that we CAN affect change. I don't agree that if we don't win the primaries, we take our hamburgers and go home. We stop the acceleration of the elimination of our Constitution and WE THE PEOPLE work to get better candidates.

Just for the record, I'm a LONG time radical and activist and I understand what you're saying. But my concern right now is to stop the fascist movement -- or at least slow it down until WE can get qualified traditional liberal Democrats in and THAT starts from the ground up. With you and I. Care to join me? B-)

[CWebster]

38. True

but I can't help to always remember this all-time favorite:

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/10/21/tomo/index.html

[treepig]

40. as far as starting at the local level

absolute agreement on the need to do everything possible and build a grass-roots type movement.

however, having a lieberman as president, won't help one bit, in fact it might lead to a sense of complacency that helps prevent the grassroots movement from developing (even though the lieberman administration invades syria and enacts patriot act III, well, they're the 'good guys' so there must be a reason . . . ).

and consider if gore was in the white house (not just the rightful president) when 9-11 happened (ok, it wouldn't have happened then, but for arguments' sake lets say it did). two scenarios - he acted (somewhat responsibly) - let's say along the lines of bush, he'd be at about 9% approval (the flip side of bush's 91% post-9-11 ratings).
instead, i suspect he (a self-proclaimed hawk on iraq) would have already invaded syrian and iran to show he's strong on defense, and we'd be up to something like patriot act #7. (and he'd still be at only about 15% in the polls).

anyhow, if it came down to bush v. lieberman, i suppose i would vote for lieberman if the election was close.

[jiacinto]

37. You hit the nail on the head

I think that maybe following the strategy used by the Christian Coalition might also be good. They started training people to run for very local offices, like dog catcher and school board. And with time those candidates soon progressed to higher offices like city/counthy council, mayor, state legislature. And in turn those positions then led to Congress and to statewide offices.

I am not an idelogue. But I do think that political change starts at the very local level and works its way back up.

[indigo32]

51. Yes

our MN for Dean group is discussing caucus training and will be meeting by the end of the month to begin planning.

[stickdog]

24. Candidates I Won't Vote For Over Bush

1) John Wayne Gacy Jr.
2) Adolph Hitler
3) Pol Pot

Offhand, I can't think of any others ...

Oh yeah, Kissinger & Ashcroft.

[bloom]

48. yep - that's about how I feel - too

:nopity:

[Dhalgren]

31. I agree completely with your sentiment, but

I will be forced, through conscience, to vote for the Democratic candidate in Nov. '04. As I have said elsewhere, if a DLC-type candidate (war supporter/taxcut supporter/Patriot Act supporter) wins the Democratic nomination, I will vote for that candidate, but on the day after elections I will leave the Democratic Party.

If one of those candidates win the nomination, then this is not my party. No hard feelings, no recriminations, just fact. However, Bush is a scourge on our nation and must - by any means - be removed from office. Many candidates would be as bad as Bush in many respects, but none of them would be as bad as Bush in all respects. This may be choosing the lesser of two evils and so evil is chosen, so be it. We make these unpleasant choices many times in our lives, let's just hope this will be the last time (if it comes to that).

[jiacinto]

34. Just as I though

Of the candidates only Dean has any realistic shot of winning. And the other candiates you know can't win a general election. You were probably going to vote Green anyway from the begining and were just not up front at the outset about it.

[pansypoo53219]

35. ONCE AGIAN!

UNITED WE CAN WIN, and divided the chimp is re-instated. let's vote our choice before the convention, but realise WE NEED THE CHIMP GONE!!!

[TreasonousBastard]

39. Marvelous!

So, on this principle you will allow the present administration to continue?

We all have the right to go down in flames for our principles, but I am not sure anyone has the right to take the rest of the country with us.

[library_max]

42. This is so incredibly dumb

At least it's not a single-candidate bashing, so I'm not putting the usual stamp on it. But this is yet another restatement of the perfect formula for failure. You're setting up litmus tests and saying that any candidate who can't pass (because of present stands or past actions) "let us down" and isn't worthy of our vote.

And what are you going to do in the very likely event that one of those candidates is the nominee? Vote for Bush? Stay at home? Vote Green (which is the same as staying at home)?

Green voters in Florida put Bush in the White House in 2000. Yeah, I know Gore got more votes and the Scalia majority stole the Florida election for Bush, but they'd never have had the chance without the Greens. About 100,000 voted for Nader. If 10% of those had voted for Gore instead, there wouldn't have been the "too close to call" bullshit.

Why are we setting ourselves up for more of the same? Do we really WANT four more years of the chimp?

[really-looney]

43. Good thinking beacuse what we really need is 4 more years

..........of the fool in the White House. Shit, I would vote for Charlie Stenholm or Ralph Hall over * and I can not think of two Democrats who I disagree with more than them. Any Democrat in the field is so much better than the current idiot.

[sangh0]

44. Are You a Self-Defeating Democrat?

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0336/sutton.php

[UTUSN]

46. Haha - GOOD One!

Yep, ALL the reasons why we should let Shrub win.

[Marymarg]

47. So, you'll take your ball and go home!

Sorry but this attitude reminds me so much of selfish, spoiled kids on the playground who have to have things their way or the whole group suffers.

Democrats, real Democrats work for the good of the Party and the country. It is the job of the Party to choose the best candidate and it is our job as loyal Democrats to support that candidate WHOMEVER it is. That is the ONLY way we win elections! No ONE candidate is going to be the favorite of all Democrats at this point in time. But one good, electable candidate should emerge. I am proud to be a Yellow Dog Democrat and will support him (or her), even if I have to hold my nose to do it.

I have said before and I might say again: the worst Democrat is way better than the best Republican, let alone Smirk, the boy king.

ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB

[amazona]

49. well I'm still ABB all the way

I prefer not to lose any Dem. senators so I wish the senators in the race would drop out but I would certainly support them if nominated. To me it seems the most liberal candidate is Sharpton and I think there is enough public disgust with the Whistle-ass administration that we could break through a barrier and have a real chance at electing an African-American candidate so I'm leaning his way despite the famous "baggage." I believe that the Dems are being too cautious and that there is not so much need to play to the moderate/right as they believe. However, it is equally clear that more politically knowledgeable and astute folks disagree and feel that there is very much a need to play to the center or even to the right. So I'm going to bow to the wishes of the majority and support the nominee, even if he is not to my personal liking. I would not completely write off any of the names on your **** list -- Graham, for instance, may be able to get some 9-11 secrets declassified and in front of the public if he were president, Gephardt seems to be aware of the problems of the working people, and so on -- any of these men are huge, huge, huge improvements over Whistle-ass.

[JVS]

52. Does this extend to VP candidates

Would you vote for a Dean/Edwards ticket? Would there need to be provisions such as a renouncement of the war vote? I really hope that by the time we have a ticket it is anti-war.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

53. Bush will be glad to have your support

I'm sure four more years of Bush will be even better than the first four years.