I don't understand single issue Democrats

[onenote]

We justifiably criticize repubs for their lack of empathy -- for being unfeeling and unresponsive towards the needs and concerns of those who aren't just like them, for being so self-centered and selfish that they can't support stem cell research until they have a family member get sick or can't support gay rights until they learn that they have a gay son or daughter. We properly mock fundies for establishing litmus tests based on a single issue, such as abortion or gay marriage.

Yet, I see a not insignificant number of posts from DUers adopting a single issue stance, particularly with respect to the war...Democrats who are declaring that they will vote Green, or not vote, in any election where the Democrat does not demand an immediate withdrawal from Iraq (or who supported the IWR, regardless of their current position).

I don't get it. I have opposed this war from the outset. I'm horrified that every day Americans and Iraqis die for a senseless lie. But it is not the only thing I care about. I also care about the millions of Americans who have slipped into poverty due to this administration's policies. I care about the millions of my fellow citizens who are denied basic civil rights and equal treatment because of their race, gender or sexual orientation. I care about those who are made to feel unwelcome because of their religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs. I care about the future generations who may not have clean air and water and be able to enjoy this country's natural resources because of the environmental policies of the republican party.

I oppose the war. But I will not allow my opposition to the war to so color my judgment that I lose sight of the bigger picture. I believe that the Democratic party is more responsive to my concerns and is more likely to pursue policies that I support (including keeping us out of future military misadventures) than the Republicans. So I will never vote for a Republican and I will never vote Green.

onenote

[William769]

1. Good for you!

[seabeyond]

2. i read one poster say they would vote repug. ya, that will do it

rolling eyes. even pretaining to the war, there one issue. a dem in there though not advocating pulling out all troops immediately is still going to resolve and get the dudes out a hell of a lot faster than bush

i too sit in amazement at the cut off nose to spite face mentality. this is just too important with my childrens future and the future and health of all in this nation.

silliness, to me, beyond that. i am jsut becoming disgusted.

[liberal N proud]

3. I don't understand single issue voters.

That is why bu$h's numbers were even close enough to allow them to steal the election, too many single issue voters.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The "bigger picture" is that corrupt politicians shouldn't be in office.

Politicians that vote for people to be killed to advance their ambitions are beyond mere politicking like naming a road after Reagan. They are accomplices in murder.

I won't be voting for anyone who fits that description no matter what party their in.

I'll be voting Green for senator in '06 because my "liberal" (D) senator wanted to appear "strong on defense" rather than concern herself with the lives lost by her vote.

[kstewart33]

5. Doesn't make sense to me either.

Best to look at the entire picture, and support a candidate whose positions overall are acceptable to you. No candidate is going to score perfectly with anyone if the candidate has fully laid out his views on all significant foreign and domestic issues.

[Gman]

6. Just like with Republicans, single issue Democrats either

don't care about other just as important issues because they are not capable of seeing and understanding those issues. To say something like "the suspension of Davis-Bacon is irrelevant, or the cutting of Medicaid to poor children is unimportant just get out of Iraq" is no different than saying abortion is everything.

I think that single issue people may not be capable of thinking about more than one issue and evaluating the importance of those issues vis a vis other issues for lack of an ability to think critically. If a single person gets upset by that statement then that proves the point.

There probably is some merit to the RW's assertion that many liberals are sheltered, and have never worked a day in their lives and that's why they have the views that they have. I think that's true to a large extent with single issue Democrats/liberals.

[zalinda]

There are many here who only see things

as black or white, right or wrong, their way or nothing at all. You won't change their mind, so why bang your head against a wall. They are vocal, but thankfully in the minority. Most people will vote for someone who represents most of what they want in a representative. There are very few dem candidates that I wouldn't be able to get behind. Do I agree with them all, no way, but we've seen what repubs do, and that is the kiss of death for this country.

zalinda

[kikiek]

9. Absolutely. How quickly we forget as someone else mentioned the 2000

election which was close enough to steal because of that. Unfortunately people often see compromise as weakness. Middle ground is where we meet whether we like it or not.

[sufrommich]

7. I totally agree

with your sentiments,and hopefully most mainstream democrats do too.It would be nice to at least restore the balance of power in government.

[mike_c]

8. I believe that no "bigger picture" makes sense in the context...

...of a pro war candidate. That war is a defining instance in American history-- to support it is to support fascist imperialism. You want to elect a fascist? Not me. I will actively work to defeat any candidate-- dem or otherwise-- who supports the war against Iraq.

[kikiek]

11. I doubt you will find any supporter of the war on Du. Just isn't as easy

to get back out as we would like. If Kerry had been in we wouldn't be in Iraq. Bin Laden would have been captured or killed. Saddam would have fallen and removed by his own people. Unfortunately there aren't easy solutions anymore. Pull out abruptly and Iraq will be taken over by the extremists like Al Queda. Worse than before. Have to get other countries back to help us get out and get Iraqi's in charge of their own country. Not the hand picked ones Bush put in. They're as bad as Saddam if not worse. Then we can get out. We do own it now no matter how much we don't want it. Meant if Gore had been in. Sorry.

[mike_c]

13. it's easier than you think...

once you accept that none of the good outcomes you're hoping for are possible under U.S. occupation-- installing a democratic government with Iraqi support, international cooperation in stabilizing Iraq, etc.-- it becomes apparent that we WILL get out sooner or later, and we WILL fail to achieve any good outcomes no matter what. It's Vietnam all over again in that sense, but without even the bankrupt rationale of the cold war to justify it (maybe Soviet Afghanistan is a better analogy). Instead, it's carnage based on lies, political manuevering, and American corporate greed.

The notion that we somehow "own" Iraq is repulsive. Iraqis own Iraq. We deliberately and for no good reason fucked up their country. We threw them into barbarism. Our presence continues that barbarism, and they won't find a solution until we leave. Yes, they likely have worse in store for them than they've already endured-- that's the legacy we've created in Iraq. NOTHING we can do now will change it, and the longer we continue this madness, the worse the eventual outcome will be. America is simply trying to avoid REAL responsibility for what we've done by trying to keep the pieces from flying apart. It's a waste of time and lives, and the only ones who benefit are the fascists, the greedy, and the corrupt.

[kikiek]

14. We own the mess we made there. You twist my words. We do owe

the people of Iraq the respect of trying to make it inhabitable for them before we leave, and make sure they have a level of safety. I didn't say anything about their government either. You assume a lot.

[mike_c]

17. we made that mess by invading and occupying them....

So you advocate "fixing" it by continuing that occupation? That's why the pottery barn rule is ultimately nonsense-- you can't fix something by continuing to smash it. You simply have to accept responsibility for having broken it, pay the management for your mistake, and go home with a bag full of shards.

[kikiek]

18. No I don't. I just don't believe the solution is as simple as you present

it to be either.

[Solly Mack]

10. the "war" isn't a single issue

it's government corruption
it's a government that has a torture policy
it's a government that lies
it's about assorted other war crimes - to include the illegal invasion/occupation itself
it's about betraying the laws of our nation
it's about damaging national security by outing a CIA agent
it's about making the world, and America, less safe by creating more would be terrorists through bad foreign policy
it's about the deaths of thousands upon thousands for absolutely no reason whatsoever - other than greed and imperialism.
it's about betraying the America people
it's about violating international law
it's about using the military for lies and business gains
it's about dirting the soldiers
it's about bankrupting our country to pay for defense contracts
it's about leaving our country vulnerable to the point we can't help hurricane victims
it's about social services being cut to pay for a lie
it's about the amount of shit Americans will eat until they say enough is enough.

War is NOT a "single" issue

it's economic issues, it's foreign relations issues, it's diplomacy issues,it's domestic issues, it's criminal issues, it's poverty issues, it's the breaching of national security issues...and so on and so forth.

[T Wolf]

12. Amen SM!

You have provided a great list for why supporting the war is such a betrayal of everything that Democrats SHOULD be supporting.

Another thing the apologists are overlooking is that unless we call "our" politicians on their collaboration, they will continue to sell us out by siding with the pukes.

Enough is enough.

[Solly Mack]

22. "staying the course" is just legitimizing the lies

when people say "we need to finish the job", what job are they talking about?

Bush started the "job" and he started the "job" (whatever the fuck that is) based on a pack of lies

So to finish the job - is to play the lies out. Since the "job" is one or more of many lies used as an excuse for illegally invading Iraq.

It just legitimizes the lies.

And if we legitimize the lies, the people who told the lies will never be held accountable.

People are dying for lies. As long as we remain, people will continue to die for lies...And NOTHING - NOTHING AT ALL - will change that.

I don't care if 100 years from now Iraq is a flourishing democracy that is the envy of the world - WE STILL WENT TO WAR FOR LIES. People STILL died for LIES. Nothing is going to mitigate that...nothing is ever going to erase that fact. NOTHING.

You can't make this right. There is no making this right.

We need to admit America was wrong. We need to admit the invasion/occupation is illegal. We need to jail those responsible. And we need to pay reparations - and allow others to help Iraq help themselves out of the mess we got them in.

America fucked up....America IS the problem in Iraq. America will NEVER be the solution.


Sorry for my rant. :) But you inspired it so... it's your fault. lolol

[MadHound]

20. Hear hear

And quite frankly anybody who is going to be "pragmatic" and vote for a pro-war candidate has the blood of innocents on their hands.

Don't you people get it yet, people are fucking dying because of this war! Not just our soldiers, but tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. And yet somehow you people can vote for a warmonger all because of partisan politics. How can you live with yourselves?

Sorry, but putting in a warmonger just because they have a D behind their name is wrong, flat out simply wrong. If a Democrat is pushing the war abroad, do you really think they'll give two shakes and a shit about the Americans at home?

The road to hell is lined with the bodies of such so called pragmitists, they were so willing to compromise on anything that they finally, irrevocably compromised their soul completely.

[Solly Mack]

23. We already have a person in office who has lost his humanity

(if he ever had it)

We don't need anyone else in office who is willing to sell out their humanity. It matters. It really matters.

[mmonk]

15. This "war" is about the direction of the country

for the next 30 years and it's soul. It can't be divorced from the equation.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. My one issue: Respect for me and mine

I will not -- I can not -- support any individual that refuses to support my rights as a citizen and a human being, or worse: has actively taken steps against my rights. And I refuse to support any political party that, despite lots of good propaganda, has consistently refused to act positively on any of that propaganda.

If that is selfish, too bad.

[Neil Lisst]

19. Single issue Democrats are not really Democrats.

Either you're committed to the party, or you're not. If one issue and the party's majority position on it are anathema to you, you're not a Democrat, you're someone who has an issue that means more than stopping Republicans from defiling everything good in the world.

With the exception of Jim Hightower, whom I give a pass to on history, I can't stand any Dem who leaves the party because it's not left enough on (1) green, (2) corporate connections, (3) war, (4) any social issue.

Your choice is not Kucinich or Kerry, it's Kerry or Bush!! Anyone who can't see that needs a good, swift kick in the ass.

[fed-up]

21. FOLLOW THE MONEY-Stating that we will only vote for an anti-war

candidate doesn't mean we are single issue voters.

Yes, my candidate of choice must pass a litmus test and being anti-war is one of the key issues. Follow the money!

Thirty to fifty percent of the federal budget goes towards military spending. How can democrats support other social needs if there is NO MONEY left after spending it on war related items (including health care for those injured during the war)?

Cities, counties and states are receiving less federal dollars because of this illegal, immoral, unjust war. Programs are being cut left and right.

Funding for the sick, elderly, children, education, health care (medicare/medical), disability/in home care, food stamps and heating programs have all been cut because tax dollars are being spent in Iraq.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-budget27.html
House votes for cuts, plans more today

WASHINGTON -- "House Republicans voted to cut student loan subsidies, child support enforcement and aid to firms hurt by unfair trade practices as various committees scrambled to piece together $50 billion in budget cuts."

I am also very concerned about the war as I have a 17 YO son. My brother served in Gulf War I and still has lingering health issues. I will personally escort my son out of this country if a draft is implemented!

I want a candidate that supports a national health care program. I also have concerns about the environment and our food supply (factory farming/GE crops). I want a candidate to be strong about cleaning up our air, soil and water. I want a candidate to be strong on alternative energy funding. I want a candidate to be anti-nuclear energy. I want a candidate to stay out of the bedrooms of Americans. I want a candidate that will reverse the tax cuts given to the wealthy.

I want a candidate to push for voting reforms. I want a candidate to ban corporate contributions to candidates running for/in office. I will NOT vote for a corporate whore!

I really, really like Kucinich!

[abluelady]

24. I Think You Said It So Well

War is not "one" issue. War embodies so many issues that Dems care about. War means the abolishment of so many issues Dems care about. Money is a big issue but the Repugs are also anti helping US citizens with their money. Of course if the money wasn't going to war maybe the Congress could get a few small programs going.

Imho, if we pull out immediately, Iraq will not be any more worse off than most middle east countries. Isn't it amazing how the Repugs want us as Americans to take care of ourselves without our government intervening but won't allow the Iraqis to take care of themselves without US government intervention. Something is wrong with this picture.

The sign of the Repugs should be an upside down elephant to show their hypocricy.

[skipos]

25. 3rd party voters learned nothing from 2000 or 1912

All the third party vote does is sap votes away from the party you are disappointed in, and let the other side win. Many people feel Nader cost Gore the 2000 election, and it didn't make Democrats swing back to the left at all.

If people here want to get a strong third party going, I hope you will try and sap votes away from Republicans, not Democrats. The Anti-gay Party, Make Abortion Illegal Party, or Jesus Party would be nice.

[TechBear_Seattle]

26. A Two Party state is NOT a democracy

Don't get your feathers in a ruffle because some of us Americans refuse to buy in to your either/or paranoia.

[skipos]

27. Wow, you are really overreacting.

It is your right to vote third party. It is your right to write in GW Bush in 2008 (THAT would really show those DINOs, right?). Really, I think Dems have brought the third party defection on themselves by not staying as true to their roots as they could or should.

Why I probably won't ever vote third party? Because I am not a take-my-ball-and-go-home-Democrat. I am not looking to "punish" Democrats like many people on DU. I accept the fact that no candidate is going to do things exactly as I would, so I look at the big picture. If I wanted a candidate who represented me to the maximum, I could write in myself. But that doesn't do much good, does it?

Third party candidacies will not make Dems swing more to the left. Look at 2000. Many people think Nader cost Gore the election and Dems sure as hell didn't swing to the left because of it.

Dems control about 45% of the house, senate and governorships. That isn't insanely far from a majority, and I don't want to endure decades of Republican wins while some third party attempts to gain power all the while splitting the vote. If you are comfortable with decades of Jeb, Jenna, etc. that is your right.

Most people feel that Kerry and Gore lost by one state. All we need to do pick a good, electorally strategic candidate to win.

If you are a 2000 Florida Nader voter who has no problem helping start 8 years of Bush and you want to continue that kind of strategy, my feathers are not in a ruffle, and I am not paraniod. I just think, in the big picture, you are making a really bad descision that is ultimately bad for the kind of America we would both want to see. But if that is what you want to do, go ahead.

[alkaline9]

28. valid assessment, reality check in order...

...As with most DUers I HATE that we went to war with Iraq. I HATE that some of our "liberal" politicians voted for the war. I HATE that they may still "stay the course" should they become president.

For many on DU as well as around the country, the illegal Iraq war is simply the biggest issue. While I really can't fault anyone's logic for taking a strong stance against ANY candidate that would vote to continue the atrocities in Iraq... I sure hope you wise up come election time.

What I mean by "wise up" is... look at the polls... be aware of what your vote for a 3rd party will really mean... Are you willing to put up with (at least) 4 more years of a repuke just to make the statement that a 3rd party candidate is a viable option... and maybe (BIG MAYBE) in 50 years there might actually be a 3rd party candidate that could POSSIBLY win the presidency?

In 1992 Ross Perot most likely stole a good percentage of votes from the incumbent (whose name I'd rather not even mention)... This might have been the reason the neo-con agenda was delayed in the first place. Now also remember back to 2000 with the Ralph Nader crowd... This might have put the neo-con agenda right back in place.

All I'm getting at is that 3rd party candidates have a profound effect on the presidency. While many people feel they are voting for their best candidate, it's not always in their best interests to vote in such a way. Would I like to see a Green Party candidate become president? YOU BET YOUR ASS I WOULD .... am I realistic about it? YES! Which is why I will vote Dem regardless of who the candidates are this year.

I realize that this whole discussion is (at least in the back of our minds) about Hillary Clinton. Do I think she is the best candidate? NO... Do I want to see her be the Dem candidate for president? NO... Will I vote for her if she is? YES... because the consequences are too steep otherwise.

(sorry so long, just my 2 cents)