So it looks like I go 3rd Party in November.

[Sean Reynolds]

This will be my first EVER presidential election and up until today had hopes of casting my FIRST ever vote for Howard Dean. If the rumors are true and he does drop out, I go 3rd party. I can't support Edwards and Kerry knowing that they voted for the Iraq War, PATRIOT ACT, and NCLB.

Flame me all you want, I really don't care. I am ABB, but nowhere does it say I must support the Democrat in that process. I will be voting to kick Bush out of the White House, come hell or high water.

It's a hard day for me, as I'm sure it's a hard day for all Dean supporters. I will NEVER give up the fight Dean started, I will never give in to the establishment.

Since I live in Utah and we can't write in candidates, I've decided to support and vote for Walt Brown in 2004.

I know he wont win. I don't care that he wont win. I want my vote to MEAN something and at least I know I'd be voting my heart, rather than voting for the person the Democrats tell me to.

So yes, in November, I vote 3rd Party and I'll leave that voting place knowing I did my civic duty and that I didn't give in to the lesser of two evils.

Thank you all, and goodnight!

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

5. Sorry, but the lesser of two evils got us Bush.

I aint going to risk it again.

[pmbryant]

13. That's rather strange logic

"The lesser of two evils got us Bush".

How do you figure that?

--Peter

[Sean Reynolds]

17. Many Americans voted for Bush over Gore

Because they thought he was the lesser of two evils.

Were they wrong?

You bet.

I'll never vote for the lesser of two evils.

[MrBenchley]

24. WHAT voters thought Bush was the lesser of two evils?

Where do some people come up with this crap?

[nadinbrzezinski]

Don't ask

I am sure Dean also believes that Gore would have appointed Ashcroft
as Attorney General to asasult on our civil rights

He also must believe that Gore would have let 9.11 happen, insteand of continue the Clinton policies pursuing Bin Ladin

I am sure he believes this....

[JVS]

116. Economic conservatives who dislike the relgious right probably...

voted for him as the lesser of two evils.

[Kahuna]

102. You should also consider Sean, that you are of draft age...

So keep believing that bush is the lesser evil than Kerry. That's what your logic implies. That logic is seriously flawed.

[Walt Starr]

123. He never claimed that Bush was the lesser of two evils

He claimed that he would never vote for the lesser of two evils.

[Kahuna]

207. Actually he did.

He said that that's why bush won.

[Walt Starr]

213. No, read the post again

He stated that enough people believed Bush was the lesser of two evils for Bush to win.

Very important distinction. Sean never stated that he thought Bush was the lesser of the two evils.

[veggiemama]

159. Oh, but the lesser of three evils is okay?

Or four, five, six? With that kind of logic, maybe we should all just sit down and shut up.

[zoeyfong]

254. One could make the case the repeated rightward moves by dems

and reliance on voters to vote dem anyway, as the lesser of two evils, suppressed the turnout of the base, thus allowing bush to win. The democratic party needs to start standing for something, earning some respect, and building a loyal base of supporters who actually *want* to vote for the democratic candidate. Offering voters a candidate advertised as the 'lesser of two evils' year after year is not much of a strategy for long term success.

[Caution]

26. ummm...sorry but voting 3rd party instead of

as you say the "lesser of two evils" got us Bush. there is no denying that if nader voters had all voted Gore over Bush that Gore would have won. I'm not a huge fan of the Democratic Party either but I'm not going to throw away my vote.

When Bush is in the oval office in 2005 and you sit back and watch your freedoms disappear, your opportunities disappear, your chance for a quality education disappear, your brothers, sisters, and friends all head off to fight in illegal wars, you can think about how you made your protest vote and how it had exactly the opposite effect that you wanted it to.

[rhite5]

118. Hold on there ....

He is in UTAH. -- a very SAFE Republican state. A vote for a third party in Utah will have no effect on the electoral vote in 2004.

So his vote does nothing subversive and it allows him to vote his conscience since neither major party nominee has any appeal for him. More power to him.

Save the guilt-tripping for a situation that matters.

[truthspeaker]

32. other way around

It was liberals and progressives who refused to vote for Gore that gave us Bush. And things ARE worse under Bush than they would have been under Gore. And they will be worse under a second Bush term than under a Kerry or Edwards presidency.

I have no illusions about Kerry or Edwards. I have yet to hear Kerry give a straight answer to a question. I have yet to hear either one of them just come out and call Bush a liar. I am sure they are stooges for various big corporate interests. But there IS a difference between Democrat and Republican principles, and those differences will show up in policy. Maybe you are not old enough to remember how many bullshit Reagan and Bush policies were reversed by Bill Clinton - only to be reversed again by Whistleass. Clinton was a corporate stooge but he gave us a Labor secretary who actually cared about workers rights, an EPA that actually did something about pollution, and a Secretary of State who actually understood how to accomplish US goals through cooperation. Bush reversed all that, appointed judges who don't understand the constitution, turned the Labor Department into the Big Business Outsourcing Department, turned the EPA into the Environmental Pollution Agency, and pissed off almost every country in the world, including our allies.

Yes, we must choose between the lesser of two evils. That's life. That's democracy. But if one of the evils is truly lesser than the other - and in 2004 this is true just as it was in 2000 - do you really want to tacitly support the greater? If you want to support third parties and break the two-party stranglehold - something I would really like to see - vote for them at the local and state level so they can build up to real power, instead of making a futile symbolic grab for the highest elected office in the country.

[GreenArrow]

100. "liberals and progressives who refused to vote for Gore "

I think if you check the stats, you'll find that a larger number of registered Democrats voted for Bush than the total number of voters who pulled the lever for Nader.

[Kahuna]

108. I agree with what you said. The only guy who was really gonna...

put a stop to the neo-con agenda was Wesley Clark. Neither, Kerry, Edwards or Dean would do anything but be pleased as punch that they won the presidency. And then go about business as usual.

[Kahuna]

96. What???? Are you serious? I think you need to rethink ...

that. You say that the lesser of two evils got us Bush. Think about that for a minute. I think you meant, the lesser of two evils would have yielded Al Gore, not bush. And then think about how much better off we would have been with the lesser of two evils if the lesser evil, Gore were in office right now.

The same will apply in November.

[lurk_no_more]

98. As James Carville said

It wasn't the lesser of two evils, bush voters voted for the evil of the two lessers.



And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[bowens43]

153. Actually, the lesser of two evils would have given us Gore.

How will voting third party lessen the risk o another 4 years of bush? I respect the fact that you are going to vote your conscience(if Clark had been the nominee, I would be voting third party) , I just question your logic.

[krkaufman]

214. No, what got us Bush was a bunch of 3rd-party voters

... saying there "was no difference between Gore and Bush."

(And, of course, a less-than-effective campaign from Gore; systemic bias in the media against Gore and for Bush; vote rigging in Florida)

Sorry, but Gore was a damn good man, and a damn good candidate -- better than any of the remaining candidates we currently have for this year.

[Walt Starr]

219. No, what got us Bush was a vote of five to four

in the SCOTUS. Third Party politics played no role.

[krkaufman]

225. SCOTUS vote wouldn't have occurred had Gore not been nadered..

..in Florida and New Hampshire. Gore would have won the popular and EC votes, both, without contest.

[Robbien]

Go ahead push voters away, that will get your candidate elected

I am a strong ABB and favor Kucinich. I declared I would vote for the eventual candidate whomever that may be.

But the rudeness of DUers here make me feel as if I am in a pit of freepers.

I have a problem supporting any one that any of you thugs are supporting.

You are losing votes here guys. Are you trying to lose the election?

[mandyky]

I know how you feel, but

I won't vote for anyone, if it comes to that point. I'll take my cues from what Gov. Dean says today and does from now until Nov. I trust his judgment, still. We cannot take 4 more years of shrub, our country will be bankrupted.

[WoodrowFan]

2. thanks

THANK YOU! Sincerely, Karl Rove

[Sean Reynolds]

7. Yup.

[ChiefJoseph]

What's with the hammer and sickle?

To me that's no less offensive than a swastika.

[Walt Starr]

20. It's not a bigoted symbol

If you knew Sean you would know he is a member of the CPUSA.

[ChiefJoseph]

30. I don't have a problem with communists per se

(although I think they're hopelessly misguided). I do, however, have a problem with the universally recognized symbol of the Soviet Union, arguably the most vicious and evil regime in the history of humanity. My family is from eastern Europe. Ask any Pole what he thinks of the hammer and sickle...I doubt he has any more patience for that symbol than the swastika.

[Walt Starr]

43. And regardless of how you feel about the symbol

Sean is 100% within the rules of DU to put a hammer and sickle in his signature.

I'm sorry, but it is not a bigoted symbol and it reflects his political leanings.

My avatar is one many Christians might find offensive if they knew that it represented the triune nature of The Goddess and how that Trinity is the most Holy of Holies. It denies any Christian trinity absolutely as a false trinity. The aspects of The God according to my faith is dualistic, not triune.

My avatar is not bigoted but also cannot be excluded because some might find it offensive. There are many symbols posted on DU that I find offensive, but must remain as well.

[ChiefJoseph]

I'm not saying it's "bigoted" or that he doesn't have the right...

...to post the image. But it's still offensive. Does it stand for ethnically-based genocide the way the swastika does? No. Does it stand for the Soviet government, which murdered tens of millions of people during its relatively short duration? You bet.

How anyone could associate himself with that grotesque regime is simply beyond me.

[Walt Starr]

53. It's his right

and the hammer and sickle represented the proletariat before anything else.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

55. And the Swastika existed for four thousand years before Hitler, also.

[ChiefJoseph]

Jesus, so what?

I know about the history of the swastika. Does that mean it's not an offensive symbol? Try walking into a synagogue with a swastika lapel pin and telling the horrified onlookers that the swastika was an ancient Indian symbol with good, wholesome meanings. Please.

[Walt Starr]

63. I have a piece of Indian furniture with swastikas all over it

I keep it proudly in my dining room.

Every swastika on it goes the right way. Nazi swastikas are backwards.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

65. I meant the opposite. Both Swastika and Hammer and Sickle

have the same connotations to me. Bad connotations. I won't touch either.

[Walt Starr]

59. Actually, not in the form Hitler used

The Nazi swastika is backwards.

[atlantadem]

66. So what?

He has a right to his opinion, that doesn't mean that all opinions are created equal, or that we shouldn't exercise our right to disagree.

[atlantadem]

64. Okay, but...

True, Sean is 100% within his right to put a hammer and sickle in his signature (As you are 100% within your right to put your avatar in your signature).

Still, the rest of us are 100% in our right to take offense with what we see as a symbol of iniquity.

[Walt Starr]

70. True enough

I take no offense in his use of the hammer and sickle, but you are free to do so.

[mdmc]

80. Don't worry Walt, its a dry heat

and it will only feel like an eternity! :~)

Interesting avatar. I'm a Catholic, but have a hard time understanding divinity and such, so I cannot be offended by your avatar. I really would like to understand why a Christian might be offended by your logo. Is it basically "offensive" in the way that those Darwin walking fish "faith" logos are?

[Walt Starr]

85. It's a Pagan symbol

It's sorta like how the pentacle is demonized as well.

The thing is, this symbol is a Goddess symbol and recognizes the Holy Trinity as 100% female as opposed to the masculine triune God of the Christian mythos.

The Horned One (i.e., The God) of my faith is represented as dualistic in nature, the light side of the year and the dark side of the year.

BTW, I also do not recognize the afterlife myths of the Christian faith either. The mythology of my faith where the afterlife is concerned is based upon reincarnation. So, you comments about a "dry heat" and "eternity" have no bearing on me.

:D

Edited to Add If you look at the trihorn symbol of my avatar, you will see the resemblance to a vagina.

[Freddie Stubbs]

248. It may not be a bigoted symbol, but it is a stupid one

The party is over, comrade.

[Crunchy Frog]

258. With all due respect Walt

your symbol does not represent the mass killing and repression of millions of people. The hammer and sickle does, especially for people who actually had to live under it.

[Walt Starr]

276. I disagree, the hammer and sickle does nothing of the kind

The hammer and sickle represent the factory worker and the farmer.

[Vladimir]

72. and it surfaces again...

the familiar right-wing diatribe equating the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany. You want to talk about Soviets in Poland? Lets discuss the British in India, Kenya, Australia, hell in the USA for that matter. I doubt you'd be offended by the Union Jack though, so why the double standards?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

75. I am. And one thing being evil does not make another less evil.

Be careful with your logic.

[Vladimir]

86. well that at least shows consistency

Its not really an issue of making it less evil. Stalin's reign was abhorrent, but my problem is with how fashionable it is these days to equate it with Hitler. This kind of argument usually tries to claim that Stalin killed more people, which only confuses form and content. Hitler's worldview involved killing all Jews. That is fundamentally different from putting political opponents in gulags, or even killing them, or using excessive force in an imperialist invasion (ie Poland). The attempted eradication of an entire race means that in fact Hitler must maintain a unique place in our history books.

V

[ChiefJoseph]

92. Killing tens of millions in the forced famine of the Ukraine...

...doesn't qualify as sufficiently evil to be compared to Hitler? Strange.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

95. I'm not getting into the 'who's more evil' argument

there appears to be enough evil to go around for all.

[atlantadem]

103. I agree

This is relativism at its worse. To claim that Soviet atrocities are given a bad rap because they are not as bad (morally speaking) as Nazi atrocities is simply dumb.

[justinpower]

235. Look, symbols of most nations could be evil

http://www.casi.org.uk/index.html
It is all in the eye of the beholder. You have your right to be upset, lets not pretend the Soviet Union was unique in its failings.

[Crunchy Frog]

261. Hey, while we're at it

why not have a confederate flag avatar, or at least be very pleased and tolerant with anyone who wants to use a confederate flag in their sig line. After all, the old South wasn't all bad, had a number of admirable qualities, and slavery wasn't nearly as evil as Hitler's genocide.

If you would be prepared to defend a confederate flag sig with those words, than I might take your defense of the hammer and sickle a little more seriously. How about it?

[justinpower]

270. Wow

I would certainly defend anyones right to use any symbol of their choosing. I dont need to agree with the politics behind the symbol, only the right of people to express themselves. However I think you missed my point altogether. How attractive is the US flag to countries that have beenthe victim of sanctions and carpet bombing. My point is that the symbols of nations carry with them different connotations depending on where you are sitting. Stalin was a brutal pig, he did not create the hammer and sickle, he need not be the only thing directly tied to that symbol. Hitler on the other hand actually designed the swastika. That symbol absolutely stands for one thing, the Nazi party. Should we forget that old glory hung in the south during slavery for much longer than the confederate flag? Does it ease our minds to heap that negative part of our history onto a symbol that in its essence, was one of rebellion. The civil war was not fought strictly over the issue of slavery, and the confedrate flag was not created as a pro slavery symbol.

[Crunchy Frog]

283. I was pretty much just trying to make a point

that some symbols which have a strong association with evil are alot more tolerated here than other ones are. I don't consider the hammer and sickle to be any more progressive a symbol than the confederate flag. I hate both of them.

For that matter, I'm not real crazy about much of what the American flag has stood for either, but at least it's somewhat of a mixed bag which has stood for some good things as well as bad things.

[justinpower]

285. Then I believe we are agreed n/t

[ChiefJoseph]

76. Right wing?

You're right, the Soviet Union is not the same as Nazi Germany. In many ways, it was worse. For one thing, Stalin murdered more people than Hitler ever dreamed of killing...perhaps 60 to 80 million. And Soviet citizens had to suffer under communist tyranny for over 70 years, whereas the world only had to suffer 12 years of Naziism.

As for the British, I agree that there are few European countries who did not behave badly during the colonial period...the British in India, the Belgians in the Congo, the French in Algeria. But none of them hold a candle to the Soviets in terms of forced famines, mass murders, political purges, etc. It's laughable to compare anyone, even the Nazis, to the horror of the Soviet Union.

[Vladimir]

93. yes, precisely right wing

In no way is it worse. As I said in another post, this confuses form and content. Hitler wanted to eradicate an entire race, that is what sets him aside, and that is why the equating the Nazis to anything is such a dangerous game to play.

As for 60-80 million, give it up. Read Ulam's biography of Stalin, or Deucher's, or Kruschev's memoirs...

And besides, the British can hold a veritable torch to Stalin. In Kenya for example, with free-fire zones, soldiers encouraged to kill a certain quota of natives, concentration camps and yes famines too. Kenya's only blessing was that it didn't have a big enough population for the British to score some real historical points (that's black humour right there in case anyone is confused). That still doesn't make them anywhere near as bad as the Nazis though...

[Screaming Lord Byron]

101. Kruschev's memoirs might not be the most accurate guide here.

A little conflict of interest there.
You are a Communist, right?

[Vladimir]

110. Not really no

I am in fact more of a Socialist, seeing as I don't believe in the eradication of all private ownership or indeed many other Communist ideas.

You are quite right, Kruschev's memoirs are of course biased. They are biased towards removing all responsibility for what happened from him, but they are still a valuable read particularly because of Kruschev's 'Crimes of Stalin' speech.

[atlantadem]

84. You're right!

I guess that means we shouldn't hold a double standard against those poor, misunderstood Nazis either.

[Vladimir]

106. I'll rephrase it

My problem is that the modern fashion for USSR = NAZI Germany is a gratuitous double standard in that the people lambasting the Soviets mostly couldn't care less about the crimes of colonialism. Hitler is apart from both, that was my whole point.

[ButterflyBlood]

168. not at all

the swastika represents Nazism, which is an ideology based on racism and genocide.

the hammer and sickle represents Communism, an ideology that isn't based on racism and genocide, even though some governments of it have practiced those. Regardless, they are not part of the ideology. One can be a non-genocidal Communist.

The hammer and sickle is a symbol of the protelariat, and I have no problems with it at all. I actually use it as my avatar on another board.

[ChiefJoseph]

176. As long as you aren't bothered...

...by the fact that many of the most murderous regimes in world history (USSR, China under Mao, etc.) have used the hammer and sickle as their defining symbol during years of bloody repression, genocide and murder, I guess that's all that matters.

[ButterflyBlood]

201. well the Crusades used the cross

as do many religious fundamentalists and those who have killed saying it's for Jesus, yet as a Christian I'm hardly offended by the cross. The meaning is important, not who uses it.

[Crunchy Frog]

257. I agree with you on that.

If you like Stalinism, you ought to just vote for Bush and Cheney. The neocons are about as close to Stalinism as you are likely to get in this country. In fact, many of them actually started out as Communists, although I believe they are closer to the Trotskyist end of things. Still, I should think that would be close enough to satisfy you.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. As I Kerry supporter who disagrees with you, I was pleased to...

see that you understand that both Edwards and Kerry have alot in common. Both voted for the Patriot Act and the IWR!

Also, both are Washington insiders. There is alot of nonsense
going on around here that Edwards is an outsider and that Dean
should support him against the "evil" Kerry. Really, they are
ALL insiders.

[Tinoire]

150. Nice little tight-knit circle with occasional time outs. n/t

[carolinayellowdog]

4. Voting in Utah allows you the luxury

of voting 3rd party without helping Bush. Any ex-Deaniac in a swing state who does that is a de facto Bush supporter.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NWHarkness]

27. And of course, your feelings of self righteousness are paramount

It's much more important that you not compromise than that we rid America of the worst, most corrupt regime in it's history.

[Sean Reynolds]

129. When you compromise your beliefs, you lose.

[zoeyfong]

255. "Self-righteousness" and electoral success are not mutually exclusive.

This has been said many times, but no candidate is owed anyone's vote. I voted for gore in 2000 and was very much opposed to nader voters, but why would gore's loss be the fault of nader voters, rather than a failure of gore's campaign to attract enough votes to win? Similarly, why would a kerry loss be the fault of 3rd party voters, rather than the fault of kerry's campaign or the people who chose him, thinking he would be 'electable?' Lastly, the world is not going to stop turning in Nov. 2004; 'self-righteousness' in the short term can lead to a stronger party and electoral success in the long term.

[Caution]

28. When you make a declaration of it then

you invite people to try to change your mind and to disagree. Don't whine when they take up that challenge

[Sean Reynolds]

130. They can disagree with me all they want.

I don't really care. They can try and change my mind, I don't really care.

Just like they shouldn't really care that I'm not going to whore myself out for the 'better' of the Democratic Party.

[EXE619K]

35. Good for you Sean!

Stick to your principles!

You never lose in that case.

Your brave stance is much to be applauded!

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sean Reynolds]

128. Whats the point of posting at all?

Isn't it to bitch and whine about something? I didn't get my way, but I won't give in just because people want me to.

[Name removed]

247. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

268. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChiefJoseph]

15. Holy shit!

There's a Bob Dylan avatar? No way. I'm switching right now.

[mdmc]

82. What was your logo pre Bob

? :kick:

[lovedems]

25. Thank you. That is always the argument that I try to make as the mother

of 4. Have you see the ages of the SCOTUS?

NewYorkerfromMass shared this

William H. Rehnquist, born: October 1, 1924...79 years old.

John Paul Stevens, born: April 20, 1920...83 years old.

Antonin Scalia, born: March 11, 1936...67 years old.

Sandra Day O'Connor, born: March 26, 1930...73 years old.

Anthony M. Kennedy, born: July 23, 1936...67 years old.

David Hackett Souter, born: September 17, 1939...64 years old.

Clarence Thomas, born: June 23, 1948...55 years old.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, born: March 15, 1933...70 years old.

Stephen G. Breyer, born: August 15, 1938...65 years old.

(Got this on Freeperville Central- it's occasionally good for something)


How many will retire in the next 4 years and who do you want the sitting President to be who replaces them? Based on this administrations history of appointments, that scares the hell out of me!

Edited for grammar

[jansu]

62. This is the most important issue of ABB!

I will hold my nose and vote ABB! Several of us posted yesterday on this issue and we should continue to post it daily! This is where the whole battle for this country will be fought and won. All the raping that Bush and Company is doing to our rights and this world,and they will do even worse, if he finally gets elected, will be decided by the Supreme Court. Before they installed him last time, four or five of them had said they would retire, if a Republican got into office. I believe that they had "Buyer's Regret" and have hung on. But, we can not count on all of them surviving four more years. Remember, several of the "Television Ministers" have Prayer Circles, daily praying for the death of those Justices who are moderate so that Bush can replace them with "right thinking" theocracy supporting men. Bush will fill this court with the most extreme right wing, fascist "judges" and then watch our rights go down the drain. The Democrats will have a fight on their hands that they won't be able to maintain.

We MUST kick Bush out! So vote for the Democratic nominee, but keep fighting for the changes we have fought for. Don't quit!

[lovedems]

74. As the mother of 4, this election is not about ME or MY issues

it is about the country my kids will grow up in and the thought of a SCOTUS riddled with judges that compare to Pickering scare the shit out of me. My own country will become a foreign land. Women's rights, civil liberties will become a thing of the past that we read about in history books. Public education will become religious indoctrination. Need I go on?

[Kahuna]

112. Can you say, Justices, Starr, Olsen and Ashcroft? That's what..

we'll get. And a nice shiny consitutional convention to go along with them to strip us of even more of our constitutional rights.

[lovedems]

122. That's why I get my panties in a wad when I read posts like this.

As much as I would like to go back and change some of the votes our candidates voted on, I can't. That doesn't mean our future will suck if Kerry wins the nomination. On the contrary, our future will totally suck if the chimp gets 4 more years and the repurcussions of that will last for generations.

I am not going to beg people to vote for the democratic nominee on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND but I will let them know the consequences of their actions so when things go down the toilet, maybe, just maybe, they will remember that they were warned.

[Butterflies]

170. OMG! I didn't realize the numbers were so high.

I hope they'll all last through this year's election!

[MilDem]

9. It your choice and I respect that

But I have to take issue with the way you present Kerry as being forced on the Democrats. Dean had all the advantages going into the primaries; money, supporters and endorsements and he legitimately lost to John Kerry. You may disagree with the people's choice, but John Kerry was not forced down our throats, he won his votes fair and square.

[Sean Reynolds]

But didn't have the largest advantage in all of this.

That was the media support. THEY make or break a candidate. They broke Clark, then they broke Dean.

[MilDem]

38. Gov. Dean didn't hold up under media scrutiny

I say this as a former Dean supporter, who donated money and time to his campaign.

When the media spotlight turned on Howard Dean as the front runner, which is an inevitable result of being ahead, he did not hold up well at all.

Every leading candidate eventually gets hostile treatment from the media, because that is what makes for good TV. Unfortunately for Dr. Dean when the media focused their attention on him, he started coming off as reckless and defensive (such as when he went complaining to the DNC when the other candidates were attacking him.) That's why he lost my support, and the support of quite a few others.

Now that Sen. Kerry's the front runner, he'll start to get the same treatment Gov. Dean did, and we'll see if he holds up.

[atlantadem]

125. Something stinks in Wisconsin, and it's not the cheese.

Call it intuition, but I have a feeling that Kerry is not going to stand the heat. It seems the more we get to "know" Kerry, the more of a cardboard candidate he seems to be. His following seems to be more the product of "anti-Deanism" or "anti-Bushism" than it is true passion and desire for Kerry as president. His speeches are dry. Most Americans don't know much about him other than he's rich, he a war hero, and he's against Bush. He's going to have to do better than that to win the race. At least Dean inspired a few of us.

[Desertrose]

56. Hey Sean

It is all about the media...they are the controling and deciding factor.
Have you ever considered Dennis Kucinch?? He was against the war and has some good stands on the issues...he's still on the ballot anyway.

Frustrating as hell, isn't it? I say you gotta do what feels right for you!!

:hi:
Hows everything in SLC these days...or are you at school now??

:hug:
DR

[Sean Reynolds]

131. If Dean were removed from the Utah ballot I'd vote for DK.

But Dean will be on the primary ballot and thus I'll vote for him.

I looked at Kucinich and I went with Dean. I did it back when he was polling around Kucinich's area. I like DK, and wish him luck. I'd love to see him beat out Edwards and Kerry to win the nomination - then I'd vote Democratic.

Anyway, SLC is doin' alright - the Utah Progressive Caucus endorsed Kucinich this month. ;-) But I'll live. :-D

[SaveElmer]

10. I'm glad you live in Utah

And not someplace that matters !

[Caution]

11. voting your conscience is great

if Bush wins though just remember that voting on a candidate who can't beat him (like ralph nader for example) had the effect of helping his candidacy. You'd become a defacto supporter. This is NOT a one or two issue year. And frankly there are much more important issues at stake. If you really want to vote over one issue though how about the SCOTUS, do you think that kerry or edwards would palce in people similar to Bush? And seriously, what makes you think that Dean is any better? Do you honestly believe that if he hadn't been a senator he would have voted against the IWR? The only person who has been honest throughout this campaign has been Dennis Kucinich. He'd have my primary vote if it would get him the nomination. It won't. I will vote for Kerry or Edwards or if by some miracle happens, Dean. But I will not throw my vote away this year. I have many friends who voted for Nader in 2000 and they *all* feel guilty about it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

162. Actually, Caution, if you truly believe

that the Democratic Party should move in a more progressive direction, then you lose nothing by voting for Dennis Kucinich in the primaries.

The people who only wake up every four years to vote for president will vote for Kerry or Edwards, i.e. business as usual, and one of them will probably get the nomination. They won't need your vote to do so.

But by voting for DK in the primary, you are telling the DNC that you expect more from your Democratic candidates. How are they going to get the message if nobody votes their conscience in the primaries?

Think about it.

[Ficus]

12. think about Roe V Wade

and the Surpreme Court. If you care about that, please reconsider.

Otherwise, good luck and enjoy your first Presidential election!

[SlavesandBulldozers]

14. I say

more power to you. I think its great that there are people with that much righteous indignation out there. Of course, Im also thankful that there are intelligent democrats out there that have the wherewithal to vote against Bush rather than be overwhelmed by emotion.

[Mz Pip]

16. Perhaps

given a bit of time, you will feel differently. There are several stages of grief. Anger and denial are the first ones.

I can only hope that after a few weeks you'll change your mind.

We need to get Bush out of the White House. I'm sad that it's not going to be Clark who will be the one to do it. You're sorry it's not Dean.

Time will heal most anything if you let it.

MzPip
:dem:

[beyurslf]

18. If you Vote 3rd party, your vote does mean something:

4 more years of Bush.

Pickering
Estrada
Ashcroft


Every time you want to think there would be no difference in Bush or some Dem candidate, think of these names. Read up on them.

Ask yourself, would Kerry put Ashcroft as AG? Would Edwards appoint Pickering to the Federal Court for life? Will Estrada be a Supreme Court nominee under either?

I am a Dean supporter too but I know that THERE IS A DIFFERENCE and we CAN NOT let Bush win.

[Woodstock]

272. You forgot 4 more years of death, death, death, and more death

Sprinkled with lots of destruction, destruction, and more destruction. Toss in some suffering, suffering, and more suffering.

We are talking people's lives. This is not the time for self-indulgence. Voting third party at a time of crisis is self-indulgence.

And Sean, I'm not talking you out of anything. You have lost my respect, like all the others voting third party in a time of national and global crisis. I don't care who you vote for, and this is the last I'll say to you. You are throwing away all Dean worked so hard for.

[Sean Reynolds]

19. I'm off to class

I'll check the attacks when I get home.

Bye all.

[West Coast Democrat]

21. Would Dean want you to vote for a 3rd Party....?

or would he want you to stay and fight to get Bush out of office?

[eileen from OH]

22. I'm not going to try to change your mind, Sean

But if you don't care what we say, don't you at least care what the Gov. has to say before making any written-in-stone decisions? I know you've been a staunch Dean supporter all along. Can't you be open-minded enough to at least hear him out over the next week or so?

eileen from OH

[saltpoint]

23. You can vote however you please -- we respect that.

But it makes the Democratic Party's job more difficult when we want to place temperate men and women on the judiciary, when we want to persuade state school boards that evolution has a place in science textbooks, when we want to ensure that women are paid equally for equal work, when we want to strengthen hate crimes legislation, when we need to inspire dialogue among citizens for the bettermen of the country.

Say the nominee is either Edwards or Kerry. Do you really believe that neither of these guys would lend a hand to the party's goals?

We could use you in the on-going fight. Utah Democrats are rare and therefore valuable. We'll leave a light on for you.

[Trajan]

29. FUCK health care for children ...

To HELL with a rational, internationalist foreign policy ..

Take that Social Security and SHOVE IT ! ...

Yeah .... all so you can feel perfectly good about who you vote for, or you will throw a 'well deserved' fit ....

No candidate is PERFECT ... NEVER will you find a candidate that suits you in EVERY way ...

So what will YOU do when that happens ? ...

Jump Ship ....

Gee .... thanks ....

Hey: .. DONT mind us: ... We will be working AGAINST the GOP disaster, to dislodge the lil princelet from his throne ... I suppose we wont even notice you ARENT there ...

[Nederland]

40. You missed the point

He lives in UTAH. It doesn't matter if he votes Democratic, Democrats are NOT going to win there. Get it?

[Walt Starr]

45. That's the most hilarious part of this whole thing

Very few DUers live in a state where voting for the Democrat will make any difference whatsoever. I live in Illinois. This is a Ham Sandwich state which means if the Democrats run a ham sandwich against Bush, the sandwich will win in a landslide.

[RetroLounge]

87. and I live in Wisconsin, which is very much in play

so I hold my nose and vote for the Dem...

[AndyTiedye]

121. We Cannot be Complacent, even in "Ham Sandwich" States...

...if they have got Diebold Republican Electing Machinez.
With Diebold counting the votes, no state is safe for us.

[Walt Starr]

127. Okay, so I'll vote for the Democrat

but in the solidly Republican states like Utah, a quarter of the Republicans and every last non-Republican could vote for Kerry and Bush will still win, so Sean can change nothing by voting Democrat.

[otohara]

31. Ahh...Bush = More Right Wing Agenda

can you feel it? makes me all squishy inside to think what 4 more years of this demonic administration will do to the health and well being of this country, the world and my mental health.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Well as a FELLOW DEAN SUPORTER

I will vote for whoever happens to be on the ballot in November

It looks at this time to be Kerry

That crap that Kerry and bush are not too different from each other is just that CRAP.

Oh and by the way... in 2004 any vote for bush or a third party candidate is a vote for bush....

[Walt Starr]

54. It's not like a third party vote from Sean will make any difference

Utah will be a solid bush state. He doesn't even have to visit Utah this cycle and he will win in a landslide. Very few states were more solidly pro-Bush in 2000.

[Nederland]

34. Welcome to the Club

I've always said that if you don't live in a swing state you should feel free to vote for whomever you want. I've been voting since 1988 and I've never voted for a Republican or a Democrat Presidential candidate. I'm simply not going to waste my vote.

A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote for evil.

[no name no slogan]

67. Very good point

I live in what is generally considered a "safe" state (MN), and I base my vote on that. The last time a Repub took this state in a Presidential election was 1972, and even if Kerry is the nominee it's doubtful that Shrub would win, even though MN has been tilting GOP of late.

I still haven't made up my mind, but I voted Green in 1996 and 2000 precisely because MN was a lock for the Dems, and I wanted to show my dissatisfaction with the party.

If you're in a "safe" state for either party, there's no reason to NOT vote your conscience-- whatever it tells you to do.

[ButterflyBlood]

173. sorry but MN is not safe

even though it was close in 2000 largely because of Nader and the fact that Gore took it for granted and didn't try for it, you can bet the Idiot Son of an Asshole is going to try here in 2004. I don't think he'll win it, but it can't be put in the same category as Utah or DC.

Remember, he came so close last year because of Nader. If all the leftists vote Democratic, MN will be safe, but it's not safe if people are voting third party.

[no name no slogan]

234. Then maybe the Dems better think about who they pick...

It's likely the Greens may strip away some votes from the left in MN, but it's not nearly as contentious as the outside pundits say.

The current GOP regime in state gov't is not very popular, at about a 56% approval rating. Our schools are a mess. And it looks like the Democrats may be rediscovering the backbone they lost after Wellstone died.

The pendulum is coming back our way, as the state's services continue to go to hell under a misdirected Repub (mis-)administration.

If it looks close, I know a number of people like me who will vote for the Democrats simply because they know that we can't afford another four years of Shrub. We may be idealistic, but we're not dumb.

[tedzbear]

36. I know what you mean...

I plan on voting for Kucinich in the California primary, but when Nov. comes around I will probably vote Kerry just to make sure * loses. But if Kerry betrays us queers over the marriage thing, I might bail ship and go Green.
On the one hand, I'm sick and tired of our major candidates courting queers' votes but then stabbing them in the back later. On the other hand, November is about much more than my queer issues. For a hundred other reasons, we must beat *.

:kick:

[Loonman]

37. We'll thank you later for 4 more years of Bush

Because that is what will happen.

[Walt Starr]

49. Sean lives in Utah which will go solidly for Bush

It doesn't matter one iota who Sean votes for. Utah is solid Bush country and nothing will change that this electyion cycle.

[wryter2000]

39. Bush sends his thanks eom

eom

[Zomby Woof]

41. in defense of Dean

He probably isn't angling for the votes of someone sporting a Soviet icon in his sig line. :eyes:

[Maddy McCall]

44. No, not many rednecks with a hammer and sickle flag.

Funny, though, how similar the two flags are, seeing as how one flew over the American holocaust and the other over the Russian one.

I guess some folks find something good about Stalin's mass murders, though.

[justinpower]

242. I notice the Sitting Bull quote in your sig line

What flag flew over that holocaust

[Zomby Woof]

259. your rebuttal falls short

Jchild does not have an American flag in her sig line, so really, your analogy has nowhere to go but down the irrelevancy hole.

[XanaDUer]

46. I know, I find that amazing myself...

The candidate closest to my heart and the most pure ideologically is DK; Dean and a hammer and sickle go together like Bush and Truth.

Oh, well. Politics make strange bedfellows.

[jonnyblitz]

94. don't you guys get irony at all?

last week sean had a lieberman avatar in his sigline. He is being tongue in cheek. geez you people get all wound up and loose all sense of satire because somebody didnt take the DEM party loyalty oath.

[Zomby Woof]

226. I got the Lieberman "joke"

Juvenile as it was. I personally don't have a problem with the Marx avatar, but the hammer and sickle is a far different thing. Not really any different than "ironically" using a swastika.

And no, I don't care about anyone's loyalty to any party. I really don't give a fuck how anyone votes, which is why I mock people who dramatically announce to DU which way they are going this November.

Vote, don't vote, who gives a fuck?

[idaholeft]

42. please reconsider

I made my first political contributions ever this year to the Dean campaign. I'm with you about being bummed that I (in all likelihood) will not be able to vote for Dean in November (not that it would matter in my state). However, I have several friends who voted for Nader in 2000 and who regret that decision terribly now. Given that the next president will be either the GWB or the Demo nominee (probably JKF), you will in fact be helping GWB by voting 3rd party. I don't like it either, but that's the nature of the system, and facts are facts. If these last few years have demonstrated anything, it's that there is an astonishing difference between GWB and even the most conservative Democrat. In all the recent presidential elections, the person who took office was helped by the presence of a 3rd party candidate who is idealogically more aligned with his opponent.

Take the time you need to vent now, but between now and November, envision 4 more years of GWB (without an impending relelection to mollify his radical ideology) versus 4 years with Kerry or Edwards in the Whitehouse. The difference is frightening, and I have two small kids to raise in the world that GWB has made increasingly hostile.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eileen_d]

51. Hi, idaholeft!

Welcome to DU from a fellow "Mountain State" resident (Montana) :hi:

[HuskerDem]

47. I've suspected from your posts that you were quite young

Fiery idealism is the luxury of youth. Enjoy it. Perhaps we'll see you again sometime.

I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to get you to stay, I have a criminal to help get out of the White House.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

52. Politics is the art of the compromise. I have no time for doctrinal purity

I accept that a coalition must be built to challenge the neo-conservative threat. Will it be less left-wing than I'd like. Yes. But, this is not an either-or matter. I would prefer a few steps in the right direction than none at all.

[Nederland]

144. I suspect you don't understand electoral politics

He lives in UTAH. If you don't understand what that implies you obviously don't get it.

[eileen_d]

48. Why does everyone who feels this way

feel a need to start a thread an publicly announce their intentions?

I mean, you have every right to start a thread, but what's the point? Do you want us to mourn the loss of your vote? Do you want us to beg you to change your mind? Do you want us to sing your praises?

It's your vote so use it any way you want. It counts just as much as everyone else's -- no more and no less.

[XanaDUer]

58. Probably a mix of things:

1. Make us all 'pay" somehow with their defection.

2. The only way to lash out at "the other".

3. Making us beg so they can have the satisfaction of telling us to flip off.

4. ?

And in the end, as I always state in threads like this:

Who cares? Vote, don't vote. People vote for a variety of reasons. Maybe even revenge or punishment for perceived slights.

:shrug:

[matcom]

57. then i can give you no more respect

sorry

[arwalden]

60. Nose. Face. Spited.

[Walt Starr]

68. Not at all

No matter who Sean votes for, Bush will win Utah. Give him a break, few DUers will cast a Democratic vote in a state where it will actually matter.

[MichaelHarris]

97. 3rd party vote and flag

You have to respect the guy. First of all he mentioned he's a first time voter. That alone is good news in that he's involved in the political process. Many of our youth is not. Secondly, its important to understand his feelings. He put alot into his candidate and he has that "lost" feeling right now. My advice is give it time, listen to your candidate after he or she has dropped out. They may offer a course of action you agree with.

On his icon choice you must remember, that flag represented the revolution of 1917. The overthrough of the czars by the working class. The flag represented the farmers and workers and their opression, "In the February 1917 in Russia the Bourgeois-democratic revolution won. Democratic forces of the land - workers, peasants, petty bourgeois, avant-garde intelligentsia - marched under the red revolutionary flags. The winning wave of the revolution destroyed the monarchy in Russia. Even in the first days of February Lenin's party of the proletariat - the Russian social-democratic workers party, declared to the people in a manifesto: 'Citizens! the base of Russian czarism has fallen ... The red symbols of uprising can be seen in the whole of Russia! Forward! Don't stop! Mercilessly fight! Under the Red symbols of Revolution!"

For some of us, the older generation we see what our history and our government wanted us to see. We were taught to fear and hate the Soviet Union, to see them as "The Evil Empire". We built the largest military in the world based on these fears. Theres no doubt that atrocities happened under that flag but for us to comdemn it would be like people comdemning the US flag for the atrocities against the Native Americans, the fire bombing of German civilians in Dresden, radioactive testing on our own soldiers during the cold which included fallout over Sean's own home state. " The late Irma Thomas once documented 49 cases of cancer in her St. George neighborhood, and now her daughter, Michelle, is stricken with a host of ills. Former state lawmaker Bev White points to 14 cases of multiple sclerosis within a two-block area of the Tooele home where she has lived the past 50 years." http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/sview/1,3329,250010204,00.html

I for one see the history of that flag, the early history, as a victory for the working class in Russia. If you've never heard the anthem called "The Internationale" give it a listen before comdeming a nation. http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/int/int.html

[arwalden]

149. No 'Break' Is Forthcoming From Me

Even if Bush* is guaranteed a win in Utah, I do think the popular vote is important as well.

Take a look at 2000... the GOP would have us look at the Electoral College numbers as well as a physical map of the US and try to convince us that Bush* has a "mandate". Fortunately, the popular vote count shows us otherwise.

One wonders why any Democrat would vote in Utah at all, eh? Their vote doesn't "count" since it's just the electoral votes that determine the president... so they might as well stay home, yes? The obvious other choise is to just throw away their vote in anger or to "punish" the party or to smite the asshole tormentors on DU.

I can sympathize with the emotion... but I see no wisdom or maturity in those types of reckless anger-based decisions.

-- Allen

[HuskerDem]

71. CHECK!

protruding lower lip, seeking negative attention

[Guaranteed]

211. Well, it's a damned ugly face at this point.

Can't get much worse.

[John_H]

69. No flames. But here's a list of those happy to hear your decsion

Aside from the obvious:

Those who think they'll be nominated by Chimp to replace Rehnquist, O'connor, and Stevens

The former mining and logging executives currenly serving in leadership positions at the EPA

The former oil executives in charge at the Dept. of Energy.

The former corporate excutives who run the dept. of Labor

Everyone at Halliburton

The future comissioners Chimp will appoint to the SEC, the FCC, and other comissions that determine the rules of business, communications, health care etc.

The entire leadership and staff of PNAC

The whole crew at Fox News along with Tweety, Rush, Hannity, Wolfie and Timmy.

Every Republican senator and congressman who wdo not want to worry about a vero of their legislative initiatives.

[Walt Starr]

78. Not a one on your list could give a damn

No matter who Sean votes for, Bush will win Utah.

Sheesh, give the man a break. Utah will be squarely in bush's pocket come November 2nd and there is not a thing any non-Republican can do to change that simple fact.

[arwalden]

151. It's A Defiant, Selfish, Misguided, and Reckless Course Of Action

for anyone to take. Living in Utah doesn't make it right.

-- Allen

[Walt Starr]

175. So you are advising him to throw a vote away

when his vote could help a third party get a little more notice in the big world of politics?

I think throwing the vote away on a sure lose that does no good whatsoever is the worst course.

[Avis]

73. Please Don't!

I can't say Kerry is my favorite candidate, but at least he understands the horrors of war. My son is 18 and I fear if Bush gets in again, he will get drafted. My son in law just got back from the ME and my daughter has 5 months left before she is no longer deployable (if the military can be trusted). I just know if Bush gets in again he will find more wars for the US.

[Walt Starr]

81. I keep saying this, IT DOESN'T MATTER

Sean lives in Utah. If every non-Republican in Utah cast a vote for Kerry, Bush still wins!

No matter who Sean votes for, Bush wins Utah.

[eileen_d]

91. If Sean's vote "doesn't matter"

why did he start a thread about how important it is?

[Walt Starr]

107. Why shouldn't he?

HE's a DUer like the rest of us. It involves the primary process so this was the appropriate forum.

So again, why shouldn't he? In a few weeks, this thread would violate the rules.

[WoodrowFan]

88. Sorry But..

Sorry Avis, but anybody who feels that their purity is more important that defeating Bush doesn't give the south end of a north bound rat for your son, or anybody else who gets killed. They only care about themselves. Such selfishness is evil posing as good.

[Walt Starr]

89. If Sean voted for Kerry come Novemeber 2nd

It still would not make a rat's ass difference. Bush will stil win in Utah regardless!

Sheesh, how many times do I have to say this?

[bicentennial_baby]

77. Good for you Sean

Fuck what the haters say, you do what you gotta do! :toast:

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mdmc]

83. At least this Commie youngster votes

And doesn't vote GOP. Thats good enough for me.

Still, write in Kucinich, for the love of God. :~)

[jonnyblitz]

90. no attack from me

I normally would ditto your remarks but this year I am pussying out and voting for the DEM no matter who it is. Don't let those who will snarl at you for not falling in line bother you. :thumbsup:

[Finch]

105. Hang on a moment

Sean you said you where a member of the US communist party... hell Dean would have been the furthest thing from your beliefs i can imagine... sorry but for somone who if they truly are a communist believes in a highly centralized state with the nationalization of all industry and companies, Deans way way to your right... maybe I'm making a terrible mistake in labeling you a communist but I'm sure you'd said you where...may be it was another Marx avatar guy...

[Sean Reynolds]

126. No it's true.

I don't support a candidate based on their ideology, I support them based on what they're going to do. I looked at Kerry first, supported him up until his war vote. I went to Dean because he was the only Democrat standing up to Bush. He may be a moderate, but I liked and still like, a lot of what he had to say. With Kerry I didn't/don't get that. I sense he's in it for the glory and not actually in it to change the party and the country.

I knew Dean wasn't running for president to win. No one from a small state, opposing an unjust war can win. We've seen it. Kucinich isn't going to win. Sharpton isn't going to win. Even when Dean was at the top of the pack I knew something would happen to 'bring him down'. It's not wise to threaten the status quo and Dean was doing that.

Whether Dean is a moderate or a lefist isn't the issue here. What he was saying MADE sense. What Kerry was saying didn't. In the end, thats what won me over.

The reason I supported Dean was because I truly felt he'd bring the Democratic Party back to its roots. I may be a communist, but I understand that the DNC is the closest major party we've got. Yet, it continues to creep further and further right. Why do you think so many people have given up on voting Democratic? Why vote for a Republican-lite candidate when you can get the real thing?

Does Dean do things that piss me off? You bet ya! But he's made more sense than any candidate in the race, thus I really don't care if I'm WAY to the left of him.

Dean was there when we needed him. Kerry was not.

[Maddy McCall]

171. cognitive dissonance

[West Coast Democrat]

99. Why not just vote for Lyndon LaRouche?

Great, so you live in Utah and your vote doesn't count....I guess Howard Dean just wants you to give up rather than work to improve the Democratic Party....Apparently you think so.

[littlejoe]

104. You will get far more by working with Kerry, than by being

on the outside looking in.

[Walt Starr]

111. Better look in your mirror again

Kerry isn't the shoe-in he may have appeared to be.

[littlejoe]

134. Why do you say that, Walt?

[Walt Starr]

157. "Things in your mirror may be closer than they appear"

That's why.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

109. Utah will go Repub anyway. No biggie.

[Finch]

114. yeah

but if Edwards racks up a win in Utah or Idaho even Haweii...then he gets a little bit more credibility going into Super Tuesday... this could be a race yet if Edwards can win GA, OH and NY (unlikely but possibe...hell GA and OH might be enough) he will have a good shot at sweeping "southern Tuesday" this could really make the race interesting again... having said that I think Kerry would and will still win...

[QC]

113. How many of these threads do we need?

Seems like there's eight or ten a day, and they're childish and divisive.

Life is unfair. I supported Hart in 1984 and Simon in 1988, and they lost to the two most absurd candidates in the history of modern politics. This time I supported Clark, and he lost. Of the remaining candidates, I prefer Edwards, and he is behind and not expected to win. That's life. Get used to it.

[IranianDemocrat]

115. I always thought that a lot of Dean supporters were Greens in disguise...

...I guess this proves it. I guess the real agenda was to move the Democratic Party further to the left instead of "Taking Back America."

[Walt Starr]

119. Sean is no Green

and he's been 100% open and honest since day one of posting at DU that he's CPUSA.

[Atlant]

177. I wasn't. But I may be this year.

I'm not really very anonymous here so you can probably figure out
my voting record from Open Secrets.

I was a reliable Democrat for years, but this year, I'm done with
that. It's no longer going to be sufficient to me that the candidate
simply have a "D" after their name, and candidates who have voted
directly against my interst are no longer eligible to receive my
vote.

And I'm in a swing state (NH).

I'm sorry, but that's just the way it's going to be from here on
out; I'm now firmly convinced that there's no other reasonable
strategy for reforming the Democratic Party than to start denying
them votes when they pay no attention to constituencies.

Atlant

[Forkboy]

193. That's wrong

Greens are no friend of Dean's.I'm sure there are some,but the Greens I know who liked Dean initially realized his record wasn't what they were looking for and have switched to DK.

[ringmastery]

117. I don't care

You live in Utah. There's no chance in hell Kerry will win that state, so vote whoever you want.

[Walt Starr]

120. Thanks for the honesty

Finally, somebody recognizes the reality here.

[atlantadem]

133. This attitude is why we are losing the votes of blacks

[mac56]

147. Also known as the "neener-neener-nee-e-ener" vote.

nm

[hedgetrimmer]

124. Brave and intelligent!

When you stand alone in the bow of a boat looking upon the shores of the hoards incapable of understanding the complexity of their own plight... fear not, step back from the bow and know that you are not alone on that boat.

Many blessings.

[QC]

137. So I guess the rest of us are "hoards" [sic] incapable of understanding

the complexity of our own plight, while those who treat voting as an act of moral vanity are brave, noble souls.

Whatever makes you feel good, I guess. :eyes:

But I do have some questions for the many brave, noble souls who feel compelled to rush to DU and start identical threads announcing their brave, noble decisions not to oppose the Bush Regime in any meaningful way:

If Bush wins and gets to invade all those other countries on the PNAC list, will you be willing to look the wounded and bereaved in the eye and explain that you could have helped prevent it all, but you felt that being true to your principles was more important?

Same for the uninsured (including yours truly) who won't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting access to health care, and the unemployed, and gays and lesbians, and the poor, and women who will lose their right to choose, and religious and racial minorities, and all the other people who will be devastated by Bush II. Are you willing to look them in the eye and tell them that preserving your moral purity is more important than alleviating their hardships?

In the end, that's what it comes down to. We can choose to do what is in our power to get Bush out of office or not. It's that simple.

[hedgetrimmer]

164. Go look at the PPI, and see your own plight.

It is no different than the PNAC that's what you are supporting. That is your plight. It's not a third party issue, it's not a republican issue, it's not a democrat issue, it's a citizen's issue. That is your plight.

[QC]

169. PPI? Producer Price Index? People Plotting Insanity? Please explain.

I'm not hip to all the local acronyms.

And please answer the question. Why should millions of people pay the price for a few safe, privileged people's clean consciences?

[hedgetrimmer]

205. This is not about "clean consciences" it is about being aware...

Because you are not aware I will forgive your linguistic attacks...

Find out about the PPI (Progreesive Policy Institute) for the "New Democrat".

First, read this thread... (I know it is hard to actually read something, but that is how you become informed and understanding of your plight.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=326015

Then, read as many of the links that you can...

When you are done, come back here and we will continue this little idealogical wrestling match of words...

many blessings.

[QC]

240. Oh yes, the DLC.

They're the local Goldstein. I'm no fan of them, but honestly, some people here blame them for all that is wrong in the world, and the "there's no difference between the two parties" argument is just not as compelling now as it used to be, before we got to see 200 proof Bushism up close.

Am I wild about Kerry? No. But he's not Bush. Is Kerry everything I've ever dreamed of? No, but he's not Bush, and while getting Bush out of office will not solve our problems in itself it is a necessary beginning.

[hedgetrimmer]

252. Yeah, Coke or Pepsi?

~SNIP~
"In the domestic battle to captain the American empire, the neocons have in their corner the Project for a New American Century http://www.newamericancentury.org/ while the New Democrats have the Progressive Policy Institute http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004. Come November, who will get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?"
link: http://www.pressaction.com/pablog/archives/001294.html

yes, it is a necessary beginning to get bush out of office...

yet the choice of choosing who the next in office will be needs to be a choice, not a handpicked Coke or Pepsi.

many blessings-

[JCMach1]

132. Noooo... Sean you have been here for a long time

PLEASE!!! Reconsider

Don't go into that good night....

[private_ryan]

135. you're communist

not even Dean was the far to the left.

[Sean Reynolds]

136. You're right.

No candidate running for the Democratic nomination is.

[private_ryan]

141. I feel bad for you

not even China is communist anymore. They allow private and capitalists. What are you going to do?

[Sean Reynolds]

142. Fight the cause.

[Minstrel Boy]

180. Good for you, Sean.

The only wasted vote is one cast in bad faith.

The parameters of political discourse in the United States is truly discouraging. It's unhealthy, and made worse by the crushing of Dean.

I've come to the sad conclusion that should Kerry win, American troops will still be in Iraq come 2008. Will that be okay, because it's "anybody but Bush"?

I'll never hold my nose to vote. If it stinks in the polling booth, how bad will it smell in four years?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

138. As CPUSA, you should vote for Bush

Enhance the Contradictions! Viva La Revolution! bwa ha ha :)

[JVS]

155. Actually CPUSA is ABB

But they don't go around demanding lockstep support like a lot of Democrats do. Funny how things cahnge, eh?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

195. then they are no longer revolutionary

and have become little more than lapdogs for their Capitalist masters! All good Commies should be voting FOR Bush, to hasten the Revolution. After all, the reformism of social democracy only postpones the uprising! :)

[JVS]

202. One could argue that they are no longer revolutionary

Or one could argue that revolutionary goals are better served by working within dominant parties as Stalin did when he disolved Comintern in 1943.

[wyldwolf]

139. You'll be defying Dean who just said he'll support the dem nominee...

[Sean Reynolds]

140. He asked.

Doesn't mean I have to.

[VOX]

143. Do you want to beat *, or do you want to feel righteous?

Being ABB does not include being third-party, since third-party cannot hope to even garner 5% of the popular vote, let alone carry a national election.

The idea of throwing * out of office is for the greater good of all. Being righteous in your vote -- in effect, using your vote as personal therapy, so you can feel good -- does *not* work toward the greater good of all.

I urge you to try to extract your first-person singular notions from a careful consideration of what's going to happen to our country with another four years of * and his cronies.

[Walt Starr]

145. Hey, no matter what, Sean's vote won't change the Utah electoral picture

Why shouldn't he vote third party when his state will go to Bush no matter what?

[arwalden]

152. Because The Grand Totals In The Popular Vote Matter Too

-- Allen

[Sean Reynolds]

154. Like it did in 2000?

[JVS]

158. I can see strategic voting with EC, but claiming that someone should...

help a candidate he detests run up the score for appearances is ridiculous. Why should he compromise his principles for a meaningless gesture? It makes no sense.

[Walt Starr]

161. No, they don't

Constitutionally, only the Electoral vote has any bearing whatsoever on the race for the presidency. All of the popular votes don't mean a thing.

Add to that the fact that any state can decide it will no longer hold an election for president and only the state legislature may decide such issues and you finally get the picture. Directly voting for the president is a state right and any state can choose to decide on its slate of electors any way in which it chooses.

That's the law. Popular votes are 100% meaningless in presidential elections.

[arwalden]

165. I Don't Need A Civics Lesson, Walt.

[Walt Starr]

179. Then you know, voting third party in Utah this year has no effect on the

outcome of the election.

[arwalden]

183. Utah Is Not A Vacuum. Public Proclamations Like The One Here

are obviously meant to provoke and to encourage the same behavior from others. I'm not as dumb as some folks may think that I am. The self-serving martyr-like attitude that some folks have of voting for idealogical purity rather than being realistic is dangerous.

The type of behavior witnessed here and in other threads is selfish and self-destructive and reckless. It's a throw-away "vanity-vote" and that's irresponsible.

Mature and thoughtful thinkers know that what I'm saying is true.

-- Allen

[Walt Starr]

185. When DU enacts the post-priamry rules

I'll agree with, but not until. And I will only agree with you as far as DU goes.

This is a very mature and well thought out response by Sean, IMO. I support him in his decision 100%.

[arwalden]

200. The Protest Vote Is Selfish And Reckless

Mature people are certainly capable of having "well-thought-out" responses. But that doesn't mean that the actual choice is itself a wise, nor does it mean that it's mature.

I have no patience for that type of behavior or for the people who brag about it and encourage others to do the same.

-- Allen

[Walt Starr]

203. Que sera sera

C'est la vie, celle est la guerre, qui est la politique.

[arwalden]

206. Oh Yeah? Well... well... Uh... Well... Same To You, Pal!

LOL! You evoked Doris Day... totally unfair. Don't make me evoke Judy Garland!

I think we've taken this about as far as we can.

-- Allen

[Walt Starr]

212. He who first invokes Doris Day

is first to admit the debate is going nowhere fast and agrees to disagree.

:D

[JohnLocke]

204. Well said, Allen.

[arwalden]

163. Yes... They Matter. I Stand By That Statement.

[arwalden]

167. By The Same Token... Why Should ANY Democrat Vote At All? Eh, Walt?

It's just a silly little exercise in futility. Stay home. Why bother? Done deal. LOL.

-- Allen

[Walt Starr]

178. Please do not put words in my mouth

I lived in Wyoming for two decades. Wyoming is where Bush won by the greatest margin of all states in 2000. A vote for Nader in Wyoming was as meaningless as a vote for Gore.

If Every Democrat in Wyoming stayed home this year, it would have zero effect on the outcome of the election.

Please, get informed on how the electoral process works. The popular vote means nothing.

[arwalden]

184. I Do Not Need To Be Lectured On How The Electoral Process Works, Walt.

The popular vote means more than one would imagine.

-- Allen

[Walt Starr]

187. Again, you are losing site of the real picture here

The popular vote is meaningless in the presidential election process, no matter how much one may wish it didn't.

If it had meant anything at all, Gore would be president right now.

[arwalden]

199. Not Meaningless

I have found that actually being able to tell people what the popular vote count was (for the 2000 election) is very important in countering their belief that Bush won by a "landslide".

You've seen them... those red/blue maps of the USA with a huge "land-mass" that represents Bush's "mandate". People actually (still) believe that this represents the percentage of the population.

Isn't that amazing?

-- Allen

[arwalden]

196. There was no putting-of-words in your mouth, Walt.

Earlier you asked: "Why shouldn't he vote third party when his state will go to Bush no matter what?"

I responded with my OWN followed up question. A question that followed the same logical course. My words: "By the same token... Why should ANY Democrat vote at all?"

No, Walt... indeed you did not say those words. I'd scarcely think that this qualified as putting words in your mouth. BUT... if indeed there was any confusion about who was actually saying what, I heartily apologize.

In my message I continue by clarifying and expounding on *my own words* with: "It's just a silly little exercise in futility. Stay home. Why bother? Done deal."

You defend Sean's planned actions by suggesting that his vote is "meaningless" because it has no effect on the electoral outcome. Okay... and extending this logic, all other votes in Utah are just as meaningless.

I can only assume that since these votes do not affect the outcome, they are meaningless as well. It stands to reason.

-- Allen

[jackstraw45]

146. Glad you live in Utah....

Shrub got 67% of the vote in 2000. Vote away, young man!

[YNGW]

148. I'm With You.

I've voted 3rd party many times. I will continue to vote for the person I believe is the best candidate and let the chips fall where they may.

[goobergunch]

156. If that's what you feel you should do

then do it by all means. :thumbsup:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

160. You mean 2nd Party don't you?

Seeing as how the Democrats have ceased being an opposition party and have become the moderate wing of the pro-war, pro-nafta, pro-patriot act, pro-capitalist, of the one national party.

I'm with you.

[Justitia]

166. Amen, bandera!

Geez, I thought I belonged to the "opposition" party.

In a twisted sense I guess I do - they oppose any real opposition.

[ButterflyBlood]

172. well at least you live in Utah

for that I won't hold it against you.

[yo-yo-ma]

174. please don't

I have only ever voted for "third party" candidates - communist then peace and freedom then green. This time the stakes are too high. The difference between b*sh and another Clinton type are huge.

Even the communist party is not fielding a presidential candidate and is supporting the democratic nominee.

If your conscience is too troubled by main stream democrats to vote for them come November, then your conscience must be comfortable with four more years of expanding debt, military interventions, mini-nukes and the wholesale privatization of what remains of our social welfare state.

[Ficus]

181. who is Walt Brown

and what is the reason you support him?

[Sean Reynolds]

190. He's running on the Socialist ticket.

I'm supporting him because he's closest to my ideals.

[Ficus]

209. who did you like before

that was closer to your ideals?

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Minstrel Boy]

188. "Please dont throw your vote away"

I'd say that's only possible if he doesn't vote his conscience.

If the Democratic Party can do no better than plead with progressives to hold their noses and sign on to a kinder, gentler version of the corporatist and militarist agenda, then progressives will look elsewhere.

[Walt Starr]

189. Please read his post

VOTING ANYTHING BUT REPUBLICAN IN UTAH IS MEANINGLESS!!!

VOTING ANYTHING BUT REPUBLICAN IN UTAH IS MEANINGLESS!!!

VOTING ANYTHING BUT REPUBLICAN IN UTAH IS MEANINGLESS!!!

Utah will go to Bush hands down even if every non-Republican voted for the Democrat in lock step. Sean lives in Utah. Voting third party in Utah does nothing to change the outcome of the presidential election.

[corporatewhore]

186. if DK dont get it iamvoting for david cobb (green cannidate)

[Sean Reynolds]

191. Good!

I'm voting socialist, but it's best to vote your heart.

[corporatewhore]

192. I dont think hes gonna be on the ballot in texas there is actually a

strong green basehere in austin and texas so i will help them get macthing funds altough the ISO asked their guys to vote nader last time

[Sean Reynolds]

197. I'm sure he'll be on the ballot here - since it's easy to get a candidate

In Salt Lake City back in 2000 Nader got 10% of the vote, while in the county he got 7% of the vote.

Pretty shocking for such a conservative area.

[corporatewhore]

253. just to clear up i was talking about your guy david cobb is going to be on

the ballet :)

[Forkboy]

194. More power to you Sean

I respect your honesty,and feel much the same way.Living in Ma I could vote third party and not dent the dem total at all,so I'm torn myself.

Your honesty is refreshing.

[lancdem]

198. Since you live in Utah, a state no Dem ever wins

Go right ahead. You won't be costing us the WH. :)

[krkaufman]

215. Not entirely without consequences

Remember that the Republicans were ready to challenge the 2000 election under the expectation that Bush would win the popular vote and Gore the Electoral College.

Don't kid yourselves. Every vote counts -- in every state.

[Walt Starr]

220. They can no longer take that strategy

It would never fly in light of the events of 2000.

[krkaufman]

223. You presume they'd let reality and law stand in their way. n/t

[Walt Starr]

224. They can't take one stance in 200 and a different stance in 2004

Saying it doesn't matter in 2000 precludes any attempt to use the argument in 2004. It simply would not fly.

[krkaufman]

241. Of course, it wouldn't; in a sane world.

But that's not the world in which they live and compete.

[cindyw]

208. That's a shame.

I'm not surprised though.

[Leftist78]

210. Ideals are nice

You can wrap yourself in them and they will insulate you from ever having to question a decision you make, because after all, you're just following your principles. It's very comforting to place yourself above it all that way.

There's only one problem with it. People can't eat ideals. Principle never got anybody a job. There are people out there who don't have the luxury of simply standing on principle because none of the major candidates happen to be their political soul-mates. For them, there is much more at stake than that. Debates about jobs are not just intellectual discussions to them. These people are not just statistics, they are real people who's lives have been deeply affected by Bush and his reckless economic policy.

To the ideological latte-sipping left, the stakes seem much lower. They're more concerned with things like America's international image, and opposition to a war that has already been fought and whose consequences we're going to have to live with regardless of who the president is. They even pay lip service to the concerns of working people, but they lack the sense of urgency that those of us who live it have.

When you see so many people in your own family who were barely making ends meet to begin with lose their jobs, and watch those same families torn apart because of the added stress of these horrible times, and you watch the downward spiral that these people are caught in, you realize that this is about more than ideals. This is about change, and however small that change might be I will welcome it with open arms and do everything I can to make sure that it does come.

The truth is, none of the candidates are going to be the next FDR, but if it means that some of the hopeless eyes I look into will have a little more hope, I'm willing to do whatever it takes to make sure then next president is a Democrat. That may not mean much to you, and I know all the rhetoric about how so-and-so is Bush-lite, but in November their will only be two viable choices, and as far as I'm concerned anyone who abstains from voting for the Democrat for ideological reasons will be turning their backs on the millions of Americans who have something real to lose in this election.

I'm in a solid red state just like you, but unlike you, I believe my choice means something more than just electing a president. For me, it's also a statement of solidarity with all the people who have lost hope in these last few years. I'm sending a message to them that they are not alone. I'm letting them know that there are still people who really care about what happens to them, and that I am fighting to make sure that all of our voices are heard even if it means compromising to get them heard.

[bushwakker]

216. Vote Communist

Frankly I can't understand why someone would have a hammer $ sickle avatar on their posts.

[Walt Starr]

217. Maybe the hammer and sickle is because

Sean IS A COMMUNIST GASP!

Sean has been 100% open about being a member of the CPUSA since his first day posting at DU which was several years ago.

That's just an FYI.

[bushwakker]

233. Why would a Communist support Howard Dean?

[Walt Starr]

237. Sean explained that in a previous post

Maybe you should read why from Sean.

[Name removed]

239. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynneSin]

218. Don't even THINK of calling yourself a Dean supporter

A Dean supporter would support his decision now that he has gotten out of the presidental race. I've supported Dean for close to a year and his decision was to support drop out of the race and support the nominee.

Obviously you have little respect for Dean to go 3rd party like this.

Don't use Howard Dean as your excuse for 3rd party

[Sean Reynolds]

222. Don't say I'm not a Dean supporter.

I won't respect Dean's wishes on this one and I'm not using Dean as an excuse to vote 3rd Party. If Dean supporters WANT to support the nominee, GOOD FOR THEM. I won't.

[MoonRiver]

221. Do what you want to do, and live with the consequences.

Male or female, if you're between the ages of 18 and 26, and * gets another 4, prepare yourself to be drafted and used as cannon fodder for the neocon empire.

[bluestateguy]

227. Since you are in Utah, I won't yell at you

A soiled towel could be elected as a Republican in Utah, so I'm not particularly concerned about your third party journey.

[Langis]

228. Bush appreciates your ½ vote

Thank you very much!

[Walt Starr]

229. How many times must it be said?

It is not a half vote for Bush when the state will go to Bush no matter if every non-Republican in the state joined hands and voted for whatever person had the (D) after their name and got maybe a third of the Republicans to join them too.

Even under those idealic conditions, Bush would still carry Utah.

[matcom]

230. not necessarily correct at all

lived there for 5 years.

SLC is moving Dem (has been)

it IS possible that someday (maybe even this november) there are enough repukes pissed off enough to NO VOTE (most likely scenario)

EVERY dem vote is needed

EVERY GODDAMNED ONE!!!!!!!!!

:puke:

[Langis]

232. Why vote at all then?

I guess your vote doesn't count does it? Everyone should just stay home in november, right?

[thermodynamic]

231. Don't blame the Greens folks, it's blame the NBD folk this time around...

I've seen other DUers get banned or warnings for less than this... :eyes:

Tell me, Sean Reynolds, and in utter seriousness, how is Kerry worse than Bush?

[arewethereyet]

236. thats the spirit !

time you learned about compromize my young friend.

[TakebackAmerica]

238. 2 questions

Are you in Jim Matheson's district?

If so, pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee vote for him.

We DESPERATELY need that seat.

My last question is, would you vote Democratic if you were in a swing state?
BTW,I respect your decision.

[Sean Reynolds]

244. I sent you a private message, check your box.

[SinkingInTheRain]

243. Thanks Sean. Let's get Kucinich and Dean elected and reject the norm

I am on a mission to get Kucinich and Dean together to take back the democratic wing of the democrats. I have offered each 2000 bucks to get the ball rolling and hope many more here will do the same.

[Sean Reynolds]

245. I like that idea. A Kucinich/Dean ticket!

[mlawson]

246. At least you get to vote at 19; WE couldn't in 1968.

I would have given anything for the privilege of voting in that election, but it was unconstitutional back then (I was 18). What if I could have voted (against Nixon), but I had said, "Bobby's dead, and McCarthy isn't on the ticket, and Humphrey did this and that, so I CAN'T vote for him, either. I want Nixon to lose more than anything, but I won't vote for the only person who can defeat him!"

College students were far less tactful back then, and EVERYone was political; I would have gotten more than eyerolls for that one.

Remember, there is no perfect candidate; we choose among what we get. It's just the way it is. My first vote was for george McGovern, and I am imensely proud of that. Please don't deny yourself the memory of voting for the Dem who ridded the world of GWB...

[fujiyama]

249. Since you live Utah...

I'm not going to flip out at ya ;-)

But I would urge (actually BEG) others living in swing states to vote for the democratic nominee in Nov.

[Name removed]

250. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tinoire]

251. Sean. I love you and admire you but PLEASE

please remember these guys



They need to come home. Please.

Bring our kids home
http://www.bringthetroopshomenow.com

(Thanks Mari333)

===

REP. KUCINICH: Dr. Hamza, I have a map of the region here. It's Iraq, and it's up on the screen. Can you tell this committee where Iraq's nuclear sites currently are located?

MR. HAMZA: Actually, that's -- Congressman, that's not the point right now. The point is --

REP. KUCINICH: So you cannot tell where the sites are?

MR. HAMZA: Nobody can actually.

REP. KUCINICH: Okay.

MR. HAMZA: Because the sites are now mostly underground, according al-Haideri, who defected recently and built some of those sites. The sites --

REP. KUCINICH: You say they're underground. Do you know where they are underground?

MR. HAMZA: They are all over the country. They are within civilian infrastructure and government infrastructure.

REP. KUCINICH: So you're saying there are nuclear sites all over the country?

MR. HAMZA: Yes.

REP. KUCINICH: Underground?

MR. HAMZA: Underground.

REP. KUCINICH: But no one knows where they are?

MR. HAMZA: Nobody knows. Some are above ground, some underground, some in civilian infrastructure. Nobody -- that's why inspection is problematic right now.

REP. KUCINICH: You know, I'm certainly in agreement with members of this committee who favor inspections. But I'm just trying to establish -- the witness says that there are nuclear sites, they're underground and no one knows where they are. So --

MR. HAMZA: Not necessarily underground. I said some may be underground, some above ground.

REP. KUCINICH: Do you know where the ones above ground are? Can you tell us?

MR. HAMZA: They are no longer where they were. Nobody knows outside Iraq right now exactly where the sites are located. They are spread, fragmented and hidden.

REP. KUCINICH: Well, when --

MR. HAMZA: That would be an easy job if somebody knows and can tell you right away and you just go there.

REP. KUCINICH: Well, linguistic construction is a marvelous science and when we say that there are sites above ground, that is a flat declarative sentence and it implies that we know where the sites are.

MR. HAMZA: No, I said they could be. I said nobody knows. They could be above ground, they could be underground. A recent defector told us he built 20 underground, but that doesn't mean that these sites are all there is. So nobody knows.

REP. KUCINICH: Okay. They could be underground, they could be above ground, nobody knows?

MR. HAMZA: Correct.

REP. KUCINICH: They could exist, they may not exist. Nobody knows and that's why we're talking about inspections. Now, what's the -- because as a member of Congress my concern is that we have proof. Proof is proof. I think the Canadian prime minister said that in a couple of different languages. And so I'm interested if the witness has any proof as to where they are underground, or where they are above ground; not that there may be weapons above ground or underground.
Now, can you tell us, Dr. Hamza, what's the current status of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program? And in your answer, not only information about fissile material everyone speaks of, but also its tamper materials, electrical materials, explosive materials, arming systems and the equipment to process these into a weapon.

MR. HAMZA: What you have in the nuclear weapon program, since already I said there is not a single defector that came out of Iraq from the core of the program. That goes for all weapons of mass destruction, since 1995. So what you have now is what you had before the Gulf War: circumstantial evidence. Purchase of equipment, some second or third tier defectors who tell us some -- like al-Haideri, the civil engineer. Lots of indicators, including equipment purchases, intercepted purchases, activity of certain groups. So what we have is what you have always in a nuclear weapon. The Indian test in 1974 -- there were no proof and everybody was talking about circumstantial evidence.

REP. KUCINICH: Well, let me ask you this. What kind of a weapon is Iraq trying to build: a Hiroshima bomb, you know, a gun-type uranium device? Or a Nagasaki bomb, or a plutonium implosion device, a thermonuclear bomb, a radiological bomb, or all of the above?

MR. HAMZA: It's both nuclear and radiological. We already tested. That's been explained by the inspectors who already were there. Iraq tested the radiological bomb in 1988, but tested it in the desert, not in a building or an environment where --

REP. KUCINICH: What year was that, sir?

MR. HAMZA: 1988. And that was --

REP. KUCINICH: And does it have that same facility now? Does it have that same --

MR. HAMZA: No, no. It was one test -- one major test and one small test, and the tests were non-conclusive. I'm not saying it was an effective weapon at the time. It was tested in the desert, it was tested as a weapon of war and it proved to be not as effective as it should be. But as a weapon of terror, it's another story. Now, as for nuclear weapons, Iraq -- inspectors found that out also. They have documents and everything was revealed, you don't just have to take just my word for it. Iraq was working, and is working I believe, on making an implosion device of the Hiroshima type or size. And --

REP. KUCINICH: When was that?

MR. HAMZA: It was when I was there and it continued, I believe.

REP. KUCINICH: Did you work on that?

MR. HAMZA: Yes. I worked on the design.

REP. KUCINICH: And when were you there?

MR. HAMZA: Yes.

REP. KUCINICH: When?

MR. HAMZA: I was till 1994.

REP. KUCINICH: And you were working on that at 1994, and when is the last --

MR. HAMZA: No, 90 --

REP. KUCINICH: When is the last time you were working on that?

MR. HAMZA: I worked on it last time before the Gulf War. But I believe, according to the people I also saw, work continued till 1994.

REP. KUCINICH: Was this a facility that inspectors later on saw?

MR. HAMZA: Yes. It is in El Ethir (ph) facility. Inspectors were there, they destroyed the facility and destroyed some of the equipment. They had what is called then -- was declared to be a smoking gun, which was a design -- a workable design for a nuclear weapon. And so the knowledge base is there. The research done is more or less complete. What is needed is just the fissile material.

REP. KUCINICH: To your knowledge, were there ever any United States companies that provided Iraq with materials or with equipment that was used in any nuclear weapons?

MR. HAMZA: There were attempts. No, not major pieces of equipment.

REP. KUCINICH: Anything -- for example?

MR. HAMZA: I don't know of any that the U.S. itself -- but the Germans did supply us with some of the equipment we used to test and develop the nuclear weapon.

REP. KUCINICH: What was provided?

MR. HAMZA: By the U.S. government -- by the U.S. sources?

REP. KUCINICH: By the German government, you were saying.

MR. HAMZA: By German and other sources, we had Japanese sources, we had fast cameras that --

REP. KUCINICH: When was that?

MR. HAMZA: That was in '89/90.

REP. KUCINICH: That was a time that, Mr. Chairman, I'll be presenting some documents to this committee that will show that according to information provided through --

MR. HAMZA: I was not here. I don't know.

REP. KUCINICH: -- the State Department that there was United States companies involved in sending over certain materials to Iraq to assist them in the development of this program. Now we know they were destroyed. And I would take it, based on your testimony, that you're willing to agree that even the programs that you worked on were destroyed. Nevertheless, I think it's valuable to have you here to talk about what it was like before they were destroyed.
The only other thing I want to do, Mr. Chairman, is to -- just for the purposes -- when we began this, I have some of Mr. Hamza's statements that are verbatim transcripts of CNN on October 22, 2001, that establish his position on some of these issues that have come up here. I want to tell Mr. Hamza I'm glad you came before this committee. But at the same time, I think it's very important that none of your experience -- which is valid, it's your experience -- be interpreted by the media today as being proof of the current existence in Iraq of useable weapons of mass destruction, of the ability to deliver those weapons. You know, that's my concern.
I'm not going to discount your proof when you worked for Iraq's weapons program. I'm sure that what you know about that program is marvelous. But I'm equally sure, based on the intelligence that I've heard from my country's intelligence agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, that Iraq does not currently have useable weapons of mass destruction. And that's what I have to go on. So I appreciate your --

MR. HAMZA: You mean nuclear or otherwise?

REP. KUCINICH: I'm -- Dr. Hamza, please. I'm saying that I'm taking my position based on information I received from our Central Intelligence Agency. So thank you for being here, and I'm going to ask the chair if he'd be so kind as to include in the record these statements from CNN, as well as an article where -- we always have to be cautious in these hearings about information that's brought forward in a climate which is potentially inflammatory, because a few years ago Congress was presented with information about the Iraqi government being involved in troops storming hospitals, stealing incubators and leaving babies to die on the floor. It turned out that incident, which was brought to inflame the American public, was not true.
I'd like to submit that into the record too. These hearings are always very interesting. I want to thank the chair.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hgrc-092402.htm

[Sean Reynolds]

263. Notice I never said Kucinich above.

If Kucinich wins the nomination, I'll vote Democratic. If he does not, I won't.

[Tinoire]

273. Thanks Sean. Thanks n/t

[shivaji]

256. Only reason democrats are going 3rd party is.....................

the current powers to be are increasingly assuming the
avatar of republicans. Pure and simple. Blame the DLC
for the frustrations of the progressives.

The progressives are sick and tired of blindly voting for
whoever the DLC pushes on them.

[Freddie Stubbs]

280. How about voting for who the primary voters 'push on you?'

As much as you may not like it, the guy who gets the most votes is going to be the nominee.

[mikehiggins]

260. Whoops! Sorry! Almost missed my chance to pile on Sean!

Yadda yadda yadda! ABB RULES!!! yammer, yammer, yammer, and so on.

Its your vote pal. Lots of people died so you could cast it, and that you could cast it the way YOU believed you should.

So if you want to vote for Howard the Duck or Howard the Dean, it's your right to do so.

Vote Green, or Socialist Labor, or Patriot or Independence Party or whatever. Its your right.

[David Zephyr]

262. I Hope John Kerry Supporters Are Reading This.

John Kerry must address the Patriot Act and the IWR honestly and quickly...or the vote that many here think that the Greens and Nader siphoned from Gore will be pale in comparison to those on the Left who will be voting Green or Socialist in November...or just staying home.

Or...is someone like Sean Reynolds just someone to be dismissed?

I certainly hope not.

Thanks, Sean for your heartfelt words.

[Sean Reynolds]

264. You're welcome.

As you've read, I'm just some punk kid that doesn't know shit from chocolate.

[Endangered Specie]

265. Well as a recent Kerry supporter...

Yes I have a problem with some of kerrys past and positions, but that is just life, you cant have it all.

There is nothing that can be done if Kerry wins the nom it will be Kerry v Bush. 3rd party candidates will NOT win.

People voting 3rd or not need to swallow there personal pride and help the greater good, which is evicting W from the WH. Kerry may not be the best idealogically, but this election is about getting rid of one of the worst presidents in modern times, before he causes real damage (relative to what hes done up to this point, another 4 years would be far worse).

No good for the country will come of you voting third.

Edit: some English checking

[Sean Reynolds]

266. Are you hearing yourself?

People should swallow their pride? Doesn't that go against EVERY THING this country was built upon? I shouldn't have to concede my values JUST because people want me to support their candidate. I'm sorry, but my vote is personal to me. I WANT it to mean something. I don't want to conform to the DNC just on the off chance my vote might send President Bush packing.

You don't seem to get it. I'M FROM UTAH. I live in a state that hasn't voted Democratic in a presidential election since '64. THAT IS 40 years my friend.

[Endangered Specie]

267. Considering how bad Bush has been as president...

Now is less a time to be worrying about moving fowards greatly as it is to keep us from moving backwards at warp speed. Sometimes, especially during bad times, one has to just bit the bullet.

But I guess in Utah, your Dem vote wont count much anyhow...

Id suggest we start a switch voting system where people in swing states will vote Dem in exchange for a person in a heavy Repo state voting 3rd.

[Sean Reynolds]

269. We'll continue to move backwards if we continue to nominate DLC candidates

[JVS]

284. If we don't move forward at all, eventually they'll win and move us back..

more. You need to move forward to get some momentum

[JVS]

282. Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers sucked it up and paid tax!

Nah, doesn't quite work.

[Atlant]

279. John Kerry *CAN'T* address his PATRIOT Act and IWR votes honestly.

> John Kerry must address the Patriot Act and the IWR honestly and
> quickly...or the vote that many here think that the Greens and Nader
> siphoned from Gore will be pale in comparison to those on the Left
> who will be voting Green or Socialist in November...or just staying home.

John Kerry *CAN'T* address his PATRIOT Act and IWR votes honestly,
because the honest truth is that he, ultimately, voted in favor of
both of those things and against the politics he's now going to
campaign upon.

So he's stuck between the rock of what he actually did and the hard
place that these were both opposed by major swaths of his supposed
constituency. He'll end up alienating us or lying about his actions;
there's no other choice open to him.

Atlant

[Woodstock]

271. ABB = the Democratic nominee

ABD = Bush

(ABD = Anybody but Democrat)

If you vote for anyone but the Democrat, you are voting for Bush. Spin it however you like, but the result is the same.

I think you are throwing everything Dean worked for by voting third party. If you admire Dean so much, why not listen to him, and respect his learned advice? He's not voting third party.

[Walt Starr]

277. Only voting for Bush is voting for Bush

Voting for Anybody who is not Bush is not voting for Bush no matter how much some people want to spin it that way.

There is only one way to vote for Bush. You actually cast your ballot for him. Nothing else is voting for Bush.

[oc2002]

274. Right on Sean!

The whole primary process has turned alot of new people "OFF" from voting Democrat.

The process is unfair, unbalanced and very FOX like in selecting a front runner in a cooky caucuses process by a minority that set the tempo of the race. Then the media start in, as who is most 'electable' and the issues and the record goes rightout the window lost in a torent of media hype and trash talking by pundits.

Sean is right to do what his guts tell him. I too may tune out, drop out and ignor this election totaly as a choice between Republican and Republican Lite is no choice at all.

Unless Kerry starts talking the talk, and walking the walk, he aint no better than what we got.

[Iverson]

275. been denounced enough yet, Sean?

Denunciation is supposed to persuade you, you know.

[Atlant]

278. I know it's persuaded me. Hell will freeze over before I'll vote for JFK.

> Denunciation is supposed to persuade you, you know.

I know it's persuaded me. Hell will freeze over before
I'll vote for JFK.

(Do you suppose that was the desired outcome of the pursuasion? :) )

Atlant

[Iverson]

281. desired outcomes

To answer your question:

The main desired outcome is mute and uncritical acceptance of the candidate you're ordered to vote for.

The secret hope is that the denounced subject will reappear on his knees, tearfully avowing that he was wrong and that the DLC and their ilk were right, and also kind, good, smart, and wise.

That doesn't happen too often, so Operation Enduring Denunciation generally just goes for mute acceptance.