this reminds me of fall 2002

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

when everyone here was up in arms over the senate voting fot the iraq war (and despite all the mincing of words, they knew dam well what it was for-just as they knew that voting against the filibuster was, in effect, voting for alito)

everyone said they'd never support any of those dems for anything ever again.

yet, when the party elite decided to derail howard dean's insurgent candidacy by focusing on his supposed 'gaffes' and foisted the pro-war kerry on us, most of these offended types fell into line really fast and began attacking those who held onto their memories of the IWR vote. the same was true when kerry chose anther pro-war dem, john edwards for his vice-president.

typical comments of the time were 'oh, so you're going to complain about kerry because he voted a certain way one time.'

so will everyone stick with theiroutrage when one of the alitocrats decides to run in '08 or when one is selected for v-p? or will it simply fall back to the the time tested rebuttal of 'what are you going to do, vote for a republican?'

i don't mean to sound like aknow-it-all ass or to say 'i told you so' but i get a tad frustrated with blind party loyalty when our side sells us out and keeps getting away it

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. Apples and oranges

Bush could be impeached for VIOLATING the IWR. Had he followed the IWR, we would not be in Iraq today. That is a FACT.

The Alito vote, on the other hand, was straightforward.

Please stop spreading the myth the the DLC took Dean out with Kerry. The DLC hates Kerry, as the events of yesterday should have evidenced.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

3. i don't think they were so much pro-kerry as they were anti-dean

kerry happnend to be the one they considered most acceptable to use.

the establishment was so weak in supporting him in the general election, that it's obvious that they had no intention of him winning.

i really do thinkthere's something to the theory that he was the scarificial lamb for hillary to run in '08

(and yes, i know she voted against alito for real, but too little too late. she's still a dlc hack)

[WildEyedLiberal]

9. I don't think they used Kerry or anyone in 2004

But I think you're onto something with the "sacrificial lamb" theory. The party's support of Kerry was weak as hell. None of the 2004 candidates supported the DLC Clintonista agenda, except Holy Joe, who was never going to win. Look at Carville and Begala - the most eminent of the DLC Clintonista pundits - and the lackluster support they gave Kerry in 2004, culminating with their recently released strategy book excoriating liberals such as Kerry and Dean and suggesting that we need another moderate - ie Hillary - to win in 2008.

Hillary only jumped on board with the filibuster because she KNEW her 08 chances would be dead in the water if she didn't. She sure didn't bother to hold any press conferences or speeches against Alito like Kerry and Kennedy did.

[EST]

5. Hey, Wild-

I'm confused. How is it that the DLC hates Kerry? My impression was that he was the DLC anointed candidate. Have I been asleep again?

[WildEyedLiberal]

7. LOL

LOL

You missed out on Joe Lieberman's candidacy? You missed the DLC mouthpiece, The New Republic, and their endorsement of Joe and his wholehearted support of the Iraq War? More importantly, you missed The New Republic's complete HATRED of John Kerry? You missed Al From, DLC guru, dismissing Kerry as a Massachusetts liberal and leaving him off the list of DLC 2008 hopefuls, which include Clinton and Warner?

You DID miss a lot!

[samhsarah]

2. Where any of the evil 19 of yesterday are concerned...

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/multimedia/foolbush.mov

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

[blm]

4. IWR had guidelines Bush violated. Alito gives Bush a REAL blank check

for a full fascist agenda.

[endarkenment]

6. A lot of us supported Dean and then we supported Kerry.

I did. I shut the fuck up about Kerry's vote and war stance and worked my ass of for his election. Afterwards I did mention a few times that he didn't run the best campaign and that I found his stand(s) on the war confusing to say the least.

I didn't forget. I walked in with my eyes wide open. I made the calculated decision that Kerry would be far better than Bush. I don't live in a state with competitive Senate races (usually) but if I did and I was faced with a DINOTraitor vs a Rethuglicon I don't know what I would do. Its a tough choice. I suppose the right thing is to run a good challenger in the primary and then vote with nose held in the election. Oh well...

[seabeyond]

8. see, i just dont see iwr or the voting no to alito yes to filibuster=

yes to alito. i dont buy it. now how i see it. i dont buy iwr voting for war.

i can respect how you get your brain to it...... but.....

i dont see it like you do. you can tell me all you want iwr was ok'ing bush to go to war,.... i can read the document and say, no... that isnt what it says.

[WildEyedLiberal]

10. Again, IWR could be used to impeach Bush

IWR should be used as the document to impeach Bush - it was a treaty that Bush signed and subsequently broke. He is the only man culpable for the war, he and his administration cronies.

The DLC wing sold out Kerry in 2004 and they're trying to sell him and the progressive wing of the Democrats out now, with Alito. Let's keep in mind who the real fighters are and who the agents are who consistenly undermine those fighters.

[seabeyond]

11. this is how i see it. i see i can be there, read that document and see

how in voting it it hampers bush from going to war. he has this this this to follow. he broke that. it has never made sense to me to dismiss this, written document, clear words to attack dems, when i see it as something to SO pin on bush. again a rove spin that dems bought got bush off the hooked and took down dems