Now that democrats have agreed to inherit the war,

[mmonk]

this should make for even more interesting presidential debates and the possibility of growing division within the party. If you disagree with this statement, state your reasons why.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maggie_May]

5. I am one fleeing the party!

If the Dems do not vote to cut off funding guess what I guys I am leaving it. I want no blood on my hands I am not going to vote for a candidate that votes to fund this war. If I do I am no better than Bush. I have been a party member for a long time and its very hard for me to say this.

[brentspeak]

6. Are your comments supposed to, like, get other people to leave the party?

Like viral marketing?

[Maggie_May]

11. No not at all I would never do that

Its just how I feel.

[The Stranger]

15. The Democratic leadership are the ones that have left the party and its base.

They have betrayed not only the Constitution and the law, but their own base.

[polichick]

18. Some here seem most concerned about the leadership...

...but there is no party without the base ~ and, you're right, the base has been betrayed. Guess they're counting on us having nowhere else to go.

[polichick]

9. Seems it's those of us who have been in the trenches the longest...

....who really get what a sad situation this is. If someone with a large following stepped forward and presented a truly revolutionary platform, it's possible people would flee both parties. Then we might get America back.

[cali]

10. Good for you

I'm not leaving the party, and I don't appreciate the insinuation that if I don't I have blood on my hands. I vote for anti-war reps. I protest the war, and being a member of the dem party does not make one guilty.

[Maggie_May]

12. This is what I wrote

I want no blood on my hands I am not going to vote for a candidate that votes to fund this war.
Which means I will not vote for a democrat that votes to fund this war. I just can't do it thats how strongly I feel about this. I always voted straight ticket and believe me been voting a very long time this way.

[mmonk]

13. Me too (voted straight party ticket leaving no dem out).

But if you vote for someone who doesn't support your interests or view, you get someone who doesn't support your interest or view. On right and wrong and truth and real morality, a blanket ticket might not be best for everyone.

[cali]

19. I apologize

I read your post completely wrong.

[Maggie_May]

23. I guess I am just

so upset to see what people are dieing for. Just like Bush said last night to protect our interests and then it hit me. OMG we are letting this happen over oil.

[againes654]

2. Actually

I think you are probably right. The growing division amongst our party is making me a little uneasy. I am still not sure the 08 election is a lock. I didn't think there was anyway in hell this country would sign up for another 4 years of bushco in '04, but they did.

[mmonk]

8. Makes me uneasy too.

[shain from kane]

3. Button, Button, Who's Got the Nuclear Button? Tag, you're IT. Schoolyard bully just unloaded a lot

of his problems. Of course, his father did the same thing with Somalia.

[mmonk]

7. They have a bad habit of leaving a mess.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Just sent a letter to my rep (Brian Baird) that I'll be voting for an anti-war candidtate.

Which he has ceased to be.

[The Stranger]

16. The "Democrats" who have effectively left to join the War Party no longer represent Democrats.

It is their own doing.

[uppityperson]

17. I agree with your statement.

It will make things more interesting. I wonder when the 2 Dominant parties (Repubs and Dems) will have major changes within them.

And for the poster who has posted in this topic attacking anyone stating something like this and claiming they are trying to split the party, advocate for 3rd party, etc, pshaw. Noticing something or pointing out something isn't advocating.

[mmonk]

20. Thank you.

In the poster's defense, I think they were attacking anyone who was mentioning leaving. However, disenchantment eventually leads to that for many and its a fact of life. I always say stand with truth and defend your position because eventually, you will be borne out.

[ljm2002]

21. It's an important point...

...I hope they have not agreed to inherit it, but fear that you are right.

What I wonder, when they are making their political calculations, are they really giving due weight to the downside of inheriting this war? It needs to end while Bush is in office, and he'll fight to the end but who cares, no one believes a word out of his mouth these days, even the pathetic media pundits are turning on him one by one. But if they let it lag on, even if we get a Democratic president, then that president is saddled with the same conundrums we see today, but they will only have worsened. Any lengthening of such a conflict can only get worse -- there is more senseless bloodshed, which is never a good thing.

So we need to take this bull by the horns and wrestle it to the ground, now. The sooner we do it, take real steps to end the war, the more take-charge we are about it, that can only work to our advantage as a party. Those in the party who hold this position should start staking it out right now, loud and clear -- and the hell with the naysayers inside and outside of the party. This is a moral issue, and righteousness is not contingent on convenience. I'd say that the candidate who can harness the strong revulsion out there to current policies on Iraq, can get a real push up the ladder.

[warren pease]

22. Why leave the party when...

...an actual Democrat is running for president? He's inherited nothing from BushCo, he's clean of corporate money and therefore corporate domination, he's for public financing of campaigns, he's adamantly against the Iraq occupation and would end it immediately, he would stop the saber-rattling over Iran now, he believes in diplomacy rather than bloodshed, he's the only one talking about universal-access, single-payer health care (as the rest blather on about universal coverage or expanded insurance), he's the only one advocating ending the war on (some) drugs, he wants to make it simple for labor to organize, he's the only one who would repeal the patriot and military commissions acts, and restore habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, he's the only one who acknowledges the obvious: that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen and has introduced paper-ballot-only legislation to prevent a repeat in 2008 and beyond, the only one who wants to deal with media consolidation by repealing the 1996 telecom act and using anti-trust laws to break up media monopolies, has a workable proposal for reviving the US public educational system...

Is there anything in there that doesn't make sense? Is there anything on that list that would alienate you or make you want to leave the party? We're told by our media masters that he can't win? Well, he certainly can't if all the people who espouse his values believe that phony meme and won't vote for him because he's "unelectable." Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, eh?

Although it's hard to recognize these days, this is what a real Democrat looks like, dating from back when the party actually stood for something besides cowering from the GOP and playing suck-up for more corporate money. These core principles and values are why I'm still a member of the Democratic party, despite my disgust for the current party leadership and most of the self-anointed presidential candidates.

I don't actually have to write in his name here, do I?


wp