I see outrage here every day over our state. Deep down, I blame those who refused to vote for Kerry

[bigtree]

. . . refused to vote for Gore; whether the holdouts were Democrat or republican.

There's no way that either man, as president, would have us in the state we're in. But I remember all of the rhetoric and attacks from folks who thought these two weren't good enough to vote for and probably didn't vote for them -- from folks who claimed to be opposed to all of the evil and destructive prospects of a Bush presidency.

Of course the overwhelming blame is on those who insist on perpetuating the republicans into power by voting for them. But I have to be honest about the anger I feel towards those who claimed to oppose the Bushes who refused to help our Democratic nominees with their vote in the general election. I haven't gotten over the lengths that some who claimed to oppose the Bushes went to tear our candidates down when they needed our support.

Some referred to that refusal to support our nominee as a 'courage of conviction.' I look at the result of that refusal to help advance our nominee into office, effectively allowing the republican party to assume power, as a betrayal of those convictions. Maybe not on the scale as those who deliberately enable the republicans into power, but still a betrayal of those convictions they claimed to hold.

There would be no difference between the two parties in the presidency, they claimed . . .

[madfloridian]

1. Most of stayed "on board", "fell in line"...only to be condemned by the Senate

So what can I say?

[madfloridian]

6. Oh, and by Kerry also.

He highly disapproved of the ad.

[patrice]

10. That's a mischaracterization. nt

[madfloridian]

13. People can read his statement for themselves.

It's in the JK forum.

It is ok to condemn your own, but not criticize military and not condemn the very ones who attacked him.

[patrice]

21. Here's the video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1289424007066445807&q=MoveOn+John+Kerry&total=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

He said it was "over the top" which it WAS and that's **WHY** I and millions of others support it. Other than that he said it was "inappropriate". BFD. He's entitled to his opinions and he didn't criticize us for supporting what MoveOn did.

[karynnj]

41. Read it again MF

He voted for Boxer and against Cornyn. He does explicitly condemn those who attacked Cleland, Murtha, Shinshecki, McCain and himself. He did not condemn Move on, he did criticize that part of the ad. You can disagree, but he is consistent and he has the moral high ground.

We should not accept in ourselves things we condemn in others.

[rox63]

36. He also voted against the Senate condemnation amendment

And told them to all get back to the serious work the Senate should be doing.

[karynnj]

37. Kerry condemned the insulting Betrayus comment only

He praised Move on for the grassroots work they did - his comment was very balanced.

I doubt a single JK group person was surprised that he criticized the attack focussing on Petraeus - as he said in an Ed Shultz interview comment on McCain blaming Casey, Not Bush - Generals do not have their own war policies. Also, his comment was 100% consistent with his record - he always has defended - whether the victim is on his side or against him.

Here's what he had to say on the Cornyn amendment - this is part of a long Senate speech on Iraq.

"Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today we saw the floor of the Senate hijacked for purely partisan political purposes at a time when we need the U.S. Senate to instead come together for the purpose of protecting our national security and changing a policy in Iraq that is not working.

What happened in the Senate today is partisan, political and demeaning of this institution. The Republican minority is desperate to distract the Senate and our country from the real issue at hand, which is a failed escalation and an administration policy in Iraq that is every day costing American blood and treasure. The same Senators who have gone along with the President's Iraq policy every step of the way, who have expressed not a shred of outrage about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, predictions of a ``cakewalk,'' ``mission accomplished,'' or ``an insurgency, its last throes'' will now say and do anything to avoid talking about what is really happening in Iraq. They would rather express outrage about a newspaper ad run by an independent entity, than express outrage about a policy pursued by their party and their administration. And certainly they don't want to address the outrage of more Americans dying for a policy we know is not working.

The Senate did not need to spend hours today on this debate. Nine days ago, the first time I was asked about the ad which the Senator from Texas loves to talk about, I said it was ``over the top'' and ``inappropriate, period.'' I said that, as a veteran, I thought it was wrong to characterize any member of the military in the way General Petraeus was characterized in that advertisement. I have nothing but respect for General Petraeus. I wasn't alone in that feeling. Senator Reid spoke out. Senator Biden spoke out. There was no question about where Democrats stood. And we ratified that opinion in a broad condemnation of that behavior--including the Petraeus ad--in the Boxer amendment.

But I also asked that we all recognize that the emotion behind that ad is an emotion shared by the American people: frustration--frustration as we head into the 5th year of being told one thing about Iraq and finding out another. That is why we should be having a real debate and a real discussion about the policy in Iraq rather than trying to score partisan points over the politics of Iraq. It is as insulting as it is illuminating that in a week-long debate in which each side can offer just five amendments, the Republicans would waste one of their chances to change a broken policy by choosing instead to embrace a political stunt.

We are where we are. I vehemently oppose the kind of political abuse of the Senate embodied in the Cornyn amendment, and I am saddened if not surprised to see that so many of the Republicans who believe that what happened to General Petraeus was wrong, could not bring themselves to vote for the Boxer amendment which made clear that the assault on Senator Cleland's patriotism in 2002 was wrong, and that the lies broadcast about my own military record in 2004 were also wrong. The votes against the Boxer amendment--an amendment which makes clear our disagreement with the ad which ran September 10--speak volumes about the partisan motivations behind the Cornyn amendment, and the fact that, apparently, many of our colleagues believe that attacking the integrity of veterans and members of the military is fair game as long as they are Democrats. I would remind them that when you sign up for military duty, no one asks whether you are a Democrat or Republican, liberal, or conservative.

Over the last years, I have defended veterans who have been under assault from any quarters, left or right. I spoke out in 2000 when JOHN MCCAIN's integrity and military record was questioned by the Bush campaign in South Carolina. I spoke out when Max Cleland's patriotism was savaged by people who had never worn the uniform. I defended Jack Murtha when vicious partisans on the right called that decorated marine a ``coward.'' I spoke out when the Bush administration questioned the patriotism of career military men and Generals throughout the war in Iraq, whether it was General Shinseki, or many in uniform who spoke out against Secretary Rumsfeld. I don't reserve my defense of patriotism for Democrats, I defend all who have worn the uniform, whether they agree with me or not. I wish I could say the same for those who brought forward the Cornyn amendment and voted against the Boxer amendment.

This was not a proud day in the Senate, or a high mark in our politics; rather, it was hours lost and time wasted when the Senate should have delivered what all the men and women of the armed forces truly deserve: a policy equal to their sacrifice."

[madfloridian]

51. They were not insulting.

That's just it. They really read like this.

Betray us?

And all hell broke loose and they did not have to talk too much about Iraq and all the dying.

[karynnj]

61. That is what Kerry is saying

that the Senate SHOULD be working on Iraq, and they wasted a day on Cornyn's amendment. Do you have a problem with the Boxer amendment? That is what Kerry voted yes on, he voted No on Cornyn.

Calling the General General Betrayus is insulting and it was intended to be.

[Bjornsdotter]

2. .....

:popcorn:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. :@)

[Bjornsdotter]

8. I love it!

:toast:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

39. Salute'

:toast:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. Flip Flop, Jib Jab and Swiftboats, oh my.

MKJ

[WilliamPitt]

5. Most of DU did vote Kerry, I have to believe.

With varying levels of disgust, to be sure, but they pulled the handle just the same.

That's a large reason for the lingering rage and spite aimed his way. DUers cast a vote for a pro-IWR/pro-PATRIOT Act candidate, even though it twisted their geuts and was a betrayal of their core integrity. They did it...and he folded the tents in Ohio after promising to count every vote...and before the vote-watcher sentinels even got off the bus to report what they saw.

DU did the hard thing, and a lot of people took a beat-down within and without for their trouble. But they did it. I am mortally certain of it.

[bigtree]

11. yeah, most DU'ers did, I believe

thanks for reminding of that

[Bjornsdotter]

12. That pretty well sums

...up how it was for me. It was the hardest vote I ever cast.

Cheers

[ProSense]

15. "he folded the tents in Ohio after promising to count every vote"

What BS, you're promoting there!

Yeah, the righteous left despises pro-IWR candidates.

It's actually a case of hypocrisy, spin and avoiding facts.

[bigtree]

18. And, I don't know how much more would he could have contributed to that effort

by hanging on. If there was some movement by the time the electoral college voted . . . and even then it would have been subject to a ruling of a solid republican majority . . .

They still haven't resolved those cases, have they?

[MH1]

20. Yep, I guess we should pull out some of Will's other writings

that take a different tone. But why bother?

[MH1]

22. ABSOLUTELY ZERO

"level of disgust" here - quite the opposite, thank you - but then I wasn't a "DUer" then. I am really, really glad that I was out canvassing and calling instead of being on DU. At least Kerry won my county and my state.

Oh btw - before you can have a "betrayal of core integrity", you must first have some integrity.

And every vote in Ohio was counted, and KE04 supported the recounts and the lawsuits...but never mind facts.

[globalvillage]

25. I was proud to vote for John Kerry

and would do it again in a heartbeat. He is, as the late Hunter Thompson described him, "a good man with a brave heart", and would have made an exceptional President.

If Senator Kerry had been supported by the Dem party instead of being trashed by both sides, we'd have won '04 in a landslide.

[karynnj]

43. Voting for Kerry was the easiest vote of my life

I think he would easily have been the best President of the last 40 years.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. I do too. Kerry was hardly my choice, but I voted for him to avoid another round of Nazis.....

Repukes, them I can see voting against Kerry because they are monstrous. I could not see Dems voting against Kerry, but I know for a fact many Dems did, and it's horrible.

[dbt]

9. I voted for Kerry. He gave up in the face of electoral fraud.

What the hell good did voting for him do, exactly?

My son spent 13 dollars for Kerry's book, read it and then voted for Kerry--who gave up. What the hell good did my SON'S vote do, exactly?

How do I convince my own flesh and blood that voting does ONE DAMN BIT OF GOOD? Please use short words and go slow.

[BoneDaddy]

14. Great idea

assign blame in some adolescent hystrionic way.

[bigtree]

16. so, I'm hystronic It's how I feel - especially when I hear someone say they refuse to vote for so&so

if they're the nominee.

Or that there is no difference between the republican candidates and the Democratic ones.

[BoneDaddy]

66. How bout you just deal with reality

like an adult instead of entertaining the "blame game" as a way to feel politically superior.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

17. I voted for Kerry. There was no way in hell I would do otherwise under the circumstances.

I was crushed when he didn't fight the election results. I really REALLY believed he would,...fight, that is. He didn't.

I don't even like looking back at that because so many of us invested so much of ourselves in that election. It's painful to look back.

[BlooInBloo]

19. And, going forward, those who fail to vote for the eventual Democratic nominee next year.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. I held my nose and voted for Kerry.

Hell, I even supported him, until he sold out on the IWR vote with so many of his "anti-war" colleagues.

I have NO problem with voting 3rd Party. I've done so before, the latest being in the 2006 senatorial vote.

In 2008, I'll be voting for the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot. If, any candidate, from any party, wants my vote, he/she has access to it if they convince me that they are, indeed, the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." - Thomas Jefferson

[bigtree]

26. right now is the right time to rally for your alternative party

But the closer we get to the general election, your prospects for the success of that coalition grow as dim as the other candidacies which fail to generate enough support. To hang on to the hope of our party gaining the Executive branch is the same as fighting for every inch of what we want.

There comes a time in the campaign when it's clear that the two parties will get the majority of the votes. That realization would come, even without the polls and pundits. We will know how much support the alternatives will have achieved, and we will know the effect of our vote thereafter. If that support isn't apparent come election day, we will know that a vote for that alternative will not contribute to whatever gains we can achieve by denying the republicans the Executive, and advantaging our party of the elevation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. As I said, my vote is available.

It's up to the candidates to convince the electorate that their votes are valuable and that what they will do is in tune with what the electorate wants. Not the other way around.

I, and my fellow citizens, are the electorate. If the candidates want our votes they have to come to us hat-in-hand and ask for, not demand, our votes.

They want us to hire them for a job. If they can't convince us they are willing to do the job or will even attempt to do the job that we want done, they should look elsewhere for employment.

Having said that, I have little doubt that any Democratic candidate can fail to beat any Republican for the presidency in 2008. With the current level of (well founded) disenchantment with the Republicans, if the Democrats can't win this election, they really ought to disband and make room for a truly progressive alternative.

[EFerrari]

24. Then you need to read up on those elections.

Give me a huge effen' break.

We elected Gore AND Kerry.

If you don't know that, you have some reading to do.

[bigtree]

27. I think that we had record numbers of votes cast for our party nominee * last pres election

but, so did republicans, notwithstanding the outcome.

[EFerrari]

28. No. Our winners were not seated. There's a big pile of evidence.

[bigtree]

29. right, but I think they still surpassed us with overall votes cast

even though the electoral outcome favored Kerry.

[EFerrari]

31. Didn't happen. n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

32. Oh, I have to strongly disagree with that assertion.

I don't have the numbers and stats handy but I certainly remember "THEY" fell way behind us in overall votes cast.

[bigtree]

47. 62,040,610 to our 59,028,111

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2008

[EFerrari]

48. Does wiki have an entry for all the black voters that were ripped off?

And for all the students and all the elderly and all the military votes that were ripped off?

The good news is, we have the votes.

Now all we have to do is make sure they get counted.

[bigtree]

54. I agree that votes should be counted, but my argument doesn't sway from that

We need every vote. Some folks here, and elsewhere, are suggesting that it's a rational opposition to withhold that vote if the nominee doesn't measure up, or if the party doesn't hold some line. I think that's a mistake.

[mike_c]

30. democracy sucks that way....

You realize that you're lamenting the unfortunate circumstance that Americans have the right to choose from among a slate of candidates, I presume. You're condemning those who exercised the birthright that is the hallmark of democracy.

I especially loved this comment: "...the anger I feel towards those who claimed to oppose the Bushes who refused to help our Democratic nominees with their vote...." That comment echoes the usual excuse the democratic party offers liberals in every election I can remember-- "we can't support liberal causes this time around because it's politically risky, but we're not as bad as the republican, so you should hold your nose and vote for us-- maybe we'll try to support some liberal causes in a later election." But they never do. Kerry faced one of the least popular American presidents in living memory, and yet was STILL afraid to support democratic liberals.

Kerry was not the candidate for the left-- certainly not the anti-war left-- and yet MILLIONS of liberals voted for him anyway. Have you considered thanking them rather than complaining about those of us who voted for someone else-- especially in safe states. State Green Parties did not even run a candidate in most battleground states. THEY WILLINGLY DISENFRANCHISED THEMSELVES FOR THE DEMOCRATS. And you still complain.

Cry me a river, bigtree.

[EFerrari]

33. Holy cr#p. We worked for their candidate, he won and now

WE are to blame. That would be, the people who supported the recount when MoveOn went dark and when the DLC was out?

Enough to make you want a new hobby.

[patrice]

53. Hey, yeah! I *did* forget that; MoveOn "went dark" for how long?

Something else that disappointed me back then. Refresh my memory on this please. It would be instructive.

[EFerrari]

56. Weeks. They didn't get on the recount bandwagon

until it was nearly dead.

They were scheduling house parties to set goals for the future while people like Andy were still out in Ohio trying to figure out what happened and while Mr. Conyers was holding hearings in a basement that nobody covered.

I really don't want to diss Eli or Joan or Wes. They made a mistake. People make mistakes.

But, that one was hard to deal with.

[patrice]

59. Yep. That's what happened. And it WAS a disappointment.

I don't expect perfection, just substantial progress, and we're at least 50% responsible for that.

[karynnj]

46. Bush was not one of the least popoular presidents in living memory

unless your memory extends back only to Clinton, who was more popular. His dad was at 33% before the 1992 election, Bush near 50%, Carter was well below 40% as well, Ford was lower too.

Kerry was to the left of Clinton, Gore, and Carter.

[Forkboy]

34. '04 was my last time voting against someone.

I can't vote just to vote against people anymore.I voted for Kerry with a sense of resignation, not hope, because the alternative was Bush.I came out of that booth feeling lousy, and I thought about it for weeks afterwards.I realized that nearly every vote I had cast since I was old enough to vote had been against someone and not for someone.That's not say I didn't like and believe in who I was voting for, just that my motivation was based primarily on them NOT being a Republican.I told myself in late '04 that I was never going to vote that way again.It wasn't Kerry himself because I like him a lot and always have.I would have felt that way over any of them.I was tired of voting against things.

There were jokes around here in '03 and '04 about Bush being so bad that a ham sandwich could beat him.Well, we were wrong, and we need to set the bar a little higher than just being better than the Repubs.We need to stand for things, and do so strongly and passionately.By doing so we'll win over far more votes than we need to win, and we could do so without sucking up the to swing voters who don't share our ideals unless it's convenient for them.

You can be mad and blame whoever you want.I get mad at the SCOTUS for never counting the votes.I get mad at the numerous Dems who voted for Bush.I get mad at people who didn't vote at all.You know what? It doesn't mean fuck all anymore.We need to start being a party that truly stands up for the working people and the poor, for the people against this damn war, for the Constitution while we still have a semblance of one left.And it needs to be done in more than small gestures and half hearted measures and empty threats.We keep looking for reasons not to stand up instead of looking for reasons to stand up.It's hard to get mad at people who aren't inspired by the Dems because the Dems have done practically nothing to inspire anyone for the last seven years.

Times are too messed up and there's a major shitstorm coming down the pike worldwide.We cannot afford to play footsie anymore.I feel I can no longer worry about what others think of my vote, even it's the party I've always supported previously.

[lateo]

35. Sorry you feel that way.

Because when you look at the election of 2004, with all its election fraud, you see that Kerry should have won. But Kerry dropped to his knees quicker than a $20 whore on payday to relinquish the election to Bush. You wanna blame someone look no further than the establishment Democrats that continue to punch us in face.

[bigtree]

50. They probably voted for the Democratic nominee. I think the lawsuits and vote counting went on

despite Kerry and Edward's concession. That concession bears no legal weight at all, I don't think. I don't think any of the dedicated vote-counters in Ohio and elsewhere were able to press their case far enough to release the votes we needed.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

38. Deep down, I blame an apathetic populace that buys in to

Pablum spoon fed to them.

[EFerrari]

40. The mood of the electorate doesn't matter in a post Diebold world.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

42. The mood needs to transform itself

into action. What will it take?

[EFerrari]

52. I think voters will vote. And meanwhile, we need to mind the vote.

Like a baby. We need to protect our elections like jealous parents.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

57. I agree whole-heartedly.

No more stealing. No more dying for false causes.

[EFerrari]

60. I don't know how we're going to do it, but election protection is the job.

It's not sexy like arguing for a candidate. But, imho, that's what we need to do.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

62. There are a few that strive tirelessly towards

achieving election reform - Autorank and BradBlog to name a couple. Our problem is the MSM denies us any tractability. *sigh*

[EFerrari]

64. Maybe both should stop kissing that grifter's butt

and, then they could get somewhere.

Anyone who is waiting for the corporate media at this point, is spinning their wheels..

[patrice]

44. I was then and am now still a Deanocrat, but I worked for and voted for

Kerry. I was disappointed that he wasn't strong in his response to the Swift Boaters (like MoveOn has been with Petreus) and surprised and even more disappointed that, if he didn't quit the fight in Ohion, he also didn't give us any sign of what he WAS doing about it, or at least not a strong sign. Even if he had won, I would be doing right now the things I am doing about this DAMNED War and I think Kerry would be responding to the will of the People.

That said, I do listen to and understand the things that people are saying about refusing to validate the things that put us in this UGLY situation. I have to tell you that I hear this in the streets and coming from the young, the leaders of the young, and I am balanced on a hair about '08.

I don't have the kind of calculus that it would take to say the qualitity and quantity of good that a compromise Democrat can do will exceed both in quality and quantity what can EVENTUALLY be done AFTER the status quo is destroyed by not supporting a compromise candidate and, thus, allowing another Repuglic into the WH. It's also a question of timing, exactly what good can be accomplished relative to the amount time needed for the status quo to be torn apart and rebuilt. We just don't have all of the time in the world. I also know that necessity IS the mother of invention and new things won't happen until they are needed.

[Xipe Totec]

45. Don't blame me, I'm a Masshole

Of course I voted for Kerry.

And Gore.

[sandnsea]

49. This was the exact kind of support he had

Lots of lovely threads like this, all through the election. I not only heard it here, I heard it from local Dems too. Telling people you're holding your nose isn't exactly the way to build voting momentum.

[bigtree]

55. I did much more.

I can and will make a strong case for the eventual nominee, as I have in every election.

[EFerrari]

58. And he won, anyway.n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

63. BOTH of those men WON their elections! Remember evoting machines? Election thefts? n/t