Time for a few simple facts:

[angka]

1) America, reeling from 9/11, was deceived in an act of shocking duplicity into going to war against Iraq.

2) Many Democrats picked up the war tune and marched to it.

3) Iraq is proving to be the Syracuse campaign of the Bush administration. They reached too far and are just now realizing how big a price they are going to pay.

4) The Democrats who colluded with them in their moment of weakness or opportunism or whatever are also just now realizing how big a price they are going to pay. Several of these Patriot Act-hugging stooges now have the audacity to remain in the race for the presidency.

Here's the point: Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Gephardt, you have cashed in your credibility on the altar of the BFEE. I don't care why they did it. If the Democratic Party wants to make a clean break from the unelected, criminal Bush administration, these men must not get the nomination.

It's time for the beleagured, victimized American people to rise up and—for the first time in their lives—accept no equivocation from those who would lead them.

[AP]

1. I couldn't disagree more.

[Ein]

3. I guess I agree...

A liberal wouldn't have supported this BS.... and unless a liberal gets the nomination... well, 3rd party my fucking LIBERAL vote goes.

I'd no sooner vote for a centrist than for a right wing fuck.

[Clark Can WIN]

11. If all of us were you

then we should get ready for that right wing fuck because apparently, you've not had it long enough and you would like at least 5 more years.

I will vote for the democratic nominee for POTUS. Period.

[AP]

16. So Paul Wellstone wasn't a liberal?

[Terwilliger]

27. Wellstone voted against the War resolution

if the BFEE hadn't killed him, he would have sailed to victory AGAINST the notion that those other Dems had to vote YES

[disgruntella]

2. thanks so much

I was waiting for someone to tell me how to vote, since I'm too beleagured and victimized to think for myself. Now I have my instructions.

:eyes:

[angka]

5. ohh-kay...

must have skewered somebody's sacred cow there...which one? let me guess—kerry? vote any way you goddamn well please. and work on learning the difference between imperative and opinion. :eyes:

i order you to vote for either lyndon larouche or the brain from 'pinky and the brain.'

[disgruntella]

6. please, edit your post again!

Because it keeps getting funnier and funnier.

[DrGonzoLives]

26. Yes, how DARE someone voice an opinion!

And on a MESSAGE BOARD no less! One for politics! SCANDAL!!!

[PurityOfEssence]

29. That was hardly just a meek and gentle "opinion"

It was a flat-out statement that anyone even considering voting for any of those candidates is deeply sick and morally ugly.

When someone fires an emotionally charged shot, one should expect some resistance. The act of firing such self-aggrandizing "I'm spiritually superior to you curs" broadsides is hardly neighborly, either.

The candidates are to be forever banned from the society of decent folk and the supporters should be greeted with bold-faced pronouncements.

I've got an idea, how about a Scarlet Letter on our profile? Maybe "war-loving baby-killer moron" should be affixed to anyone who doesn't dedicate all waking hours to hammering this one point to distraction? I was vocally anti-war, worked at the grassroots level, contacted my Rep and both Senators, went to rallies, spent endless time trying to sway individuals and am saddened and angered by the whole thing.

Bobby Kennedy was counsel for Joe McCarthy at the Army-McCarthy hearings. Dean either dodges the gun control issue or is a gun lover, and he supports the death penalty. That must make him a murder and mayhem fan, huh?

Do you know what was offered to the Senators behind closed doors as "proof"? I don't. I don't believe they're free to say, either.

[angka]

30. trying to figure out

where my 'flat-out statement that anyone even considering voting for any of those candidates is deeply sick and morally ugly' is. or the self-aggrandizing part.

i'm not surprised that i'm not finding it. but when someone interprets a statement about a public figure (or a couple of them as the case may be) as an attack against them personally, that's a little psychologically revealing, don't you think?

[PurityOfEssence]

33. Well, dear beleaguered victim, allow me to explain:

"If the Democratic Party wants to make a clean break from the unelected, criminal Bush administration, these men must not get the nomination."

Thus, if one wants any of these men to get the nomination, one does not want to make a break from the Bush administration. By implication, one is thus in collusion with them. Them's highly charged words, if'n ya don't know.

That would make one at least an accessory in victimizing the beleaguered people. Sorry, but in my book, crushing the weak and innocent who are already beset with endless woes is driving downtown from the outskirts of Uglyville. You are passive-aggressively sidling up to call anyone who'd think of supporting these men as guilty of evil; in the face of sanctimoniousness, I cry foul. Sorry for my bad mood; much of it is not of your making. On the other hand, you're deliberately pushing buttons while trying to preserve cover; I'm pulling back the curtain. Although I may suck, at least I'm being direct and admit it.

As for the Patriot Act, only Russ Feingold voted against it in the Senate. The Late Paul Wellstone was just another nazi-loving stooge, Barbara Boxer should be shopping for jackboots, Kennedy, Schumer, Levin, Clinton, Harkin and a host of others are more filth abusing the life of the body politic. They should apologize for your further victimization too. Hell, let's just keelhaul the lot and crew up the place with the forthright, brave and true who simply don't exist.

My hyperbole is exaggeration of your dudgeon, but you implicate anyone who would support one of these people as deeply morally tainted; you mention "Democrats" who "picked up the war tune and marched to it" before even mentioning candidates or politicians. Please chew that over for a moment; read your initial post from the beginning and see that it starts with an attack on Democrats before resolving into an attack on the candidates. That leads one to believe that your principal disgust/dismissal is of supporters, not candidates; thus it SEEMS it is very personal and a flat-out (although mealy-mouthed) attack on supporters more than candidates. This would suggest that supporting a supporter is supporting unjust wars of conquest. It isn't. There are many other issues at hand.

You take things very personally, and you fired the first volley; if it sparks amplification you should take some responsibility. In a certain karmic sense, one is responsible for the rancor of one's threads.

As for the self-aggrandizing part, you enroll yourself in the ranks of the victims who are beset by the vicissitudes of politics; that's best done with a mirror handy.

You don't know what these people were told behind closed doors; much of it is still classified. You WERE being shrill in the implication that to tolerate the furtherance of these mens' campaigns is a personal affront against the innocent and hence, to decry it would make one morally superior. If you're going to go out and spit vitriol--especially when the board's in such a superheated invective-frenzy like it is these days--learn to take it.

Now, having said all that, I don't believe all of that was fully intentional, but it is important to attempt to see others' points of view.

[angka]

34. oh i can take it.

i never bleat about any unfairness or ad-hominem nature of debate here at DU. i leave that to the more thin-skinned types, and have no fear of getting my feelings hurt.

with that said, let me address your nicely worded yet woefully misguided little polemic:

You are passive-aggressively sidling up to call anyone who'd think of supporting these men as guilty of evil; in the face of sanctimoniousness, I cry foul.

i would like to point out that i have not addressed the supporters of these candidates in any way. i'm not accusing them of collusion with bush. i'm not implying they are inferior morally. you can free-associate all you like, but in the end you are putting words into my mouth. since you're inexorably forcing the conversation towards addressing people other than these candidates (ie those who support them), who are the sole target of my 'vitriol', i suppose i would say this: i don't support these candidates. you can if you like, but i believe you are wrong. not guilty of evil, not necessarily in collusion with 'them', just wrong. mistaken. in error. and i believe my judgement on this to be morally principled. if that makes you uncomfortable i say that's good, and if it forces you to invent additional hyperbolic statements in order to marginalize my arguments in your mind, well, that's fine too.

You take things very personally, and you fired the first volley; if it sparks amplification you should take some responsibility. In a certain karmic sense, one is responsible for the rancor of one's threads.

this is where i begin to smile. i stand behind everything i (actually) say. this is the goddamned internet, you know—take it personally? rubbish. and i will fire volley after volley of such truthful, principled statements if it suits me to do so. i have no fear or complaint about engagement; if i'm right, then my position should stand up to the test of debate, shouldn't it? in any case, it seems more constructive to actually debate the issues rather than to petulantly express butt-hurt about somebody challenging your convention.

i believe that all of you should rethink your support for democratic candidates who abetted, in the face of reason and millions of protesters, bush's scamming of our country into war against iraq.

[PurityOfEssence]

35. fair enough

Regardless of relative positions on particular issues, I'll always give points to anyone who can embrace some qualification and shadings to opinions. Thanks for that.

Remember too, that it's hard on some of us who have choked down extreme disgust on the war issue and have cast around for a reasonable champion in the face of that. Kucinich is definitely the moral and ethical hero here, but I think his platform goes too far for him to be elected, and in some cases too far for my personal taste regardless of viability.

Dean is bothering me less on a personal basis, but many of his supporters are bothering me more; it's not a case of the message so much as the messengers. I also have many platform issues with him which I won't go into here. Whatever.

I was apparently wrong about you; from your thread and first few responses, you sounded very much like a holier-than-thou simplifier. Obviously, you're not.

If the war is going to be a door-slamming litmus test for you, then you'll also have to throw Henry Waxman on the ash-heap of ignominy, along with many other valuable politicians. Are you ready to dismiss all others who voted "yes" on the war vote with the same resounding finality as you did these four? Should Hillary never be President in your view?

[angka]

37. now we're getting somewhere.

and this has not been an easy think-through for me, either. of course kerry's supporters, edward's, even most of lieberman's share a common adversary with me: bush. these candidates all bring to the table their years of political influence, which implies established bases of support. there are a large number of issues which i share opposition to the bush administration's position with these candidates.

but actions have consequences. and the crimes committed against the world community—and also against americans and their sacred liberties here at home—in the last three years are too great to excuse. and at the risk of repeating myself, democrats too weak or opportunistic to oppose what has happened have done terrible damage to their political integrity. the iraq war lies are just one symptom of this, but it was a critical test that many democrats failed. it's sad but there is no escaping the truth of it.

but before you despair, think for a minute about how the actual criminals—you know, the GO fucking P, are going to look once all this history sinks into the public consciousness. and you wonder why they are desperately trying to gerrymander themselves some electoral safety? they're fucking terrified right now.

now is the time to let the sun shine in. and let the chips fall where they may.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. Sho 'nuff yes it's true

Many lessons are to be learned from an inherently minority party that can somehow get itself in the damned drivers' seat.

This is war, and it's good to hear the groundswell of involvement and discussion in the often feckless general populace. Whatever the next 14 months have in store, it'll be a hell of a ride. Much is still in play, and anyone who doesn't think so is certainly ignorant of analogous historical situations. There's still that outside chance that Junior will become so thoroughly hated and disgraced that the raging unquenchable grandchild of 1976 may spread the disgust with politics so far and wide that Kucinich could win. It's an outside chance, to be sure, but things can reverse very quickly. Although for sheer platform he's still not my first choice even in a perfect universe, I'd still be tickled to have such a huge reversal put a shot across the bows of the monarchist buccaneers.

These are also dangerous times; the nazis are VERY desperate, and the screws are going to tighten on them and us.

The lessons to be learned from them are ones of vehemence, organization and zeal. Too few people are not hurt by their policies for them to cobble together a successful coalition if the rest of the nation is mobilized against them. Problems though I have with Dean and some of his stalwarts, they're still the ones energizing the base, and for this they're to be praised. Maybe it's just the saffron robes and the damn finger cymbals that bug me...

[angka]

40. and since i'm in a conciliatory mood tonight...

i would like to add to this commentary that there is a way for these candidates to at least partially redeem themselves: to stop splitting hairs, and publicly apologize for their votes on iraq and 'homeland security' and thus repudiate the rush to tyranny they spent the last two years abetting.

[Cocoa]

4. any of those dems would be a clean break from Bush

most republicans would be.

In a way, the dems that voted for the resolution have a stronger voice on the war. I actually listen closer to what they're saying now than I do to the antiwar people.

[aquart]

9. Of course you do, Cocoa.

Never expected anything less. Or more.

[Cat Atomic]

17. I don't understand.

"In a way, the dems that voted for the resolution have a stronger voice on the war. I actually listen closer to what they're saying now than I do to the antiwar people."

Why?

The evidence that the Bush Administration was lying about the reasons for wanting to invade Iraq was right out there in the open long before the invasion ever actually happened.

These men and women had even easier access to that information than the general public did, and yet they either chose to ignore it, or they were too intensely stupid to see it.

I don't see how that gives them a stronger voice on the issue.

[WilliamPitt]

7. Or, on the other hand

1) America, reeling from 9/11, was deceived in an act of shocking duplicity into going to war against Iraq.

2) Iraq is proving to be the Syracuse campaign of the Bush administration. They reached too far and are just now realizing how big a price they are going to pay.

3) This 'Syracuse' affects every living human in the Middle East, every living human in America, and every living human on earth.

4) No matter how pissed off and disgusted and puking sick you are made by the fact that some Democrats (who were as lied to as the rest of the American populace, but lied to by hard-core insiders who used the prestige of their positions to bolster their lies) went along for this ride, the fact that any one of the candidates is far, far better than Bush and his crew cannot be denied.

5) No one, but no one, should be denigrated for working like freak bastards to get the best possible candidate into the nomination. If you have fixed upon a candidate who opposed the war, let no man or woman or beast keep you from doing everything possible to secure them the Presidency.

6) When it comes down to nut-cutting time, and your candidate has not won the nomination, be sure to think not once, not twice, but three times about what really matters in this fight.

7) If you have to think a fourth time, here's a hint: Winning is what matters. Period. Deposing Bush et al. is what matters. All else is silence and blood.

[aquart]

10. Yup.

I can't see myself voting in the primaries for a war voter. But the election? I vote for the Democrat.

It matters.

[angka]

18. since we're months away from even the primaries,

i will not yet engage this argument that i must vote for the democratic nominee come november. why? because we don't have a nominee. i will cross that bridge when i come to it—in the end, i will hold my nose and vote democratic. of course.

in the meantime, i would tell everyone who will listen that these men who sold the country out between the patriot act and the iraq war are not worth the democratic nomination for the presidency. they provide legitimacy to the bush people just by staying in the race. i will not back off from this position.

[Terwilliger]

28. Great post, Will

1) America, reeling from 9/11, was deceived in an act of shocking duplicity into going to war against Iraq.

Was that when the Democrats decided to "get ahead" of the issue and recommend war even more strongly than Bush? Joe Biden?

2) Iraq is proving to be the Syracuse campaign of the Bush administration. They reached too far and are just now realizing how big a price they are going to pay.

I think Mr. Kerry will be paying a price as well.

3) This 'Syracuse' affects every living human in the Middle East, every living human in America, and every living human on earth.

Which makes Democratic votes endorsing this lunacy all the more suspect.

4) No matter how pissed off and disgusted and puking sick you are made by the fact that some Democrats (who were as lied to as the rest of the American populace, but lied to by hard-core insiders who used the prestige of their positions to bolster their lies)

Umm...so Democrats were lied to about the history of the situation? Or were they lied to about the threat Saddam posed, knowing his history?

Do you really think Saddam Hussein had the capability of attacking the US? No. I know you didn't. I don't think Saddam would ever willingly fuck up his position. He was even left in place after the Gulf War...why would he antagonize the US?

If Kerry (et al) had been as smart as you or I or umpteen other people paying close attention, their attitude toward the information they received (CIA, NSA, whoever...) should have been highly dubious.

We bestowed Saddam Hussein with everything he is today, and we say he's a bad guy?? Saddam is rich, fat, and dictatorial all due to the influence of the US and Britain, who've fought for the control of the oil-rich land amongst themselves for 100 years, all the while destabilizing any chance of legitimate local governance by supporting dictatorial regimes. I mean REALLY!

went along for this ride, the fact that any one of the candidates is far, far better than Bush and his crew cannot be denied.

uhh..yeah, true...except any of my candidates have little chance of nomination, and their ideas about the war and foreign policy are FAR superior to the rest of the field

5) No one, but no one, should be denigrated for working like freak bastards to get the best possible candidate into the nomination. If you have fixed upon a candidate who opposed the war, let no man or woman or beast keep you from doing everything possible to secure them the Presidency.

uh huh...now, what chance in hell are you referring to? I'm continually trying to figure out why the establishment candidate should be accepted, while the "fringe" candidates are virtually ignored. Kerry needs to justify my love (so to speak) before he gets any support, whereas I can accept the principles espoused by people like Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, and even Al Sharpton. Hell, is Al Sharpton better than Bush? I'd rather give Al Sharpton a chance to redeem himself, than accept that we must allow people into office who would be criminal in their actions while no one does anything about it

6) When it comes down to nut-cutting time, and your candidate has not won the nomination, be sure to think not once, not twice, but three times about what really matters in this fight.

I am. Give me a president that wants to win, instead of a party simply willing to support whoever is there.

7) If you have to think a fourth time, here's a hint: Winning is what matters. Period. Deposing Bush et al. is what matters. All else is silence and blood.

Another resason that an immediate call for Bush's impeachment is absolutely required. I keep hearing about the fact that "we can't get the impeachment...it's a Repuke congress!!! *whine* *whine* *whine*" How about the Democrats unifying just ONE time over an issue that's vital to the importance of our role in world affairs?

If Democrats pull together and say that Bush needs to be impeached, we'd settle the fucking question. George Bush manufactured a war. Democrats went along with it. Yippee-Kai-Yay!!

[angka]

31. brilliant post, terwilliger!

nt

[leftofthedial]

8. is it just the war powers vote and the Patriot Act

Or do you have other litmus tests as well for liberal purity?

[angka]

19. goddamn right i do.

plenty of litmus tests. you see, words mean things. positions people take have consequences. it's time for these men to stop getting a pass when they sell out our values. PERIOD.

[Pastiche423]

12. I hear ya, angka

Too bad it went ~swoosh~ to some.

I don't want to win the "battle", I want to win the "war".

Peace

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~pastiche2/Peace!.gif

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Right...

the economy, debt, job situation, farm policy, foreign policy, trade policies, international arms control, nuclear proliferation, capital punishment, the land mine treaty, abortion rights, the ozone layer, forest preservation, snowmobiles in the national parks, strip mining, gun control, criminal justice reform, Cuba, fair trade agriculture, our relationship with the UN, Columbia, our future in NATO, immigration policies, PATRIOT, China, Korea, national health policies, Venezuela, shrinking pensions, AIDS in Africa, CEO thievery, and a hundred other issues don't count.

Vote only for the honest anti-war candidate.

Sure I will.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Yep.

So true.

Why is this so hard to get? Perfectionists live a sad life, but sadder for friends and family than for themselves.

A person who would allow him/herself to throw away a vote in some pissy huff when the stakes for the very biosphere are so high is just (fill in the blank).

Vanity is toxic.

[angka]

20. perfectionist?

it is not perfectionist to demand something more than doublespeak and backpedalling from our leaders. and stop making this about the general election. if there's any justice these bush collaborators will get chewed up and spit out by the democratic rank and file, so we're not fighting this divisive fight come november of '04. don't you get it?

[Jacobin]

23. LOL

So true. Sometimes I get the feeling that if one of these morons mistakenly nuked a country based on some idiotic and transparent ruse, that their supporters would say: "oops. everyone makes a little mistake sometimes".

This was a major major major major fuck up that could be seen by millions and millions of people for months and miles before it happened.


This was no "oops". This was voting to start an action that is a WAR CRIME.

These people should be in JAIL, not in congress.

[imhotep]

15. you forgot to add

even after all the lies, Democrats are going to give bush the money.

First it was "Tax cuts for the rich" oh let us pass that for you.
Then it was "they are destroying civil liberties" oh let us author it.
Next was "Bush lied" oh lets vote for the war.
Now it is "Bush is putting our grandchildren in debt" oh here is the check!

How could anyone reward these pieces of shit with a vote? They are exactly the same as Bush.

[sangh0]

21. Another simple fact

No matter what time it is, the American people are not about to rise up and accept no equivocation

[Jacobin]

22. When these idiots in Congress voted for the invasion

In the face of MASSSIVE pre-invasion protests, in the face of the FACTS, in the face of millions of faxes, emails, letters and calls, in the face of dozens of old conservative hands writing OpEd pieces in newspapers of record why this was a foolish foolish idea that would NOT work, I washed my hands of these morons.

They are not fit to be americans, much less congresscritters and GOD HELP US not president.

My personal conviction is that these fuckers should rot in an uncomfortable place upon their demise.

:mad:

[CWebster]

24. Or

the threatened establisment hacks will bond in an effort to bring down Dean, while marginalized candidates from the Left will rattle off petty complaints and miss the big picture.

If the DLC operatives and their favored candidates sabotage the Democratic party grassroots momentum in favor of stale repub-lite power positions, the future of the party is doomed.

[Brian Sweat]

25. Rumsfeld as Alcibiades

[angka]

36. people getting my peloponnesian war reference

is one of the reasons i love DU. :)

[Solly Mack]

32. Unless you eradicate all the cancer cells, it does come back

cause it's never really gone...and fascism is a cancer.

Oh, you'll take heat for your post but let it flow off of you.

You stated some uncomfortable truths...especially point number 2.

Not everyone will agree on the method of accomplishing the goal(ridding Bush/fascism)...but that's par for the course. Nor will they all agree on your conclusion of what those truths mean...

I'm an advocate of a new enlightenment...where the American people do (finally) make America what she has always claimed to be...by the people/of the people/for the people.

And our current political "system" does often times remind me of the definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over again then expecting a different result.

But..and there is always a but...as with cancer, so it goes for fascism-sometimes,it takes many different types of treaments to cure the problem..

[angka]

39. bump

:kick: