Gephardt's war vote

[Lefty48197]

I've read a lot of vehement anti-Gephardt commentary in DU during this campaign. Most of that sentiment stems from Dick Gephardt's vote in favor of Shrubbie's war resolution last fall.
Most of the Gephardt bashers comments have attacked his vote as being pro-Bush, pro-Republican, pro-War etc etc. You'd think that Newt Gingrich himself was running for the Democratic nomination.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

IMHO, Dick Gephardt has stronger Democratic credentials that any of the nine other candidates. Gephardt represents the Fair Deal of the Roosevelt era, as well as, the New Deal legislation of the Johnson era.
The wholly Democratic ideals of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Fair Housing, Civil Rights, Workers Rights, and compassion for the needy are what attract me to the Democratic Party. None of the other candidates have done more in support of these ideals than Dick Gephardt. With all due respect to the other candidates, Gephardt has been in the trenches fighting on a daily basis for all of these issues.
The candidates that served as Governors, Senators, or Generals just haven't had the contact with average Americans that Gephardt has.
Those that choose to attack Gephardt for his war vote have every right to do so, but they should keep in mind that Gephardt' Democratic credentials are impeccable.

Now for my point on the war vote. Clearly Gephardt's vote on the war resolution was not a vote in support of Bush. Nor was it a vote in support of Fox 'news', Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, or any of the other members of the VRWC.
His vote was in support of the soldiers and sailors. His vote was in support of the men and women who defend our country, and do it for Walmart level wages.
Imagine that, Dick Gephardt sticking up for people who have very dangerous, mostly undesirable jobs, with low wages. Huh. How about that? Isn't that what Dick has done for his entire career?

I think history will prove that Bush was hell-bent on invading Iraq with or without, the support of anybody else, outside of his inner-circle. All he wanted was unity in his cabinet. Once he had gotten Powell's support, there was no stopping the war machine.
Bush had already shown that he didn't care about the UN's opinion, nor did he care about NATO's opinion. Europe, France, Germany, Russia who needed their support? Not Bush. He was going to war without their help.

He was also going to war without Gephardt's support.

A "No" vote by Gephardt was not going to stop the RNC's war machine.
What Gephardt's vote DID do was give other Democratic legislators the 'cover' they needed to vote with Dick. As a well respected Democratic leader in Congress, Dick was willing to cast the vote for what he felt was right. No, he didn't support the isolationist, imperialist war of the right wing.
He voted to support the troops. He voted to send them off to war, with something Bush wasn't going to provide for them. Gephardt's vote gave the troops the feeling that at least the Congress was going to support their effort. Even if the marchers in our streets, and the streets of Europe were voicing opposition, the Congress was pledging support to the soldiers and their families.
I'm sure that was DEEPLY important to all of them. Imagine how they would have felt if Shrubbie had sent them off to war, with a Congress in opposition, before even one shot had been fired? Their morale would have been in the sewer from the very start.
They were going off to war with or without Gephardt's vote. Dick gave them the peace of mind that they were going to get the minimal level of support, in this highly opposed war.

Thank you for your time, and those of you who support candidates who are absolutely perfect, can feel free to flame me at this time.

[poskonig]

1. Here is what most people are bothered by.

The war vote is controversial, granted. What is egregious about Gephardt's vote is the way he cut off all debate about it in the House by standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Bush Junior in the Rose Garden.

[Lefty48197]

2. That was my point

He helped provide a unified front, while the soldiers were going off to war. I'm sure it was very important to the troops that they feel there was Congressional support for the war. Gephardt standing up as the Democratic house leader provided that support, and let the soldiers feel that they weren't going off to fight a war for the RNC.

[MasonJar]

4. War vote

I believe that you are off base in relation to the Gephardt war vote because that vote came early before (allegedly ) any decision had been made. Her put his stamp on the war, and , thereby, was culpable in sending the troops into harm's way and death. I saw a few moments of Gephardt on "Face the Nation" this morning. He explained his vote as one studied before cast. He went personally to the CIA three times. Why railroad the decision? Why play into Bush's hands with the 2002 election pending? Look what it cost us? We have no voice now in any branch.

[Lefty48197]

5. I disagree

Bush made it very clear that he was going to war. Period. We pushed him to get the support of NATO, and he was unable to do it. We pushed him to get UN support, and he failed again. UN inspections? Forget it, Bush wasn't interested. He was going to war. Gephardt's vote was last in the time-line leading up to the actual invasion.

[poskonig]

16. Bush: Biden-Lugar would have "tied my hands."

We've been through this discussion before.

[Classical_Liberal]

19. So you proved he is an enabler

We don't want anyone to know Daddy is a drunk. It would hurt the kids! What about the fact Daddy drives them to school drunk? Oh Oh!

[alcuno]

23. A united front?

When Gephardt turned around to look behind him he found that a huge chunk of the Democratic representatives were nowhere to be found. What good is a leader who forgets his own troops? He made a deal to benefit himself and look what he got for it. Sucker.

As for the military, they weren't going off to war at the time of the vote. Remember, as late as February, our president said that no decision had been made.

[papau]

3. Gep has been a solid Dem, with good understanding of trade, but

I want to win - and I just do not see - as I did not see in 88 - the fire and persona that would win in GEP. It is something like Dennis - who has great positions and great fire - but whose image is not going to send non-left Dems, independent and GOP running to the polls to vote for him. People vote for someone based on many reasons - many not logical.

ABB always - but Kerry, Clark, Dean, Edwards seem more easily electible - in my opinion.

[Cocoa]

7. he's got a big geographic advantage

He has a lot of support in the midwest battleground states.

And on his fire, it's a matter of perception. I think the steadiness and intensity are positives for a lot of people, and a more demagogic persona can be a turn-off to a lot of people, leads to a bit of mistrust.

Regarding getting people to the polls, Gep would do it with his excellent political organization, including the unions, rather than with his image.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. He's losing support in those states

Dean polled ahead of him in Iowa.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

21. Gephardt has great organization

and he's a true blue Democrat from way way back. There is a reason he has solid union support, he knows how to work the system and represent, literally.

[Lefty48197]

8. I agree 75%

I do believe that Kerry, Clark, and Edwards are possibly more 'electable' that Gephardt. The reason being that those three are more likely to attract the 'middle of the road' voters.
Those voters won't be attracted to Gephardt because he is a true leftist. Dean is a leftist also, which probaly makes him un-electable too.
That doesn't mean I won't fully support all of their ideals, but I want a candidate who will win the (general) election.
That's why I fully supported Clark's entry into the race. He's probably much more likely than Gephardt to attract the a-political voters, and therefore he's more electable.
I'll probably vote for Gephardt in the primary, because his political philosophy is closer to mine than that of any of the other candidates.
Either way, I'm voting for the Democratic nominee, and I'm not going to write ANY of them off because of any ONE thing that they have done. I can think of a million reasons to vote against Bush. Hell I can think of 275 million, or even 4.5 billion reasons to vote against Bush.
Those with anti-Gephardt blinders can't see the forest for the trees.

[JohnKleeb]

6. I will be honest I like Gephardt

I found out today hes my grandfather's pick. He likes Kucinich too, I think also. Its probably their pro unionism and opposition to NAFTA and stuff like that.

[goobergunch]

9. Here's one of the main problems I have with Gephardt

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 2, 2002
Mr. HASTERT (for himself and Mr. GEPHARDT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114.IH:

This was not a vote to "support the troops". This was a vote to support military action. His floor statement argued for the resolution on WMD grounds.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=H7778&position=all

Gephardt did vote for the resolution expressing support for the troops-H. Con. Res. 104 of the 108th Congress.

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=83

[LWolf]

10. No flames here.

I don't dislike Gep., and I sure don't need to attack Lefty##### because I don't agree!

I do disagree on some points, though; I have a different opinion:

Dick Gephardt has stronger Democratic credentials that any of the nine other candidates. Gephardt represents the Fair Deal of the Roosevelt era, as well as, the New Deal legislation of the Johnson era.
The wholly Democratic ideals of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Fair Housing, Civil Rights, Workers Rights, and compassion for the needy are what attract me to the Democratic Party. None of the other candidates have done more in support of these ideals than Dick Gephardt. With all due respect to the other candidates, Gephardt has been in the trenches fighting on a daily basis for all of these issues.
The candidates that served as Governors, Senators, or Generals just haven't had the contact with average Americans that Gephardt has.


I don't think that the "any of the 9 others" part is accurate. I think my candidate, Dennis Kucinich, has Democratic credentials just as strong. Fair/New Deal? Look at what DK's platform is founded on. All of those ideals? Look at Kucinich's record. He, too, has been in the trenches fighting for all of these issues. And he has had the contact with average americans. He is one of us.

That doesn't detract from Gep's record. I just want Congressman Kucinich's presence, record, and qualifications acknowledged!

[Lefty48197]

13. Kucinich is a real Democrat too

I agree that he represents all of those ideals too. It's just that I think Gephardt had done MORE because of the high leadership posts he has held in the house for many years. That's the only reason I think Gephardt deserves my vote more than Kucinich does.

[JohnKleeb]

22. I like both of em

Us three could go striking together, it would be fun :). Kucinich is the head of the progressive cancus lefty thats leadership but I dont see why at least on economic issues why anyone wouldnt like Gephardt, hes a good friend of labor.

[JVS]

11. Gephardt is good.

[BrewCrew]

14. AGREED

He is good. He battled the Repugs in Congress extremely hard after the revolution and has carried a lot of water for the party. He's been right on trade since the 1980's and I and several union folks have had the opportunity to meet the guy and it actually feels "like he's one of us when he's with us". Thats not common with a lot of Washington folk. That will sale well in the industrial/rust belt and we need to win there. I think Gep gives us a great chance to do so!

[JVS]

18. I'd really like a ticket with both Gephardt and Kucinich

[ikojo]

12. Gephardt missed a very important vote on July 10, 2003

and as a result we are still fighting the assault on overtime. The Republicans, Bush and big business won by a three vote margin, 213-210. Gephardt and SIX other Democrats were not even present to cast a vote. Was Gephardt too afraid to go on record as supporting overtime pay for American workers, lest he alienate a corporate contributor (and Gephardt gets A LOT of money from corporations or he has in the past). I hope he can find it in his busy schedule to do his job for his constituents (of which I am one now) and vote to support American workers being paid for working more than 40 hours a week.

Gephardt has always been concerned first and foremost with advancing Gephardt.

From October 16, 2002: http://www.orbusmax.com/archives/10_16_2002.html
House:Democrat leader Gephardt calls for tax cuts to boost economy...The link goes to a Boston Globe article that is no longer accessible. But it appears that Mr Gephardt was saying the same thing Bush was saying..tax cuts would help the economy. Wonder what he thinks now, less than a year later?

[BrewCrew]

15. Nope

I actually think he was talking about a Middle Class tax cut focused at the middle and lower class back then? Now, he advocates the fact that his health plan will help put money into the pockets of these folks, plus give them health insurance that can never be taken away. I like it!

[ikojo]

24. I see your avatar says Union Yes..what do you think of Gephardt

not even being present on July 10 to cast a vote supporting the right to overtime pay? His actions, moe than his words, speak volumes to me. The fact that he and six other Democrats did not bother to show up and vote to support working Americans.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16774
On July 10, the House of Representatives voted 213-210 against a measure like the Harkin amendment.

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=351
--- NOT VOTING    12 ---
Cramer D Gibbons Millender-McDonald D
Fletcher Goss Owens D
Fossella Harman D Payne D
Gephardt D Houghton Sanchez, Loretta D

I see MANY Ds next to the names of people who did not stand up for working people on July 10. One of them is now seeking a promotion based upon his alleged concern for working people.

IMHO, the assault on overtime is THE biggest labor issue since the early 1900s. It is an assault on the 40 hour week and the weekend. Working outrageous numbers of hours is what led to widespread unionization anyway. If we lose the 40 hour week now it will be even tougher than in 1900 to regain it because there is a brainwashed populace who tends to see things from the business point of view.

[Lefty48197]

25. You're ignoring his 20 + years of public service

He's supported workers every step of the way too.

[Eloriel]

17. Oh, puhleez

I'm sorry, but for all the hare-brained apologia's for the war vote I've seen, this IS the lamest.

I will, however, give you a B for creativity -- oh yeah, and length.

BTW, if I were in the military, I'd prefer politicians to tell the truth and vote the truth when someone's about to send me off to war. It would have HELPED me understand the anti-war protesters better, especially if they'd have given cogent reasons for their principled (instead of politially expedient) no vote. If I'd have heard the truth being spoken about the Iraq war beforehand, I might even have had a chance to become a Conscientious Objector or perhaps take other measures TO SAVE MY FREAKIN' LIFE instead of lose that life or some limbs or my sanity for an immoral, unjustified, unjustifiable freakin' war.

Please don't tell lies to yourself.

Eloriel

[Lefty48197]

26. Oh please, my ass

Your NRA buddies would have been the first to call Gephardt a traitor for failing to 'support the troops'. And YOU were the one who brought up lies...