Why I will not vote for Kerry....

[TLM]

When liberals, democrats, greens, and anti-war folks needed Kerry more than ever... when we needed him to stand up to Bush and say no... when we needed him to join with us and stand up for us and stand with us to stop Bush, Kerry abandoned us.

Kerry left us hanging, and voted for the IWR, he attacked Dean for wanting to get UN support. Kerry played the hawk side of the fence because he thought it would help his career, and his career was more important to him than the young men and women he was helping send to their deaths.

Kerry did not stand with me... Kerry did not support me... and now, should his dirty tricks and insider support win him the nomination, I will gladly return the favor by not supporting or standing with Kerry.

Being made to choose between the war monger and the man who supported the war monger, is no choice at all.

[mitchtv]

1. enjoy your elected President Bush

For shame

[ramapo]

6. I'll second that

This is not the election to be so idealistic.

[cprise]

21. That's the mantra every election

Repub-Lite has turned into a religion for the Democrats.

[library_max]

120. Yeah, and for some reason

math teachers keep teaching that 2+2=4, year after year.

[ronnykmarshall]

175. I'll third that

[TLM]

30. If Kerry is the nominee, Bush will win regardless of how I vote

And I will not vote for Kerry. It is as simple as that.


Kerry did not stand up for me and I will not stand up for him.

[sangh0]

44. Here's another TLM prediction

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=795884#798546

We're not stopping with getting Dean elected.

[TLM]

50. And? If the corrupt insiders are able to shut the grassroots out

that changes things quite a bit, doesn't it?

[sangh0]

54. You mean the "corrupt insiders"

who are helping Kerry (another "corrupt insider") won't help Kerry?

[TLM]

59. Not in the general election, no...

that's the whole point.

[sangh0]

80. Whynot?

After all, Kerry is one of them, right?

[TLM]

103. Kerry is a safety net for the insiders really...

They'd rather have Bush in the whitehouse, and they want Kerry because he'll most likely lose, and even if he doesn't he's still beholden to them. So either way they win and either way we lose.

[sangh0]

106. The insiders want the insider to lose?

So then, why are they helping Bush*?

[TLM]

114. If the choice is between two corrupt insiders....

then the corrupt insiders win no matter what the outcome.

[lifelong_Dem]

135. You have no idea how silly your little conspiracy theories sound, do you?

[sangh0]

141. Shhhhhh!!!

If he realizes that, he might stop making a fool of himself

[TLM]

151. You think it is silly that special interests and corporate interests

are controlling our political system?


That's not a conspiracy theory... that's a pretty obvious fact.


And it is not some crazy fantasy to say these folks do not want anybody in office who is not within their sphere of influence and control.

[sangh0]

156. No, we think it's silly to think Kerry is part of it

And it is some crazy fantasy to speak as if those folks always get what they want

[TLM]

169. Oh so Kerry is not a DC insider?

Kerry's not DLC?

Kerry's top 10 lifetime contributers are not almost all corporate interests?

Kerry is very much an insider and he's very much owned by the same corporate interests who own most of the rest of DC.

[fernwoods]

197. Not always, they had to kill JFK

They though JF Kennedy couldn't win because he was Catholic. But when he won and wouldn't go along with their plans and wanted to end the corruption in the CIA, they just killed him.

[George_Bonanza]

190. Iowans + NHites = corrupt insiders

Yeah, whatever. Face it, the people have spoken. The big bad corrupt machine played no part, the people had their say. Oh, you want to change the outcome decided by the people? That's called fascism.

[molly]

46. You cannot possibly believe that - can you?

[TLM]

58. Kerry will get crushed.... there can be no doubt.

He can't attack Bush on major issues, because he voted for half of the crap Bush did in the last 3 years.

He'll be attacked as a fence sitting wafeler, and those attacks will be accurate because that's about all Kerry does.

He has no hope in the south and he brings nothing new or different or inspiring to the race.

He's just another boring timid democrat who wouldn't stand up to Bush and won't go off script.

[Casablanca]

154. The Iraq war will be nullified as a campaign issue ...

If Kerry or Edwards win the nomination. Which is Rove/Bush's only chance for November, since framing the Iraq war positively for Bush (with the help of the corporate media) is the _only_ thing they have to go on. Which is surreal considering what a historic military/foreign policy meltdown the Iraq war has always been.

Example of how Kerry is the choice of the corporate media: Koppel's questions to Kerry on Nightline last night - "What do you think about our marvelous electoral process?" "Here's another softball, John ... you ready? ... it's coming at ya ...".

Koppel's questions to Dean - "Please give us a detailed rundown of your plans for S.C. and Missouri, and by the way, what _specifically_ would you do about our Iraq policy?" And as sleep-deprived Dean clearly was, he had a cogent and specific response. Presidential quality.

Don't take the current red-carpet media treatment to heart, Kerry supporters. The "Which Kerry is Kerry this week?" line is already being trial-ballooned in the press.

[_NorCal_D_]

48. "If Kerry is the nominee, Bush will win regardless of how I vote"

Do you have proof of this that does not consist of useless hyperbole?

Here is a poll that dictates otherwise:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/01/24/kerry_beats_bush_in_new_poll.html

Kerry beats Bush in New Poll.

Sen. John Kerry would beat President Bush if the election were held today, according to a new Newsweek poll. "A Kerry-Bush match-up would have Kerry up by 49 percent to Bush's 46 percent."

[Walt Starr]

52. He is entitled to his opinion

as am I and I happen to agree with him. Kerry as the nominee is a non-starter. IMO, Kerry would lose in the biggest landslide in American history.

[sangh0]

55. The weakest defense ever

Freepers have opinions too, but I haven't seen you defend them with "He is entitled to his opinion"

[Walt Starr]

57. Everybody is entitled to their opinion

You are. Rush Limbaugh is. I am. And TLM is too.

[_NorCal_D_]

63. Of course.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, just as anyone is entitled to abstain from voting if they so choose.

I simply prefer that such claims are backed up by proof, rather than unfounded rhetoric.

[Walt Starr]

65. Proof is never a requirement for the formation of opinion

Never has been and never will be.

[sangh0]

91. True, but evidence is

Always has been and always will

[Walt Starr]

98. Nope, even evidence is unecessary to formulate an opinion

If evidence was necessary to formulate an opinion, religion would not exist.

[sangh0]

112. Thanks! That line is a keeper!

even evidence is unecessary to formulate an opinion

[Walt Starr]

138. That isn't the best line

If evidence was necessary to formulate an opinion, religion would not exist.

That's the most truthful statement made in this off topic subthread.

[sangh0]

143. I prefer "evidence is unecessary to formulate an opinion"

It's much stupider

[Walt Starr]

160. Partial quotes taken out of context

can be that way.

[krkaufman]

162. Take it one step further....

If evidence was necessary to formulate an opinion,
religion would not exist.

And neither would Fox News.

[TLM]

61. Polls said Gore would beat Bush by 10 to 12 points

that was wrong, and Kerry will be 1000 times easier to attack than Gore was.

[_NorCal_D_]

75. Once again,

I humbly ask for some proof.

Tracking poll: Bush maintains lead over Gore
October 9, 2000
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/09/tracking.poll/

Tracking poll: Bush holds onto slight edge
November 1, 2000
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/01/tracking.poll/

[TLM]

107. I'm talking about when Gore got the nomination...

I recall hearing that on from several sources... that Gore would win by 10 in Nov.

The first debate was when things started to turn.

[_NorCal_D_]

127. Again,

I would like to see proof. Here's what I found:

Poll: Gore trails Bush on eve of Democratic convention
August 11, 2000
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/11/cnn.poll/

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Vice President Al Gore is supported by just 39 percent of likely voters, compared to for 53 percent Texas Gov. George W. Bush in a hypothetical four-way presidential race, according to the latest CNN/Time poll conducted on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles.

[Uzybone]

187. Hilarious

you either dont even know the simple facts or your making it up as you go along. You do your man no favors with your ramblings.

[krkaufman]

165. Forget the pre-election polls...

Gore won in the final poll taken on election day!

But he's NOT in the White House.

[TheDebbieDee]

140. "Polls said Gore would beat Bush by 10 to 12 points"

"that was wrong" Posted by TLM

Oh, I don't know. Maybe Gore really did win by 10 to 12 points. We may never know for sure.

[digno dave]

116. Kerry will LOSE

Polls right now for the NE don't mean sheat. Kerry will be hard=pressed getting our base mobilized. He has no charisma. Minorities have no reason to get on board with him. I am not saying his civil rights record is bad i am just saying he is from an anglo-dominated state and his personality does not endear himself to africanamericans or hsipanics.

[krkaufman]

161. "Kerry beats Bush" poll is misleading

We have no idea whether Kerry could beat Bush based on that poll. It's a national poll attempting to measure what would be the GE's popular vote. It doesn't provide *any* insight into how Kerry would fair in the Electoral College.

Al Gore beat George Bush in the national poll, too; but Al's not in the White House.

[Snivi Yllom]

110. BOOM

You nailed it.

[krkaufman]

152. You wouldn't be standing up for Kerry

Hey, I've grown to loathe the disingenous Kerry, but you don't have it quite right.

> And I will not vote for Kerry. It is as simple as that.
> Kerry did not stand up for me and I will not stand
> up for him.

You wouldn't be standing up for Kerry. You'd be standing up for all the kids who will be drafted and die in Bush's elective wars; you'll be standing up for all those in the middle class trying to stay above Bush's insatiable poverty line.

You don't have to like him, but we do need to vote ABB.

And then we need to take our country back. Starting with the DNC.



edit: typo

[okieinpain]

155. actually I don't like kerry's chances either. he just seems like the

reason why repugs have control of the government. I feel that just as soon as dean is out of the way kerry will resort back to the normal boring ass kerry.

bush will eat him alive. I'm vote for kerry, but I just don't think he has a prayer.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[atre]

209. Give me a break. Would you vote for Lieberman if he was the nominee?

We all draw lines somewhere.

How many people here would bother to show up for the polls if Joe Lieberman was the Democratic nominee? I know I wouldn't.

Couldn't his supporters then say to those of us that refused, "If you don't vote for Lieberman, Bush will win." What's the difference?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[quisp]

38. amen to that

While I don't regret voting for Nader in '00 (I live in Virginia which hasn't gone for a Democratic Presidential candidate for a long long time) I won't make that mistake again.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[brainshrub]

3. Amen! Amen!! Amen!!!

And a great big Halleluya!

Dean is the man who stood by the people in our time of need. Kerry played the opportunist.

[blm]

12. Dean was for a resolution for use of force. Yet you give him a pass.

He was also for Reagan's illegal wars in Central America which Kerry fought against.

Kerry was ostracized by most of Washington for his dogged investigations.

>>>>>
Kerry and the Iran-Contra Fight
Before the conventional wisdom sets in on Kerry as some kind of careful pol with no bite, folks should reach back and remember his role back in the 1980s in challenging the whole Reagan administration ties to money laundering, drug running and the Contras down in Central America. Kerry was willing for years to face down the CIA, the Justice Department and narco-terrorists in pursuing the dirty dealings of the Reagan-North network of rightwing drug-linked paramilitaries.

http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/000945.shtml

[cprise]

25. Dean denounced the war before it started. Kerry kept supporting it.

Kerry also opposed Gulf War I, which will become political death for him.

[blm]

40. yeah, sure. He's really doing badly.

.

[lyonn]

139. Kerry, GW 1 support

We had world support for Gulf War 1, that included most of the money. Can't say that about the present war. Lost 6 soldiers yesterday. Get a sick feeling in my stomach every time they make those announcement for a war that should have had international support. The 2002 election was one of the wimpiest efforts on the Democratic side in my memory. I voted many times against wimpy Demos. because they were unbelievable. This time I will vote Demo. no matter who runs but I don't think we can win with a WIMP. Yes, I really like Dean.

[TLM]

32. Once again BLM... Dean wasn't even Gov during those wars

And what does that have to do with Kerry voting for the IWR?

Why is it that the only defense of Kerry his supporters can come up with is to attack Dean?

[blm]

39. Dean was in politics and supported those wars.

He even says now he only has "mixed feelings" about those wars. HUH??? After everything we know about their illegalities and constitutional crimes, Dean only has "mixed feelings" about them. Uh...where's the passion for right or wrong? He's a weasel who uses weasel words for his weasel positions on everything.

[cprise]

47. Dean is against NAFTA and FTAA

That speaks volumes...

[fernwoods]

198. Dean "some what favors" NAFTA

According to http://www.presidentmatch.com/Main.jsp2?cp=main when you click on Compare to see the positions of all the candidates on different issues, Dean "some what favors" NAFTA and Kucinich "strongly opposes" NAFTA.

[TLM]

66. LOL! So your defense of Kerry supporting Bush's oil war

is that Dean had mixed feelings about wars in south america when he was, what in the state senate in vermont part time? That's how you defend Kerry helping Bush send over 500 of our troops to their deaths?


That's exactly why Kerry will lose, right there. How are you going to defend Kerry vs Bush... oh Bush wanted war, but Kerry only wanted to support Bush.

[sendero]

184. I am sofa king tired...

... of hearing about what Kerry did 10, 15, 20 years ago. It doesn't freaking matter.

Talk to me about what he's done since 2000, I don't care about the rest of it.

If you get a job and do a good job for 15 years - do you think that gives you a screw up for free pass for even a year? No, it does not. People change and one aw-sh*t wipes out 50 atta-boys.

Nobody in America is going to give a tinker's damn about what Kerry did, other than perhaps giving him credit for his great military record.

[TLM]

45. That is all Kerry has ever done.... and he's doing it again.

Kerry sided with Bush and attacked Dems like Dean who were speaking out against the war in Iraq.

So why should I support Kerry? Because he's not Bush? He may not be Bush, but he supported half the shit Bush did in the last 3 years.

[Birthmark]

4. That doesn't seem helpful to anyone...

...but *. I understand your feelings but a self-inflicted four years of pain on the country seems a high price for one misguided vote.

[stepnw1f]

13. Idealistically

...a perfect president would be nice. Putting your principals on the back-burner would be better fpr the country right now.

[HFishbine]

37. Here's a novel idea

For those who are concerned that we who may not vote for a pro-IWR candidate may cause a Bush win, then why don't YOU put your principles on the back burner and support a candidate who didn't vote for the IWR?

It maskes no sense to me that only one group is being told that this is no time for idealism, to get over it and to grow up. If you really think our support is crucial to stop Bush, then sacrifice your own damn principles (if you have any) and side with a candidate who will keep us "idealists" interested.

[stepnw1f]

42. I am not stating here nor...

will I state who I support, however if my candidate does not win, I will back Bush's opposition. Being idealistic is a noble thing to do, however being over-idealistic is not. Get over it.

[HFishbine]

51. Well

You still didn't answer my question. If you assert that Bush may win if the dem nominee doesn't have the support of the anti-war crowd, why don't YOU get over it and support a candidate that will keep us interested?

[stepnw1f]

67. Did I assert, or ...

are you just misunderstanding me? Do you want to really know what I think? I think all politicians are liers...I think our government is corrupt...and unfortunately some good politicians have to play games just to stay in the game. That's how they survive. I do not back the war in Iraq. It's a moral outrage! But nothing above is going to keep me from voting for any Democratic candidate nor is it going to keep me from voting at all. Hell, anyone of the Democratic candidates are better than Bush. If you already chose not to vote, because your ideal candidate does not win in the primaries, then that's your choice. I apologize for telling you 'to get over it'. Peace.

[HFishbine]

85. Well II

I haven't said that I definitely won't vote for a candidate who supported the IWR either. I think the point I was trying to make has been made. Peace to you too.

[mitchtv]

69. the primaries are the time for idealism

But, the GE is time to hang together and stop the republican looting of our resources.Perfection is not a requirment. Kerry stopped ANWR, that's good enough for me.

[goobergunch]

88. Actually Boxer was the floor manager on ANWR (n/t)

[mitchtv]

195. I love my senator Boxer

But she was not very vocal in her opposition, and did not threaten a filibuster. She votes well, but is too quiet.

[AntiCoup2K4]

82. And who is "Bush's opposition"?

A fellow Skull & Bonesman, advised by PNAC, who voted for the war, the Patriot Act, and No School Left Unfucked??

How is that opposition to Junior?

[Casablanca]

113. Well said

Some of the "Kerry supporters" on this thread are walking, talking stereotypes of the pindick-waving, neo-conservative dogmatist, and they're providing solid reasons not to vote for the candidate.

Kerry and his most thoughtful supporters are being tarred by these "don't think, just vote for him" posts as much as by his opponent's attacks.

[library_max]

128. What we have here is a failure to grasp the principles of democracy.

There's an implied social contract in every election. Everybody gets their vote and everybody gets their say. But at the end, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. And by participating in the process, you tacitly agree to abide by the outcome. You don't get to disown it because the guy you wanted didn't win.

What this means is that it is appropriate for the majority of Democrats to ask the minority of Democrats to do what is in their best interests (any Democrat running is better than Bush) and support the nominee. But it is inappropriate for a minority of Democrats to expect to determine the outcome by threatening to take their ball and go home if they don't get their way. See the difference?

Now, if your guy (Dean, isn't it?) wins the primaries and gets the nomination, I will be behind him 100%. And I've said that since the beginning, including all that time when Dean was considered a shoo-in for the nomination (you can check the archives). First, because it's only fair, and second, because we have to get Bush-the-unelected out of office.

[Walt Starr]

149. I have to disagree with part of this..

First you saidf this:

"There's an implied social contract in every election. Everybody gets their vote and everybody gets their say. But at the end, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. And by participating in the process, you tacitly agree to abide by the outcome. You don't get to disown it because the guy you wanted didn't win."

Okay, I can buy that. But I see contradiction in what follows:

"What this means is that it is appropriate for the majority of Democrats to ask the minority of Democrats to do what is in their best interests (any Democrat running is better than Bush) and support the nominee. But it is inappropriate for a minority of Democrats to expect to determine the outcome by threatening to take their ball and go home if they don't get their way. See the difference?"

It is inappropriate for Democrats in the majority to expect Democrats in the minority to tacitly go along with that choice if those Democrats in the miniority feel strongly enough that the choice made by the Democrats in the majority is an immoral choice. TLM feels Kerry would be an immoral choice and it is the height of tyranny to expect him to tacitly support that which he considers to be immoral in order to usurp that which he also considers to be immoral.

He has been placed in a no win scenario and has every right to decide that neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party have offered a moral choice and therfore chooses either to not choos or to choose a third choice.

That's how things work in a representative demoratic republic. If you don't like that, you have to either go for the choice TLM would consider to be moral, or accept that you will lose the support of TLM and everybody like him who will consider the Kerry choice to be immoral.

[library_max]

164. Morally, but not legally,

it's equivalent to opposing a law in referendum, losing (the law passes by majority consent), and then saying, "Well, I didn't vote for the law so I won't obey it." You can dress this up in all the "moral" clothes you want, but it's utterly antidemocratic.

I find it interesting that you accept the first paragraph but object to the second, which follows logically and irresistably from the first. I suspect it's because the first paragraph was abstract and theoretical while the second potentially addresses specific issues and candidates.

[Walt Starr]

168. That's an incredibly poor analogy

Voting for somebody other than the Democrat or Republican is to state one does not agree with either the Democrat or Republican on the issues.

that is very different from legal questions. For your analogy to be applicable, it would have to be illegal for Democrats to vote other than for the democratic candidate in the general election.

You have presented a strawman.

[library_max]

188. What's it say at the top of my post?

Doesn't it say "Morally, but not legally"? So haven't I already acknowledged your micro-point about the legalities of the matter? The moral point is that the essence of democracy is to accept the outcome of a vote whether your guy wins or loses. That means you don't expect your opponents to support the candidate of your choice if he wins while preparing to take your ball and go home if he loses. It's simple fair play and reciprocity.

BTW, you apparently wouldn't know a strawman if one bit you. A strawman is an argument made up and falsely attributed to someone else for the express purpose of refuting it.

[Walt Starr]

5. I understand your feelings, TLM

While I will probably pull out a puke bucket and firmly clamp my nose shut to vote for the man, I will not throw good money at what I consider would be the worst possible candidate, nor will I campaign for him, nor will I even try to convince a single person they should vote for him.

If he wins the nomination, I'll show up at the polls. That's all I will do.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[bowens43]

8. Everyone has the right, even the duty,

to draw the line where they see fit. I draw the line at General Clark.
I will vote for Kerry , if nominated but I respect your decision not to.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

9. I wouldn't go that far

I'd vote for an epileptic goat before I sat idle as Bush won another 4.

[JasonDeter]

10. Ralph? Ralph Nader, is that you? Once again you see no difference

between bush* and a Democrat? LOL!

[TLM]

71. I did not say there was no difference....

simply that the differences are very slight and the problem I see is that voting for Kerry is, in effect voting for the aspects of Bush's agenda which Kerry supported.

Voting for Kerry is voting for the IWR.

Voting for Kerry is voting for the patriot act.

Voting for Kerry is voting for no child left behind.


One can only hold their nose so long in the voting booth before they smother.

[leftynyc]

111. You honestly don't see a difference between

having another Scalia on the court as oppposed to another Bader-Ginsberg? Or is the IWR resolution vote your only concern?

[TLM]

117. If Kerry is the nominee....

he will never get to the point of making judicial nominations.


You have to win in order to do that.

[JasonDeter]

122. Kerry is not a neocon. A glaring difference.

The patriot act has SOME good things in it but definately needs reforming.

No Child left behind was a bad move, but bush* never fully funded it so it was toothless and I predict it will eventually die. The American people are not as a whole stupid. Thank God.

But the main difference between Kerry and bush*, Kerry is an intelligent man and not locked into some radical stupid ideology and can work with our allies. bush* on the otherhand is a dangerous tiny minded little man* who is the most hated man in the world for a reason. I refuse to believe you would not vote for Kerry if he got the Democratic nomination!? Please tell me you were just trying to make a point?

[TLM]

153. No, he just supported them

and voted for things that enable their agenda.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. You and others as stuck on this point as you have yet to prove to me

that a NO vote on IWR meant NO WAR.

It's a shame because if Dean got the nod, I would support him even though he supported A WAR..just not the IWR vote.

The left hasn't learned much since Germany in the 30's...I'd really like to thank you for taking us all down with you...really I would.

[sangh0]

18. Propoganda requires repetition

and an absence of fact.

[curse10]

36. not to mention

there's more to life than IWR. Man, I'm glad I'm not a one issue voter. I'd be a mighty unhappy person all the time.

[TLM]

86. There is more to my not voting for Kerry than his IWR vote...

There's the patriot act... no child left behind... the 350 billion tax cut vote... Kerry sitting out important abortion rights votes... Kerry attacking Dean for wanting the UN behind action in Iraq...

Kerry sold us out and I will not support him.

[TLM]

78. A no vote would not have stopped Bush....

i do not think anybody claims it would have.

What it would have done is establish a line in the sand, a point at which he would no longer have their support for his actions.

Kucinich drew that line... Graham drew that line... Dean drew that line... Sharpton and CMB drew it as well. But Kerry would not tell Bush no. In fact he decided to support bush and attack those who were speaking out against the war.


He picked his side, and that was the side that will not get my vote.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

84. Dean, Sharpton and CMB did not draw that line..they didn't have to

Logic and facts are our friend.

[TLM]

119. They did draw that line... with millions of others

Just because you do not have a vote does not mean you are not allowed a voice or can not take a position.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

125. I marched in protests too. I took a position and Kerry took a position

that differed from mine in the end. As I said, taking a different position would NOT have meant NO war..it simply made the start of the war more predictable.

I did NOT sit in on closed door security meetings to know what was discussed..it STILL hasn't been made public and although I like Senator Graham, his beef was that we weren't going to war with Syria or Iran....not that we were going to war.

You are free to be a single issue voter...you are free to post this til the cows come home.

Your stand is really not all that principled, given that you ARE willing to vote for a man who DID fundamentally support going to war with Iraq..just didn't support IWR.

[TLM]

129. Saying No would have meant standing up to Bush...

Kerry couldn't be bothered.

And it is not just this issue, but many issues where Kerry sided with Bush and against dems like me. NCLB, patriot act, 350 billion in tax cuts... on and on, and I refuse to support him.

Dean is the democratic party's last shot at keeping me and voters like me.


As for Dean not being against a possible war in Iraq... I'm not against war in Iraq as long as it is justified and various conditions are met. That was Dean's position, and I support it 100%.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

134. Then you really should like Kerry

Kerry was working with Biden Lugar until that was tabled by Gep and Lieberman.

Kerry wants to correct the tax cut situation while Dean has had to backpedal on his faulty position.

There were conditions being placed on the war until Kerry was undermined by his own party, but frankly, now we know there were no WMD's so even with conditions as set by Dean, the war was unneccessary.


Again, I am not going to beg you...vote for whom you please and live with the consequence.

[library_max]

133. Because a NO vote on IWR did NOT mean NO WAR.

Woo, this overuse of capital letters is contagious!

A no vote on IWR did not mean no war because the IWR would have passed anyway. The vote was 77 to 23. 77 to 24, the IWR still passes. Furthermore, many presidents have mounted invasions (police actions, etc.) without the express permission of Congress, which is just what Bush was threatening to do (without even talking to the UN) at the time.

[aquart]

14. You stop that now.

Fight as hard as you can to get another man the nomination. You should.

But in November we present a united front or you get the honor of destroying democracy and dismembering the United States.

Happy?

[TLM]

121. i will not vote for Kerry....

the day I'm forced to vote for a man I do not support, either by manipulation, corruption, or fear... democracy is already dead.

[mitchtv]

194. thanks Aquart

little more need be said

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[dsc]

29. If he is your typical Republican

then surely you can answer this. Out of the four hundred elected and appointed Republicans in Washington and in various state houses, can you name even five with Dean's record on gay rights, women's rights, the enviroment, and abortion to name some issues. Again, you said he was a typical Republican.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

34. Dean hearalded Newt Gingrich's cuts in medicare and social....

spending. Dean cut drug treatment programs because they "didn't work"!

He sounds rather archaic to me.

[TLM]

124. So that would be a NO, you can not name even one....

doesn't sound very typical.

[MoonRiver]

16. The survival of this country and the world is more important to me

than one Senate vote. Kerry would have never invaded Iraq had he been president. He made a wrong call, but the comparison between * and Kerry is mind boggling. Should Kerry get the nom, I'll not only vote for him, but actively work on his campaign, to ensure that my country is still habitable in 4 years.

[Faygo Kid]

17. Too much at stake

I appreciate your feelings about any candidate, but please rethink not voting. The nation and maybe the world is at stake. This isn't just another election. A second Bush term would permanently change this nation, and not for the better. The Supreme Court alone is reason enough not to let him back. Add in every other policy - aggressive war, the return of the draft, the ruination of the economy to benefit a few, the environment, civil rights - every single position Bush holds is anathema to a healthy nation. We must work to defeat this man. If Kerry gets the nomination, so be it. Sitting it out is not an option.

[HFishbine]

43. If you feel that way

then maybe it would make sense to support a candidate the anti-war people approve of. Why don't you change your position instead of asking us to change ours? What gives your opinion the moral high ground here?

[library_max]

136. Yeah, why should the majority rule in a democracy?

On edit: that was sarcasm, by the way.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. silly much?

yes so we should all forget the many other ways kerry is FAR FAR Better than Bush and just remember the one instance in which he was wrong?

This is the real world, and if one does not vote for the democratic candidate than one is as responsible for the unemployment and other social issues we will have with four more years of bush, as the freepers are.

to give that all up because Kerry took one stance that we dont like is ridiculous

[JaneQPublic]

20. I will vote for Kerry if he is the nominee

I may even kick in a few bucks.

But I won't be working my tail off for Kerry the way I have been for Dean (and will continue to do if Dean is the nominee). It's probably best that I don't campaign for Kerry, anyway. Despite my best efforts, my lack of enthusiasm and sincerity would be so palatable, I would probably cost him more votes than I would gain.

[Monte Carlo]

22. Oh stop nailing yourself to the cross.

This little narrative you have going about the IWR and the war is cute and all, but it's incredibly melodramatic. If you refuse to see the differences between Bush and Kerry, than I'm wasting my time typing this.

[lancdem]

23. Give me a break

Any of our candidates are way, way, way preferable to Bush. If you can't see that, well ... never mind. :eyes:
I'm also getting really sick of DUers pushing this "insider" crap and insulting the voters of Iowa and N.H. claiming they were duped. Please, give them a little credit, OK?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. With you. His vote for war, cost him my vote.

I'm way "too liberal" for him and his DLC pals.

[Monte Carlo]

28. You make your vote too expensive...

... when you set up these little standards of candidates, so don't be suprised when you meet with a lot of disappointment.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Too expensive? 20,000 + lives are too expensive.

You consider that a "little standard"? As for disappointment in cheap politicians like Kerry and bush, one has to have expectations of something better. I've never had expectations of bush other than to act like the soul-less, brainless, goober that he is. I gave up expecting anything other than cynical ambition from Kerry after his sell-out vote.

[sangh0]

49. 20,000+ lives is relatively small

compared to the number of Americans who die from various factors like

1) no health care
2) death penalty
3) tobacco
4) unhealthy foods produced by agri-corps
5) pollution
6) NAFTA

some of us refuse to put Iraqis ahead of the rest of the world.

[Casablanca]

76. Your numeric triangulation of lives is so Realpolitik

Quit trying to channel Kissenger before he's in the ground.

[sangh0]

81. Helping the poor is "Realpolitik"???

Since when?

[Casablanca]

"20K lives are relatively small" is the definition of realpolitik ...

And so is trying to frame your comment in terms of "helping the poor". Playing the numbers game with human lives doesn't help the poor.

[sangh0]

146. You have an odd definiton of Realpolitik

And so is trying to frame your comment in terms of "helping the poor". Playing the numbers game with human lives doesn't help the poor

Actually, you should re-direct you comments to the one who spoke of 20,000 Iraqi lives, as if the zeroes made them more important than anyone else's lives.

And I don't play "number games" with poor people. I donate thousand of dollars and forty+ hours a week helping them.

[Monte Carlo]

56. Well now we're on a tangent.

Yes, too expensive. You are pricing yourself out of the market. If a candidate has to alienate 5 votes of average Americans to win your one, than he simply won't do it. Welcome to politics.

And I've got news for you, Bush is not soulless, he is not brainless. It is very dangerous to underestimate one's enemies. If you think his ambitions were the only issue in that vote, you're crazy. There was - way before Bush ever sleazed his way into office - an international concern and desire to rid the world of Saddam and stop weapons proliferation. Kerry's speeches closely matched Clinton's when he was in office. Sure, it was a judgement call, but in matters of national security, it is almost always better to err on the side of caution.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. Caution.

"... always better to err on the side of caution."

How cheaply you and Kerry value human lives. I suppose in the name of "non-proliferation" you would favor the invasion and subjugation of India? Pakistan? Israel? China? Russia? After all, they actually have WMD.

There was indeed an international concern about removing Saddam. Too bad that Kerry and bush ignored it.

Kerry may not come after my vote for fear of alienating 5 "average" Americans (whatever that may be). But, judging by the numerous Loyalty Oaths found on the DU, he and his followers are worried about our itty-bitty minority that won't vote for him.

[Renew Deal]

26. The self defeating democrat.

I understand how you feel. But you have to choose between Bush and the Dem nominee to be named later. Those are your only two choices. And anything that is not a vote for the Demmocratic nominee is a vote for Bush. So why do you want to help chimpy stay in power?

[_NorCal_D_]

27. That's your choice,

however tragic it may be.

Personally, I can't wait to cast the most profound vote of my life.

[bigtree]

31. John Kerry did what he thought best

He sought to steer Bush back to the U.N. with his IWR vote. He did not, at any time, support Bush's predisposed, unilateral, preemptive rush to invade and occupy Iraq. Not in words or in his deeds.

I marched against the war. Several times. I gave away t-shirts I had festooned with 'Support Our Returning Soldiers' on the front and a peace sign on the back. In no way did I assume that everyone had to have the same perspective on the war as I did. There was a profusion of concern over Bush's intentions and subsequent actions that brought together a coalition of interests that intended to stop or forestall the invasion. They were present at the marches. Many declined my entreaties to take heed of the troops. Many accepted the mixed appeal. The culprit was Bush. We were united in that.

Some Democrats in Congress sought to slow down that march to war. Some in outright opposition. Some offered alternative bills. Others tried to influence the language of the final IWR to mandate a return to the U.N. negotiating table. John Kerry among them. Nowhere in the resolution does it mandate immediate invasion. Nowhere does it mandate unilateral war and occupation. Nothing in the statements nor actions of Sen. Kerry did he advocate for, or give cover to Bush's actions. Quite the contrary:


The Massachusetts senator has stood by his vote last fall for the Iraq resolution in the face of criticism from anti-war Democrats and rival Howard Dean, a former Vermont governor who opposed the U.S.-led war. Kerry qualified his support Monday, saying it was the correct vote "based on the information that we were given."

"The president promised to build the international coalition, to do this as a matter of last resort, to go through the United Nations process and respect it," he said. "And in the end, it is clear now that he didn't do that sufficiently. And I think in that regard, the American people were let down."

Kerry said he voted for the resolution with the understanding that the administration would build an international coalition before attacking Saddam Hussein's forces.

"It seems quite clear to me that the president circumvented that process, shortchanged it and did not give full meaning to the words 'last resort,"' Kerry said in a 20-minute conference call with reporters.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/07/21/national1525EDT0608.DTL

"He talked about keeping Americans safe, but has too often practiced a blustering unilateralism that is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. He talked about holding Saddam Hussein accountable, but has too often ignored opportunities to unify the world against this brutal dictator." 01/28/2003 Response to President Bush's State of the Union http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003144&keyword=&phrase=&contain=


"I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. But I also believe that a heavy-handed approach will leave us to carry the burden almost alone. That's why I was one of the first Democrats to speak up and urge President Bush to go to the United Nations - because even a country as great as the United States needs some friends in this world.

The President says that war should be a last resort. He says it; I mean it -- because I know the cost of war. I have seen it with my own eyes. If I am commander in chief, I won't just have the perspective that comes from sitting in the Situation Room. I'll have the perspective that comes from serving on the front lines. And I tell you this: the United States should never go to war because it wants to; it should go to war only because it has to."
03/14/2003 http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003617&keyword=&phrase=&contain=


I am here today to reject the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the world out, or who would prefer to strike out on our own instead of forging coalitions and step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security.

I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.

Too often they've forgotten that energetic global leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries. Leading the world's most advanced democracies isn't mushy multilateralism—it amplifies America's voice and extends our reach. Working through global institutions doesn't tie our hands—it invests US aims with greater legitimacy and dampens the fear and resentment that our preponderant power sometimes inspires in others.

In a world growing more, not less interdependent, unilateralism is a formula for isolation and shrinking influence. As much as some in the White House may desire it, America can't opt out of a networked world. We can do better than we are doing today. And those who seek to lead have a duty to offer a clear vision of how we make Americans safer and make America more trusted and respected in the world. 01/23/2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003082&keyword=&phrase=&contain=


"I find myself angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight. As the world's sole superpower in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world, our government's obligation to protect the security of the United States and the law abiding nations of the world could not be more clear, particularly in the aftermath of September 11.

Yet the Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating. President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post 9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world in a manner that will make the jobs ahead of us -- both the military defeat and the rebuilding of Iraq -- decidedly more expensive in every sense of that word.

Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.

My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration -- like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success. In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building -- a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world's powers excluded -- would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. Unfortunately, that is an option that has been disregarded by President Bush." Statement of Senator John Kerry Regarding President Bush's Announcement on Iraq 03/18/2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003667&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

[CWebster]

33. TLM

LOL! Like the way they are abusing you as their only strategy to garner support? If only they had demanded the same of Kerry when it mattered.

[ACPS65]

41. I AGREE!

NOBODY but DEAN!

NOBODY!

[TLM]

145. I could vote for Kucinich.... maybe even Edwards.

But there's no way that Kerry gets my vote.


I'll write in Dean before I'll vote Kerry.


I see some of Kerry's supporters like battered wives who keep making excuses and going back to the asshole that beats them. Oh he only did it because he loves me. He'll change, you'll see.


I'm not going to do that. Kerry cared more about supporting BUSH than he did about supporting folks like me... and now he will not get my vote.

[NWHarkness]

53. I'll vote for Dean in my caucus

and support the Democratic nominee in November.

And I am ashamed of any Dean supporters who will not do likewise.

[Walt Starr]

62. Actually, I'm kind of ashamed

that I am willing to whore my vote to whomever the Democratic nominee will be because I despise Bush so much.

That's more shameful than standing up for my principles.

[edzontar]

60. Kerry is a poor choice, but I will vote for him anyway.

holding my nose all the while, because bush is so much worse.

That said, i think Kerry is most likely to LOSE of all the "Final Four" candidates, yet--ironicallt--its seems that most of his support comes from the mstaken notion that he is the most "electable,"

He isn't, as i fear we shall soon discover.

[ibegurpard]

64. Not only do I think he's probably the most vulnerable

Even if he DOES manage to win, he will do nothing to stop the corrupting influence of corporate money from tainting the Democratic Party.

[bigtree]

79. John Kerry's policy on corporate abuses

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000025913&keyword=corporate+corruption&phrase=&contain=

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is taking on corporate corruption in America. Today Kerry unveiled a plan to clean up corporate corruption and restore investor confidence. He joins us now from Boston.


Sen. KERRY: Well, I think the evidence is we do because the SEC has proven itself both unwilling to regulate the other industries as well as that, and I think there's a serious problem. Look, I'm not a big regulator, regulator, regulator person. In fact, I've voted for deregulation when appropriate. And I honor the notion that there are many, many, many businesses, many CEOs, the vast majority, who feel they're injured by what is happening today. They play by the rules. They know we need a marketplace where there is trust. And what I want is to re-create that trust.

I'm not trying to single out business across the board, but we have seen a growth in the abuses. And we have seen-I mean, when you have 15 mutual fund companies and some 12 brokerage houses all engaging in this rather extraordinary 'place your bet when you know the outcome' routine, something is profoundly wrong. And when you add that to WorldCom, to Enron and the other problems, America-you know, we've gone up to, you know, about 44 million Americans who invested in the marketplace by 1998.

Sen. KERRY: I blame the lax enforcement on him, absolutely. Look at his appointment to the SEC. We finally, only in a storm of outrage, got the former SEC leader out of there so that we could move forward. We're not even filling the roles of enforcement within the SEC. The positions that are there today are not being filled. There is a lax ethic of enforcement. And when you add to it the sort of corporate bonanza that's taking place in Washington and the halls of Congress-- $50 billion of oil and gas subsidies that adds $18 billion to the deficit-I know conservative Republican friends, CEOs of companies, who are outraged by the fiscal irresponsibility of Washington today. And that is directly attributable to a president who's left the barn door open.


http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000025666&keyword=corporate+corruption&phrase=&contain=

Q BCCI hearings; offshore bank and corporate secrecy system; about the massive tax evasion

SEN. KERRY: Well, it's a terrific question, and the answer is-and I talk about this everywhere I go around the country, because the sense of unfairness, the feeling of violation by the average American worker today is enormous. And no-one should underestimate the degree to which the American people understand what's happening. Tyco leaves Exeter, New Hampshire-moves its address, but leaves the workers, the buildings and the products in Exeter, where everything goes on as if before. But by just taking the address to Bermuda, they take $400 million off the tax rolls, leaving everybody else to make up the difference.

In the last fifteen years, we've moved from a nation of $200 billion of offshore assets to $5 trillion of offshore assets. We saw the numbers of offshore entities created by Enron, created by WorldCom, others. And you know, as a former prosecutor, I have strong reactions about what is known in the trade as a “sham transaction.” It is clear to most people how to distinguish that.

Now, at the same time, we live in a global society. We live in a world of trade. We obviously are going to have multinational corporations with very legitimate reasons to be offshore and to have assets offshore. But what we need, and what I will do is put a very clear line between what is a sham transaction, a non-economic transaction, and legitimate economic enterprise.
We know how to do that; we're just not trying.

In fact, we have encouraged people to take advantage of those offshore-and I remember picking up The Economist magazine-you can pick one up today, probably, and you'll find in the small-print advertising at the bottom of one of the pages how to avoid taxes. And people will help you set it up. There are enough brass-plate companies down in Georgetown, the Cayman Islands, different places, to make anybody in America sick when they look at their own tax bill. And that's what's happening. I'm going to review the tax code, that's gone from 14 pages at its inception to 17,000 pages today, and we are going to help America have a marketplace that is fair, where we reward work and products and people, not perks and privileges.


http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000020121&keyword=corporate+corruption&phrase=&contain=

. . . more legal oversight of the exchange? Or of the way corporate boards are put together? Senator Kerry first.

Sen. KERRY: I think we need to democratize the process. Clearly, boards of directors need to be represented better with respect to shareholders. There are many things we can do. Look, this goes to the core of what we are and who we are as Americans. The reason to be concerned about it is not as a matter of targeting CEOs or being, you know, angry at business. It's because it's a matter of fundamental fairness of how we hold ourselves together as a country. It goes to the core of how Americans ought to have a relationship between worker and those they work for. And that workplace has been abused. When you have misconduct in the boardroom, it's as bad as a mugging in the street, except that in many ways, it's broader because more people are hurt. And many Americans are feeling mugged by what is happening in this country today, the fundamental unfairness.

When you have a $7 billion no-bid contract to Halliburton, it breaks faith with the American people. I mean, one wishes that they built bridges and schools in America because maybe then Bush would invest in them, and that's the kind of thing we need to do.

[Walt Starr]

70. So all you'll do is hold your nose?

I'll be bringing a bucket to hold the inevitable puke, too.

No money, no activism, just my vote.

I cannnot bring myself to ceven attempt to convince a fence sitter that Kerry is the right choice, let alone get involved in Kerry activism.

[TopesJunkie]

83. Well, I'll have a bottle of wine waiting for me at home --

Though I'm sure I'll have to take a shower first. Oh, I'll feel so dirty.

[edzontar]

142. Kerry is indeed vomit-inducing...I shall vote for him....

Then hurry home to heave and watch the landslide defeat of our party on the television.

God help us all.

[TLM]

163. you know for the first time I really understand why so many do not vote

to be put in a position of having to vote for someone like Kerry after what he has done over the last 3 years... or risk 4 more of Bush, it is enough to make me want to just say fuck it.

They've won... they've mannaged to steal the power away from me and keep the power over my government in the hands of a few DC insiders.

[ibegurpard]

176. 4 years ago I would've said you were nuts.

Today I agree with you.

[library_max]

191. What changed your mind?

Nader voters in Florida putting Bush in the White House? Gee, I think most people would interpret that as a strike against your position.

[atre]

208. EXACTLY- The media says Kerry is the most electable... Is he?

Every Kerry supporter I've talked to (in person) says they support him because they think he's the most electable. Not surprisingly, exit polling revealed that's the reason why he won the N.H. primary.

There is very little substantive support for his policies or platform. Most of his fans support him because the media has lied to them and said he is the only Democrat who can win.

I agree with you on that count. He is the LEAST electable of the major four candidates. Unlike Dean, Clark, and Kucinich, he's been a willing enabler for the Bush junta. Unlike Edwards and Kucinich, he doesn't plan on making fundamental changes to the social status quo- In short, he's a "lady of the night" for corporate contributions. He doesn't fire up the leftist base on any count and has zero cross-over appeal (although he may draw some votes from people frustrated with Bush, that has nothing to do with HIS appeal).

Forgive me if I can't get fired up for a watered-down version of the status quo. Forgive me if I won't vote for someone who has told me (as a Southerner) that my vote doesn't count.

[David Zephyr]

68. And Don't Forget the Patriot Act.

I happen to appreciate my civil liberties. They were not John Kerry's or John Edwards' or Joe Liebeman's to vote away.

Shameful.

[bigtree]

105. The late Paul Wellstone

didn't feel that he was voting away anyone's civil liberties. That's why he and other Democrats who supported the bill succeeded in making the most odious provisions temporary.

There is no disagreement among the candidates as to whether to renew the provisions as Bush would do. Not even our most liberal candidate nor the ACLU advocates the total repeal of the bill. Initial support for the Patriot Act is a major issue only for those supporters of Russ Feingold (the only Democrat in the Senate to vote against the bill) and those who would seek to elevate their candidate and pull candidates who voted for it down.

Paul Wellstone. Ted Kennedy. Push past that.

Look. Most of the Patriot act amends existing federal statutes that were targeted by conservatives before the 9-11 terrorist attacks. (Like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 39, which was enacted in the wake of FBI surveillance of U.S. citizens in the '60's and the '70's) This national security intelligence tool is being recklessly manipulated in the administration's zeal to prosecute their cynical "war on terrorism."

The FISA was sponsored in the ‘60's by Sen. Edward Kennedy and others in an attempt to reign in warrantless surveillance. But the FBI and the NSA have used the act to set up secret courts and have perverted the act to conduct surveillance for domestic criminal investigations in addition to their foreign counterintelligence probes.

Ted Kennedy wasn't wrong then for expecting the FISA to be used without recrimination or guile, and the supporters of the Patriot Act weren't wrong for expecting the same from Bush.

We don't generally excuse intruders who rob and vandalize just because they found an open window to crawl through.

[David Zephyr]

115. Blah,Blah, Blah.

In other words, you support the Patriot Act and those that voted for it. No need to try and justify it to me.

It stinks. It's unconstitutional as a court just ruled here in Los Angeles.

Unconstitutional.

[bigtree]

131. "Blah,Blah, Blah."

That level of discourse sir, is appropriate for a brawl, but doesn't address the issue of Bush's abuse of the Act.

You would disqualify the entire Senate from presidential consideration, save Sen. Feingold, because of their vote on the Patriot Act? That is a most extreme view.

Here. The whole Act hasn't been struck down:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/

A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated international terrorist organizations.

The ruling marks the first court decision to declare a part of the post-September 11, 2001 anti-terrorism statute unconstitutional, said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project.

In a ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.

The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey.

[David Zephyr]

174. Bigtree, You Have Only Further Underlined My Misgivings About Kerry.

Are some Kerry supporters so zealous for their candidate that they actually reduce themselves to wasting emotion and breath on justifying the Patriot Act to principled people of the Left?

Am I to believe that you, in your strong and unflinching cheer leading and support of the Patriot Act, are representative of all Kerry supporters?

Believe me, you do more to push millions of us even further away from John Kerry than the Senator does himself.

Have your fun and keep it up, Bigtree. Continue to do Kerry's bidding and shout down the voices that despise the Patriot Act. That cavalier attitude will send millions voting Green or Socialist in November. But then, I am certain that you figure you'll be bringing in more than enough Republicans and conservative voters in the General Election to make up for those of us on the Left who are outraged by the Patriot Act. So your trivializing my convictions about the Patriot Act are understandable.

Certainly, the political advice of President Richard Nixon --- one of the nation's all-time, hall-of-famers with regards to trampling American civil liberties --- to run to some abstract "center" after the Primary season to win a general election in November has been followed by Democrats as well as Republicans for years. It also has the added benefit for conservative Democrats in allowing them to govern conservatively according to their true beliefs, doesn't it?

I am most appreciative that you have taken the time here to more than indicate to me how the Kerry Campaign and the man at the Center of it --- who must take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, not erode it --- feels about the Patriot Act.

I almost was foolish enough to think that John Kerry might consider calling for the repeal of the Act after all. I am certainly grateful to you for making it clear to me on behalf of Senator Kerry that such a disilusionary notion should be disregarded altogether.

Thank you.

[IndianaGreen]

180. Kerry will keep PATRIOT and Bush's First Amendment Zones

If Kerry is elected, Iraq and the so-called "war on terror" will become Democratic wars, just as Vietnam became a Republican war after Nixon failed to bring the troops home shortly after taking office.

[library_max]

189. He has already said otherwise.

But I suppose you'd rather rail against a Kerry that exists only in your imagination. Carry on.

[IndianaGreen]

204. Kerry will not repeal PATRIOT, he will merely change personnel at DOJ

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/civil_liberties.html

[bigtree]

186. I'm not cheerleading the act.

It was passed in the wake of the terrorist attacks with the best of motives by some in Congress. Almost everyone on the Democratic side has advocated sunsetting odious provisions and repealing some others.

I am asking for you to accept that sometimes bills are wrongfully executed by the executive branch. And you will forever hold every Senator 'cept Feingold responsible. I accept that

But the act can be fixed. All of the candidates advocate that. Many of the Justice Dept.'s abuses were under existing law. All candidates advocate keeping useful measures of the act like intelligence sharing, for example.

David, I will defend our democracy. I am as committed to that as anyone. I participate in this debate at many levels and I am in no way compensated by a Kerry presidency, except in that I believe him to be a committed, caring man who I think will do us right in his demonstrated love for his country and his countrymen. I would not assume that any of these candidates lack these qualities. Not Socialist, Green, or whatever. So, fight on.

Hope that wasn't too cavalier for you.

[IndianaGreen]

205. PATRIOT cannot be fixed!

But the act can be fixed

The only "fixing" PATRIOT Act needs is its outright repeal.

[IndianaGreen]

178. The attack on democratic rights

The attack on democratic rights

In its domestic as well as its foreign policy, the Bush administration has used September 11 as a pretext to put into effect a broad range of measures prepared in advance. In the name of the “war on terror,” and through bipartisan legislation like the USA Patriot Act, it has scrapped such basic constitutional protections as the presumption of innocence, the right of habeas corpus, the right to an attorney, and the right to a speedy and public trial.

The infrastructure of an American police state is being established: the Department of Homeland Security, the Pentagon’s Northern Command, centralizing all military forces in the continental US, and a concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In legal arguments supporting the detention of Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamdi, the Bush administration has proclaimed the entire United States a war zone in which the president has the authority to act as military dictator, seizing and imprisoning American citizens without any judicial review.

The unprecedented assault on democratic rights is not merely a matter of the decisions of George W. Bush or the personality of Attorney General John Ashcroft. It is a byproduct of the enormous growth of social inequality in the United States over the past three decades.

Society is deeply divided between an oligarchy of the fabulously wealthy and the masses of working class and middle-class people struggling to pay their bills. The intensifying social stresses make it impossible to maintain democratic forms of rule. In the final analysis, the attack on democratic rights represents the defense mechanism of a financial elite seeking to protect its vast wealth against the social strivings of the overwhelming majority of the people.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/stat-j27.shtml

[David Zephyr]

182. Can You Actually Believe This?

We are witnessing the supporters of a candidate of the Democratic Party dismiss our concerns for as you say "basic constitutional protections as the presumption of innocence, the right of habeas corpus, the right to an attorney, and the right to a speedy and public trial."

Apparently, we are "the problem", IndianaGreen, not their candidate's naked participation in the wholesale shredding of those rights.

Hey! What's the matter with us? What's the loss of a few silly constitutional rights when the cult of the personality is having a party, huh?

How dare us!

[IndianaGreen]

206. The Bill of Rights is not a Constitutional cafeteria

The Bill of Rights is not a Constitutional cafeteria where one can pick and choose which civil liberties one wants to keep and which to discard. The Bill of Rights was a package deal when it was adopted by the States, and remains a package deal.

I suspect that some of our colleagues were asleep during civics class.

[IndianaGreen]

177. We need a change in policies, not a change in personnel in Washington

It is an illusion to believe that the issues confronting working people can be resolved simply by the removal of Bush. The Bush administration is, in the final analysis, the political expression of the desperation, disorientation and recklessness of the American ruling elite as it confronts a systemic social and economic crisis for which it has no rational, let alone progressive, solution. There is no question that Bush and his associates represent an especially foul, reactionary and even criminal element within this elite. But even if they were to be removed in November, their replacement by the candidates of the Democratic Party would not substantially alter the violent and destructive trajectory of American capitalism, either within the United States or internationally.

In the event of a Democratic Party victory, the campaign promises would soon be exposed as cynical exercises in electioneering demagogy. A new Democratic president would remain subservient to the same corporate interests and pursue the same imperialist strategy of world domination.

A fundamental and progressive shift in American policy requires not merely a change in the ruling personnel, but rather a social revolution that puts an end to the domination of the American people by corporate interests, massive private wealth and the profit system itself.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/stat-j27.shtml

[bigtree]

181. So you would advocate the views of the Socialist Equality Party

over lifelong Democrats. Revealing! Disappointing to me. Stark rhetoric there:

"A new Democratic president would remain subservient to the same corporate interests and pursue the same imperialist strategy of world domination."

Thanks for these.

[IndianaGreen]

202. Bill Clinton, the hero of some DUers, had a dismal human rights record

Many of us are issue-driven and reject calls for unconditional partisan loyalty oaths just as we reject government-imposed loyalty oaths.

This is no GOP propaganda or rightwing media talking points, this is the point of view of human rights activists including Human Rights Watch:

"Despite its rhetoric, the Clinton Administration ignored human rights conditions and invoked the waiver, allowing the United States to fund a military the U.S. State Department itself has reported is abusive."

José Miguel Vivanco
Executive Director
Americas Division

HRW Appeal to EU to Suspend Aid to Colombia
Brussels, September 1, 2000

The decision by President Clinton on August 22 to invoke a "national security interest" waiver eviscerates human rights conditions contained in legislation approving $1.3 billion in aid. This decision sends a clear message at a crucial moment to Colombia's Armed Forces that the United States will not hold them accountable for gross human rights violations.

<snip>

We believe the U.S. decision to waive human rights conditions converts "Plan Colombia" into a policy that exacerbates an already critical situation. Military aid without human rights conditions offers tacit approval of the Colombian military's continuing support for and tolerance of paramilitary groups. Any other programs risk being tainted or, worse, becoming irrelevant.


As you know, the so-called Leahy Amendment remains part of U.S. law. It is designed to prevent most U.S. military aid from funding units and officers with notorious records. But it does not go far enough. The Leahy Amendment applies to only those few units that directly receive U.S. aid. Meanwhile, the bulk of Colombia's military forces continue to be implicated in serious human rights abuse. Vetting is largely secret, and legally only focuses on human rights abuses committed directly by troops. Not on the more common practice of aiding and abetting paramilitary atrocities.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/09/eu-ltr0911.htm

[TopesJunkie]

72. It's hard to blame you --

We have distinct choices available to us this time around. If the party elects to go with Kerry, it is difficult to blame anyone who would see this as a betrayal of what is needed at this time.

I will vote for the Dem candidate, regardless. But, if it is Kerry, I will be holding my nose -- big time! I don't think my vote will matter, however. I don't see Kerry winning the general election without divine intervention. Since I am an agnostic, I won't count on that.

[desi]

73. Kerry was not the only one duped by the Bushistas.

..Kerry supported us during Nam and even though I'm leaning Dean I will fully support him should he WIN our nomination. This upcoming election and the removal of Bush and the Neo-Cons is much bigger than the DLC and petty vindictiveness.

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryN1216NELSON.htm

[Basurero]

74. Go Bush Go!

Four more years of Rove and the BFEE.

Thanks a lot, TLM.

[progressivebydesign]

77. I've enjoyed the DU transformation quite a lot..

Why it seems just 8 months ago that Kerry was not popular here on DU. His vote for IWR earned him a lot of hostility here on DU. He was never popular here.. He was right up there with Gephardt on the likability scale. Now.. he's the man of the hour. Freaky.

[ibegurpard]

87. Interesting, isn't it?

eom

[YNGW]

92. I agree.

Kerry was Satan's son not very long ago here. Now with some, he's the anwer to all our prayers.

Voting ABB sometimes means you get what you pay for.

[_NorCal_D_]

95. I don't think

that Kerry is the preferred candidate on DU, but as he is the perceived front-runner I guess that means that we have to pay attention to him! B-)

[Snivi Yllom]

130. People have forgotten the millions marching around the US

Oh those silly little antiwar marches...oh it's ok, lets have a Presidential candidate who voted for the war.

[edzontar]

148. Kerry betrayed the anti-war movement with his IWR cave-in

And has the resulting blood on his hands every bit as much as Bush does.

I shall have to ignore this stinking reality when I reluctantly pull the lever in support of his doomed candidacy.

This could be the end of the DP as we know it..maybe not a bad thing, actually, since our party is once again failing to stand on principle and going for the DINO sell-out candidate.

[PatrickS]

157. Exactly!

[OutlawCorporatePolls]

89. i wont becuz...

... he is not from the executive branch, is skull and bones.. he's just not leadership material. and how can he say he will attack corporations, when he takes so much money from the financial institutions. they own the corps(es).

[bushwakker]

94. Did you vote for Gore?

I suspect not.

[ibegurpard]

100. I did.

And the speeches he has given and actions he has taken since that time have confirmed to me that I made the right decision. I find it very interesting that the Democratic Party machine made it clear to Gore that he wouldn't get their support and that after he dropped out it was the Kerry folks on DU who did their absolute best to squash any talk of attempting to draft him.

[TLM]

167. I did in fact vote for Gore....

I left the green party over the shit with Nader.

However Gore was 1000 times the man Kerry could ever hope of being.

[genius]

97. At least he didn't back Dean's Biden-Lugar rush to war.

That would have resulted in the war starting earlier. Check Dean's history. Once he ound out hte war was unpopular and switched to anti-war, he pretended to be from the Ministry of Truth and claimed to have always been against the war. Kerry was more anti-war than Dean. Dean's pro-occupation and Kerry is anti-occupation.

[ibegurpard]

104. What a completely Orwellian statement

:wow:

[TLM]

171. LOL! Talk about desperation....

BL had stricter guidelines and requirements for war than the IWR Kerry supported.

And when Dean was calling for getting the UN behind any action in Iraq... here was the response from Kerry's campaign.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.

[zulchzulu]

99. how about Dean supporting the IWR/B-L amendment/Afghan war, Gulf War I...

You see no importance to holding that up to the light?

If being utterly anti-war is your single issue, you should vote for Kucinich.

[ibegurpard]

108. The ACLU endorse Biden-Lugar as the far superior alternative

to the IWR which KERRY VOTED FOR... as long as we're going to harp on one single issue.

[molly]

159. Please explain why and remember Biden is my senator

and I just love him!

[ibegurpard]

170. You're asking ME to explain why the ACLU preferred Biden-Lugar?

Perhaps you should redirect that inquiry to them?

[_NorCal_D_]

118. Good point.

[TLM]

172. I am not "utterly anti-war" but I understand the only way to defend Kerry

Is to attack Dean, and the only way to prop up such shoddy attacks is with false premises like yours.

Dean never claimed to be anti-war and I do not support him because i think we was utterly anti-war.

I support him for many reasons, one of which is that while Kerry was caving and voting for IWR, Dean was standing up and saying NO to Bush and saying Bush had not made the case for war.

[oc2002]

101. who ever wins the Dem noninee is 1000000X better than BUSH!

I am soo tired of Bush!

The first step in 2004 is to send him back to Texas, then you all can stick it to each other on the issues. But just remember, that congress is still controled by the Republicans.

[TreasonousBastard]

102. OK, so...

don't vote for him. Self-immolation and sacrifice for principle is a noble thing.

Sacrificing the rest of the country for principle is, however, questionable at best.

If we should come down to a choice between President Bush and President Kerry, I suppose it would make no difference at all that refusing to support Kerry means de facto support for Bush.

Last election, I knew a few naderites who refused to vote for Gore or Bush because they saw them as the same. I knew far too many more who refused to vote at all for the same reason. And we ended up with Bush.

Who we now know is not the same at all.

[bigtree]

123. Sweet bird, that shun’st the noise of folly,

Most musical, most melancholy!

[redqueen]

109. I will.

ABB, baby.

Now, more than ever. Literally.

[MercutioATC]

126. I disagree, but understand what you're saying.

Hell, I think 4 years of Kerry would essentially make NO difference, but I think that 4 years of Bush would cause more harm.

I hate getting to a "lesser of two evils" scenario. I still believe we'll have the chance to make a SUBSTANTIVE difference with Howard Dean, but I'll still vote for Kerry if I'm forced to.

[TLM]

173. You know i think that's the best argument I've seen so far

for voting for Kerry...

Dean represents change... Kerry on the fence represents nothing but the status quo for the corrupt DC insiders... but Bush would with 4 more years go on a scorched earth tear like we can't believe.

The problem is, that I doubt Kerry can beat Bush, even with my vote.

[MercutioATC]

179. I completely agree. I don't trust that Kerry will effect change.

I do, however, believe that Kerry, Dean and Edwards could ALL beat Dean, depending on the voters.

[krkaufman]

132. What do those who voted "NO" on IWR have to say?

I'm curious, what do those who voted "NO" on IWR have to say as to why they voted "No"?

Kerry continually says what Bush "promised" to do (UN, inspections, post-planning), but what sucker, with nearly 2 years of dishonesty under this Admin's belt, would have believed them and taken them at their "word"? Why/how were those who voted "NO" not suckered in?

If they were able to come to the correct judgement on IWR (i.e. "NO!"), then doesn't it demonstrate a lack of judgement, analytical capability, intellect, or political boldness? I don't want another President lacking in these areas...!!

p.s. Also, is their a correlation between "Yes"/"No" votes and who was running for office in the mid-term elections?

[NewHampster]

137. I almost agree for selfish reasons

I just think it might be so much fun to see Kerry have to deal with a Repuke congress.

I think I'd still stay ABB

But I will never support or work for a Kerry campaign. I don't want to learn Rovian techniques for taking the legs out from under good people. I still think we can win fair and square and I'd rather not tarnish my good name.

[bigtree]

144. Better to tarnish his then?

Rovian techniques? Man, practice what you preach.

[NewHampster]

158. Caught again

[mitchum]

147. May you "nobly "suffer under the return of the chimp

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

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

[1songbird]

166. It is a tough situation.

I used to like Kerry until the rumors of the negative attacks on other candidates surfaced. I think he has to be careful as to how he conducts himself throughout his campaign. I have allegience to my guy Wesley Clark that can transfer to the deserving candidate if Wes does not get the nomination. I will have great difficulty voting for anyone that uses character assassination as a means to tear him down or other candidates. Debating issues is one thing accusing someone of being a republican ringer is quite another. My advice would be to clean it up.

[Edge]

183. I agree....but...

I'll still vote for Kerry, not matter how much it hurts. Kerry's gotta do a better job than Bush if he's nominated.

I too really hate that he's supported Dubya on the major issues. This just pisses me off. I wish we had a frontrunner opposed Bush from the start, like Dean or Kucinich. Instead, we have a Bush butt-kisser. Makes me mad. :grr: :grr: :grr:

[sendero]

185. I agree with you...

... sorta. I do not think Kerry will be as formidable as Dean, Clark or Edwards. I think he will suck wind in the south, where Taxachusetts is universally scorned. I think he will have a hard time going up against a man he apparently agreed with so often. I personally find his manner uninspiring. I cannot imagine him taking on Bush* in a debate the way Bush* needs to be taken on.

But where we differ is this. I *will* vote for him. I would vote anyone who gets the nomination. Yes, he screwed up big time on the IRW - but nobody is perfect. I think the press will eat him alive - but hey he wants to run, lets see if he can do it.

[Polemonium]

192. ditto

and it wasn't just the war vote. Kerry was voting for nearly everything * was throwing at him. No child left behind (one of the biggest failures in an education bill - Kerry voted for it). Budget's that have turned a surplus into a record deficit well Kerry voted for them. Ahh the patriot act (the most subversive bill against the constitution passed in my lifetime - Kerry voted for it). When Kerry's constituents tried to reach him - Kerry ignored them. Kerry can have his $600 hair cuts and all the rest of it, just let the people run the country for a change.

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

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

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

196. Refuse to vote for Another Skull & Bones Elitist...No vote for Kerry.

I'd just as soon have four more years of Bush, than have a faux Democrat elitist like Kerry take office. If Kerry were to win (which is doubtful...HE'S SOOO BORING), he will turn off voters to the REAL change that is needed in our country. They will become disenchanted with the Democratic Party again and the Repukes will have someone waiting in the wings for 8 more years.

WE NEED A REAL CHOICE this year. Not a selection between two opportunist elitist jerk-offs who are members of the same secret world-domination frat.

JB

[still_one]

201. If Bush wins

If Bush wins the Republicans will control both houses, and the face of the country will change for at least twenty years.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

203. So be it. I will NOT be force fed a candidate by the media. Period.

What choice are we really getting anyway? I'm sick of the populist message being drowned out by corporate fascists.

No vote for Bush
No vote for Kerry

JB

[Samantha]

199. You and I must be political twins separated at birth

I have said the same thing about Kerry for three years now, using your reasons plus a few more. My question has always been is there much difference between a Bush* and a Bush* enabler.

I won't vote for Kerry under any circumstances.

ABB is really starting to remind me of something Paul Begala and James Carville put out there to convince the anti-war among the base to join them in defeating their candidate, John Kerry, even if they did help Clinton strategize how to Stop Dean. Thanks, but no thanks. If I had any interest in developing a mob mentality, I would be a Republican.

I too have used that word "abstain" in describing my feelings on the Bush/Kerry run, and that's what I will do if that's the race ... or I just might write someone in.

[still_one]

200. Bush and Kerry are not the same

I will support whoever is the Democratic nominee.

If Bush wins a second term, and it is because the Democrats do not like their nomination, then the Supreme Court, and the Bush administration will change the face of the country and the world for at least the next twenty years.

Woman will lose the right for choice, the environment will be put at risk, Medicare and social security will be thrown to the private segment, and we will lose more young American lives in preemtive wars.

[IndianaGreen]

207. Of course they are not the same!

One is an idiot that got admitted to Yale thanks to legacy admissions, while the other at least has an intellect.

[PretzelWarrior]

210. good. i'm glad you told us. I will recruit 2 more to vote FOR you

hahahah! psych!

Every time I find someone who says this on this board, I will just get others to fill their place. I will help them register...I will have them volunteer, and they will VOTE despite your ignorant crybaby view.