Why I cannot Support Kerry

[Atlant]

I cannot support Kerry for four major reasons:

1. He is a member of Skull and Bones Society. In this, he may
   be too-closely aligned with the interests of the Bush family
   and other members of the Republican elite.
   
   
2. He voted for Iraq War II. He did this after telling at least some
   of his supporters that he would oppose the war.
   
   
3. It appears as if he would support the Defense of Marriage Amendent
   to the Consitutition (both US and Massachusetts constitutions).
   
   
4. Supporting Kerry now would reward the Democratic Party for the
   shabby treatment they gave several of the "insurgent" candidates this
   year, and would not help to bring about the sort of fundamental reforms
   that the Democratic Party needs to undertake if it is to start winning
   any elections *OTHER THAN* the 2004 Presidential Election.
   
   

For these reasons and more, I will not be supporting John Kerry
in the General Election.

Atlant

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Atlant]

4. Of course not. I will find an appropriate third-party candidate to support

> So you'll be supporting Bush - right?

Of course not. I will find an appropriate third-party candidate to
support, one who does not share Kerry's negatives.

Atlant

[molly]

7. Who did you vote for last election?

[Atlant]

13. Al Gore. Is that important?

Al Gore (Primary and GE)

Before that:

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton (Harkin in the primary)
Michael Dukakis
Walter Mondale
John Anderson (NH was a landslide for Reagan that year)

Atlant

[Monte Carlo]

14. Weren't you the same person...

... who was lecturing me about voting for Shannon O'Brien over Jill Stein for the MA governorship a little while back, sitting in Chinatown? Something about it being time to vote?

[Atlant]

29. Yes. For whom did you vote? And what were the D/R/G tallies? (NT)

[Monte Carlo]

41. So swallow your pride and join the team.

I voted for O'Brien, even though I really didn't want to. As it turns out, Romney had a majority of the vote and would have won with or without Stein, FYI.

It would seem the tables have turned if you want to sit out the big fight in November because you are too squemish about the candidates.

[SaddenedDem]

47. It's not about pride

For some of us, it about a very basic belief. John Kerry (and others) did the wrong thing when they voted for the IWR and some of us will simply never get past that.

Combined with his other votes (and lack thereof) it's the icing on a cake that prevents us for casting our vote for the man.

I'm sorry so many think so little of their vote that all they need to do is put it in a possible "win" column. For some of us, it's about a great deal more than a win - it's about the future of our country and the legacy we leave our children and grandchildren.

Some of us feel strongly that John Kerry has demonstrated he shouldn't be a part of that legacy.

It certainly does no good to vote for a democratic version of George W. Bush. And a man who votes for and supports the Bush agenda (IWR, Patriot Act, NCLB and tax cuts) is just that.

[polpilot]

68. Voting for a pro-war candidate is embarrassing for many democrats &

a Kerry presidency won't be considered a 'win'. Voting the 'lesser of two evils' and voting pro-war, pro-establishment, pro-DLC is hardly exciting. Have the 'partY', wave the banners, and celebrate the dem nominee but remember...Rove & Team have a $100 million to defeat a pro-war demo candidate who voted with Bush & supported Bush. IT WON'T REQUIRE A TERRIBLY BRIGHT REPUBLICAN STRATEGY TO DEFEAT KERRY.

Dean '04...

[jmoss]

74. Wasn't LBJ pro-war back in the day.

Does that mean you would have supported Nixon? Please stand with your party, not in the next room over.

[Atlant]

87. I'm not aware that LBJ ran against Nixon.

I was too young to vote, but I was rooting for Hubert Humphrey.

Atlant

[BL_Zebub]

111. And LBJ knew he wouldn't be re-elected, so he wisely dropped out.

Which is what Junior would do if he had anything remotely resembling a conscience.

[Mass_Liberal]

58. Shannon O'Brien was a horrible candidate

I could see from the beginning that she couldn't beat Romney. She had no credentials whatsoever. It's too bad we couldn't get Reich in there. At least he had credentials. He could have laid the beat-down on Mitt.


Sigh, but now we have mit.

[Atlant]

61. I was rooting for Reich.

This was actually another step along the way of my transformation.
Yes, once O'Brien was the candidate, I was encouraging people to
vote for her. And look how well it turned out!

I've now decided that it's far more important that we nominate
candidates who actually stand for the things I believe in than
that we have these great big group-hug "coming-together" sessions
after the fact in support of a compromise candidate.

The MA State Senate primary where the progressives split their
vote and didn't put Sheryl Jacques into the US Congress (even
through the votes for Jacques + the other progressive were much
higher than for Kevin Lynch(?)) was another step in my trans-
formation.

Atlant

[redqueen]

118. It seems the Dem party

is no longer spiraling the drain, but in the process of sinking down it.

:(

[Eloriel]

116. Forget that! Write in Dean. If it's going to be a protest vote,

make it real!

[Catch22Dem]

6. Pretty much the way I see it

No one is going to find the perfect candidate, but throwing away support for the Democratic nominee is hogwash. For every one thing you don't like about Kerry, I bet you can come up with 100 you HATE about Bush, so why even try to compare the two?

If Kerry is the nominee, can I assume you won't be hanging out on DU anymore?

[Atlant]

10. I'm sure you know the rules here as well as I do. (NT)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

18. so this is all about sowing seeds of discontent before shoving off?

a little hit and run?

[Atlant]

26. I've been here at DU a long, long time.

If my opinions eventually make me "persona non grata" vis-a-vis the
rules, it won't be me who decided to do the shoving off.

Atlant

[Catch22Dem]

31. What I'm saying is...

After the nomination is decided, you can't promote a 3rd party candidate here.

[Atlant]

70. I understand that completely. In fact, I support that rule. (NT)

[Catch22Dem]

24. Huh?

I certainly didn't attack you or anything, and during the primary season, we're pretty much free to do and say as we please with the candidates. I just want to know, IF Kerry is nominated, will you still come around?

[Atlant]

33. No, I won't be coming around.

I was a Kerry supporter at the very start of this whole thing.
I had attended his garden parties, met and spoke to the man, and
generally felt "okay-to-positive" about him. But the moment he
told my faction (the anti-war folks) that he would vote to withhold
Bush's authority, and then did exactly the opposite, I swore off
Kerry. And all of the events of Primary Campaign Season '03/04
only confirmed what I saw him do WRT the IWR vote.

He has lost my support and my vote forever.

Atlant

[Catch22Dem]

44. That's a real shame, Atlant

And don't think I don't understand where you're coming from, because I do. I don't think a Kerry nomination is a foregone conclusion...yet, but if it is, I hope you'll reconsider. I'd hate to see ya go.

[polpilot]

72. These are the fact based sentiments of many.

Dean '04...

[MaddogTerp]

94. I'm with you, polpilot!

Howie Rulz! Kerry coolz...

[Tinoire]

105. Thank you Atlant from someone who waivered...

and gave Kerry a good, open, second look and even looked at Edwards despite what I had said a full year ago. I must say I admire your integrity and have been re-examining myself (started that yesterday with Scott Ritter's undismissable bomb-shell that Kerry KNEW there were no WMDs) because he had personally sent him the paper-work.

I find it humorous that so many of the people who were inconvenienced by the antiwar marches we organized last year and went out of their way to smear the antiwar organizations are now yelling "ABB! Get on board with the winning DLC team! We're all on the same team!"

Thank you Atlant for reminding me that I had said "No thank you last year". I say it again. No thank you. I am not on the DLC's war-enabling apologist team nor shall I do anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to help them perpetuate their fraud on the American people.

No thank you to their "Progressive Internationalism"

Authors of "Progressive Internationalism" ((Note all the <sarcasm>"progressive"</sarcasm> organizations & war-mongerers/apologists:

Ronald D. Asmus, German Marshall Fund of the U.S.
James R. Blaker, Progressive Policy Institute
Lael Brainard, Brookings Institution
Kurt Campbell, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Gregory Craig, Williams & Connolly
Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution
Michele A. Flournoy, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Philip H. Gordon, Brookings Institution
Edward Gresser, Progressive Policy Institute
Bob Kerrey, New School University
Will Marshall, Progressive Policy Institute
Michael McFaul, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Steven J. Nider, Progressive Policy Institute
Kenneth M. Pollack, Saban Center on Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution
Jeremy Rosner, Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research Inc.

The statement also takes issue with left-wing activists who routinely call for deep cuts in military spending, reflexively oppose the use of force, and embrace an anti-trade, anti-globalization agenda that would damage the U.S. economy and condemn developing nations to perpetual poverty. "However troubling the Bush record, the pacifist and protectionist left offers no credible alternative," according to the statement.

"Progressive internationalism occupies the vital center between the neo-imperial right and the non-interventionist left, between a view that assumes that our might always makes us right and one that assumes that because America is strong it must be wrong."

The rest is even more nauseating: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252146&subid=108&kaid=85

Nope... I'm with you Atlant... PNOC all the way!



PNOC- When good old-fashioned Democratic values are good enough!


Boggles the mind. The DLC is a war-mongering, Bush-enabling, right wing infiltration of the Democratic Party that stands AGAINST everything the Democratic Party stood for.

You really have to take a deep breath when you see them signing PNAC letters to Bush as they help beat the drums of war in the interests of empire-building.

No thank you to their hollow lies and empty words.

Will Marshall, the president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI, sets policy for the DLC) and former Policy Director for the DLC and James Steinberg, Deputy National Security Advisor to President Clinton, both on board with PNAC and the AEI. No thank you.

Statement on Post-War Iraq
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm

Second Statement on Post-War Iraq
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-032803.htm

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252146&subid=108&kaid=85

===

If Kerry wants my vote, based on his solid domestically liberal record, he can start by denouncing the DLC and distancing himself from them AND their positions.

[Atlant]

110. POAC -- I *GOTTA* bookmark this post! Thanks! (NT)

[polpilot]

119. Pro-war DLC gets their pro-war establishment candidate. Nuff said.

Dean '04...

[bowens43]

12. There are other choices.

Not voting for the Dem doesn't necessarily translate to voting for for or supporting bush.

[Catch22Dem]

30. I'm sorry, but it does as far as I'm concerned

Because it's one less vote for the Democratic candidate when we ALL know a 3rd party candidate vote is nothing more than some feeble attempt at making a statement that no one is going to hear. You'd think the Nader voters would be a living testament to that fact. I bet they don't STILL think there's no difference between Bush and Gore. Just like there's a HUGE difference between Bush and Kerry.

[bowens43]

48. Well IMO, you're wrong.

If Clark was to get the nomination , I would vote Green or Socialist. Not to send a message, but because I believe that a Clark presidency would be bad for our nation and bad for the Democratic party.

IMO 'Not as bad as Bush' isn't enough of a reason to vote for
someone.

BTW I have switched my support from Dean to Kerry, so that's not the issue. If a person doesn't vote (or not vote ) their conscience then they are doing a disservice to the political process. To accuse some one of a 'feeble attempt at making a statement' because you don't agree with their choice is ridiculous.

[Catch22Dem]

135. What I said is not at all ridiculous

What IS ridiculous however, are the people in 2000 who said there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Where are they now? Do they still believe this? Seems we have a whole new crop of people willing to make the same assertion and replace the name "Gore" with "Kerry/Clark/Edwards" which is a monumental error.

Do what you will, but I'm ABB, and denounce ANY effort to undermine the candidacy of the eventual nominee on this board. It WON'T happen.

[Monte Carlo]

2. Sure you can.

You just have to not be so easily discouraged.

[Warren Stuart]

3. 4 more years n/t

[Atlant]

8. If that's what happens, so be it. Reforming the Democrats is more...

If that's what happens, so be it. Reforming the Democrats is more
importnat to our long-term success than is simply defeating Bush
in '04.

Atlant

[Bronco69]

15. That really doesn't make any sense.

If the republicans are in office another 4 or even 8 or 12 years, there will be no democratic party to reform.

[Atlant]

19. In my opinion, it will be the same outcome if a DLC-approved candidate...

> If the republicans are in office another 4 or even 8 or 12 years,
> there will be no democratic party to reform.

In my opinion, it will be the same outcome if a DLC-approved candidate
wins in 2004. Putting aside Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton, the
Democrats have been losing most other contested elections.

Atlant

[bowens43]

28. Actually it does make sense.

It is possible that 4 more years of bush could CAUSE a major reform in our party. It's a gamble. You have to the weigh the possible damage that could be caused by four more years of Bush against the chances of revolution/evolution , movement to the left, in our party. Moving constantly to the right will do our party no good.

'Not as bad as Bush' is hardly an inspiring motto.

That being said, I do support Kerry but there are other candidates (well actually that should be singular, one candidate)I would NOT support in the GE. I understand this posters point of view. We all need to vote our conscience. Compromise is what got us to where we are now. Two parties , in some ways indistinguishable.

[Atlant]

35. Thank you -- you took my point correctly. (NT)

[KaraokeKarlton]

42. There isn't a Democratic Party now, not really

There are a few powerful people in the leadership pulling puppet strings...that's what I'm seeing from where I'm sitting. And the voters are allowing those few people to define the whole party. It's too bad the party no longer truly represents the people like it used to. I don't see any significant difference between the parties anymore. It's all about special interests, the only difference between the two main parties is which special interests each party is beholden to. We've lost our democracy and it's our own damn fault for allowing the powers that be to play puppet masters to our voting habits.

[polpilot]

73. How about a new 3rd party: The New Democratic Party!! The current

one is way too messed up to reform. Just start over.

Dean '04...The New Democratic Party

[Mairead]

77. That'd be like "New Labour"

With Dean's record of taking care of the corporations in Vermont....

[polpilot]

84. 'New Labour' works for me. Won't matter as long as a Dean-like leader

is there. By the way..didn't Kucinich make a deal with pro-war Edwards in Iowa??

Dean '04...

[Mairead]

100. New Labour might work for you, but it doesn't work for working people

So unless you're a member of the taking class, New Labour doesn't work for you either and you're being played for a sucker.

[polpilot]

120. Just trying to placate you Mairead. You suggested the name...

Dean '04...

[Mairead]

127. Sorry, I thought you got the analogy. New Labour are re-packaged Tories

Just as the DLC --in all their various guises-- are repackaged GOP.

[BL_Zebub]

114. New Labour is the British equivalent to the DLC

so probably not the best example.

[rugger]

21. At least repubs learned from Perot

Sure, you can hold your breath and say since my guy didn't win the primary, I'll show 'em, I'll vote for Ralph Nader. And Ralph Nader is exactly who we have to blame for Bush in office now.

I'm sure Bush wasn't the first choice for alot of conservatives and republicans, but they leanred their lesson in the 92 election, in deserting and voting for Ross Perot, that effectively helped Clinton get elected. At least the Republicans seem to have learned their lesson.

I agree with everything Ralph Nader says, more so than alot of the Democratic nominees. However, I will not vote for Nader, as he is fragmenting the liberal/democratic base, the result is the buffoon we have in office right now. I would rather Nader and his supporters work within the Democratic tent.

As the Arabs say, "My enemy's enemy is my friend."

That should be the attitude of democrats, whether you agree 100% with the nominee or not.

[HFishbine]

32. Exit polls

showed that Perot voters, had Perot not been in the race, would have been split among Clinton and Bush.

[Catch22Dem]

36. YES YES YES

Only 3 posts under your belt, but this one is a WINNER!!!!!

[bowens43]

53. Except that is factually incorrect.

[bowens43]

51. The rupgs didn't lose because of Perot

Perot took as many votes from Clinton as from Bush.

[carolinayellowdog]

79. That's too short-term an analysis

If you look at the entire year before the 1992 elections, Perot played a huge role in driving up Bush's negatives over the deficit.

[OneBlueSky]

25. you are S-O-O-O-O wrong about that . . .

you think that letting Bush get elected will help reform the Democratic party? . . . what color is the sky in your world? . . .

[HFishbine]

34. It alsmost certainly would

If the democrats lose another presidntial election because they cannot appeal to the left, they will either adapt or die. I suspect they will adapt. It's a lesson that should have been learned in 2000.

[Atlant]

2002 locked this up for me.

> If the democrats lose another presidntial election because it cannot
> appeal to the left, it will either adapt or die. I suspect it will
> adapt. It's a lesson that should have been learned in 2000.

2002 locked this up for me. If the Democrats had been strong then,
they would have made progress. Instead, they all ran on a platform
that apeared to be "We suppotr Bush, but we're nicer and smarter."

They got creamed.

They clearly hadn't learned the lesson of 2000. Maybe they'll learn
the lesson in 2004. Or 2008. Or 2012. Or never.

Atlant

[Atlant]

37. Today, blue, same as yours. (NT)

[bowens43]

40. Although I disagree with you on Kerry

I agree with this statement completely. This is why the 'ABB' crowd rubs me the wrong way.

[La_Serpiente]

5. OK

[still_one]

17. What you don't understand

If Bush wins a second term there will not be an opportunity for anyone to break the neo-cons rule for at least 20 years, and the damage that will be done from the Supreme Court to the environment you cannot calculate.

[bowens43]

20. Any evidence to back up your '20 years' assertion.

I'd like to see it.

[HFishbine]

38. Given that dire prediction

it's the obligation of everyone who shares your view to work as hard as they can to make sure the dems nominate someone who won't lose the support of progressives.

[La_Serpiente]

46. LOL

don't worry about it. I don't agree with the sentiment of the original poster by the way.

I am not going to waste my time with Anti-vote Kerry people.

We have an election to win.

[Tinoire]

108. And that is a reason to cave in to the DLC?

because they have our nuts in a vise grip?

I am throwing off their shackles the better to fight them. They are up to no good. They care no more about the environment than Bush does- they simply pay more lip service to our causes.

If the DLC is so chomping at the bit to break the rule of the neo-cons, let THEM COME team up with the Progressive Left that denounced the neo-cons, exposed them, and fought them while the DLC was collaborating with them & tut-tutting our research as "conspiracy theories".

Those collaborators have no right to lead the party. They should be hanging their heads in shame and repenting. Instead, in their arrogance, they are doing everything in their power to tear down the 2 candidates of the people as they squeeze us by the scrotum mumbling that they just might pollute the environment a little less.

No thank you to their pathetic, enslaving crumbs. I'm going for the dinner table now. I'm hungry. Cake crumbs will no longer do & it's getting real uncomfortable in the back of the bus.

[polpilot]

122. Shhhhhhhhh...No thinking allowed here. Just drink your poison like a

'true democrat'.

Dean '04....

[seaglass]

9. So you won't be complaining about Bush if he gets

elected, right?

[Atlant]

16. Of course I'll complain. I just won't be surprised.

I assure you that my one NH vote won't affect the outcome of the
election; why does it worry so many people that I won't be voting
for Kerry? Are you afraid others won't vote for him either?

Atlant

[still_one]

22. Because every vote counts

An the message you hope to deliver will not be effective because the country will have moved to the right so much that it becomes a moot point.

[seaglass]

23. I'm not afraid of you not voting for Kerry, do as you please.

There are other candidates that I would be just as happy to see as President.

I just have a different perspective than you do. If you're not willing to help in the effort to oust Bush, then I'm afraid any complaints you have about him are meaningless.

[SaddenedDem]

11. I stand beside you

Except for reason #1 - S&B is not that big an issue for me, but all the rest are reasons that John Kerry won't get my vote.

[oasis]

27. Others have a responsibility to do what's best for the community.

[HFishbine]

43. Exactly

That's why it's important to nominate a candidate who can hold the support of progressives.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[flamingpie2500]

45. Am I on the right website here?

Isn't this Democraticundeground.com? I can't believe that someone who claims to be a Democrat would not vote for the party no matter what the candidate. The party is more important than any one man or person.

If people go to the voting booths in November and vote for someone other than the Democratic candidate, or not vote at all ( to me it is one and the same)--you cannot wake up the next morning and claim victory for the new president, nor can you claim defeat.

Do you think hardcore supporters of Dean, Clark, Kucinich, Sharpton, Edwards and the others are not going to vote in Nov. because their candidates are not on the ballot?
There has never been a more important time for us to be UNITED.
Please reconsider your stand and vote Democratic in Nov.

[Atlant]

49. It's *NEVER* the "right" year to vote...

It's *NEVER* the "right" year to vote for a third party. Or for
gay rights. Or a woman's absolute right to choose. Or the ERA.
Or for separation of church and state. etc...

Somehow, there's *ALWAY*S a Republican bogeyman who must be beaten
*THIS YEAR* or the sky will fall.

As my voting record (posted elsewhere in this thread) makes clear,
I've always voted to support the Democrats when it mattered. And
they, in turn, seem to have decided in the last few years none of
my positions are very important. And this year, they went out of
their way to destroy my candidate.

So I've decided it's time to stop doing what I've been doing
over and over again: voting for the guy with the "D" just because
he has the "D". I'm now going to start voting for real change.

Atlant

[Iverson]

54. You see.

The idea is more important than the capital letter next to the person.

It is a loss of innocence, but it's necessary.

[ClintonTyree]

64. I agree with you Atlant..................

Kerry bothers me to no end. In my opinion it will be business as usual for Corporate America under a Kerry administration.
I cannot however vote for Bush, or not vote at all. Change within our Party will have to come at a slower pace than we'd like, but 4 more years of a lame duck Bush scares the hell out of me.
Let's pick our fights, change the Democratic Party from within, however slowly, and get that illegal squatter out of the White House.
If enough of us voice our displeasure with the DLC/DNC agenda, they'll smarten up sooner or later. At least they better. I don't think this mini-revolution taking place within the Party is falling upon deaf ears. It's just going to take some time.
Please vote, and for the Democratic nominee whoever it may be.
The first step in taking back our party begins with that.

[flamingpie2500]

83. Your vote in past years--

>>As my voting record (posted elsewhere in this thread) makes clear,
I've always voted to support the Democrats when it mattered.>>

What was going on in the world when you voted Democratic in past years? If it isn't more important this year than ANY others---

We have got to stop the madness in Iraq. Bush doesn't want to--Kerry does. Politics aside, we have to stop the dying.

[mike_c]

98. excuse me, Kerry helped start the invasion....

<<We have got to stop the madness in Iraq. Bush doesn't want to--Kerry does.>>

Crocadile tears. Kerry stood WITH Bush when he should have stood AGAINST him.

[Crunchy Frog]

132. It's even worse than that

Bush wants more wars, maybe unlimited warfare in the Middle East. He has an agenda to destroy all of the social progress of the last 7 decades. He literally wants to destroy the Democratic party.

I just read an article in Mother Jones magazine about Grover Norquist and it scares the shit out of me. I would urge everyone here to read it and understand what the real stakes are here. We have to do everything that we can to get Bush out. If we don't, there won't even be anything left to save or reform.

I can't even imagine how people can think that there's no real difference between Kerry and Bush.

And Kerry is far from being my favorite candidate.

[sybylla]

90. I have to say I see things much the same way you do, Atlant

After the selection, I began pouring energy into working within the party to change things. There is a definite inertia at the top and the general attitude that they know what's best for us down at the grassroots. May as well bang my head against the wall. I think, if Kerry wins the delegates, the only chance we have of bringing the party back to its progressive roots resides in the role Dean or Clark can play at the convention. The party's existence hangs on what happens in the primary and convention this year. This is their last opportunity to heed the people before they bail big time.

I haven't made the decision you have yet, but perhaps that is because I'm still holding out hope that progressives will end up with a voice yet. Regardless, I very much sympathize with what you are saying.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

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

[HFishbine]

50. Put your theory to the test

Lyndon LaRouche is running as a democrat. Would your unwavering allegiance to the party still hold if he were the nominee?

[Atlant]

52. Thanks -- that's a very useful "thought experiment"...

Thanks -- that's a very useful "thought experiment" to test how
strongly people really feel about ABB and also to allow people
to feel some of what I'm feeling.

"Ralph Nader" might be a more-approachable concept to many people,
though. Suppoose the candidate were Ralph Nader... :)

Atlant

[Eloriel]

124. Whoaaaa! Excellent (but below the belt - LOL)

I really like it though.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

133. Doesn't prove anything since La Rouche is a non entity gadfly

[Enough is Enough]

56. Great response flamingpie.

Only once in my 30 years of voting have I voted for the same candidate in the primary as I did for President. One year I went with a 3rd party candidate and we ended up with Reagan. One year my mom went with a 3rd party candidate and we ended up with Nixon. It is sad, but most times I have voted I have had to swallow my pride and vote for someone I had issues with. But, all but once did I not vote for the Democratic candidate. Kerry wasn't my 1st or 2nd choice, but if he wins the nomination, I will back the Democratic party. This country can't survive another 4 years of Bush! We also have to work on Congress!

[bowens43]

57. DU isn't for Democrats only .

Democrats in general would be doing themselves a grave disservice if the letter next to the name on the ballot was the only criteria for deciding who will get your vote. The party is NOT more important then ideology or integrity. If you want someone to support the candidate convince them why they should instead of chastising them for saying they won't. Everyone SHOULD have a place where they draw the line. Every one should have some principle that will be not compromised.

Although I disagree with this poster on Kerry, I understand and support the sentiment.

[Tinoire]

113. Yes. Many of those hard-core supporters

of SOME of those people you listed swore 2 years ago they would NEVER vote DLC again, and 1.5 years ago, that they would never vote for a war enabler.

I'll vote Democratic in the General Election but it will be "Democratic" on my terms. Old Democratic. Non of this "New Dem" garbage.

[Vernunft II]

55. Interesting article on www.spiegel.de about Kerry

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,285685,00.html

Robin Hoods reiche Freunde
Von Marc Pitzke, New York

John Kerry, der Spitzenreiter der US-Demokraten im Vorwahlkampf, gibt sich gerne als Gegner jeder Einflussnahme durch Parteispenden. Doch seine fleißigsten Wahlkampf-Finanziers sind genau jene Interessengruppen, die er nach außen hin so bekämpft - mächtige Polit-Lobbyfirmen und Anwaltskanzleien.


Nicht immun gegen spendenfreudige Industrie: Wahlkämpfer Kerry
New York - Sie nennen es "The Big Dig", das große Buddeln: die Untertunnelung von Bostons Innenstadt und Hafen. Das Projekt gilt mit bisher 15 Milliarden Dollar Kosten als eines der gigantischsten Bauvorhaben aller Zeiten - und als Symbol für Verschwendung und Korruption, für die Bereicherung großer Firmen auf Kosten des kleinen Steuerzahlers.

For those not fluent in german, it´s an interesting report about who´s financing Kerry. He sure is part of the DC mafia if even 10 % of this is true....

[ShimokitaJer]

62. For those (like me) whose German is rusty...

Here's a Google translation of the site:

http://216.239.37.104/translate_c?hl=en&langpair=de%7Cen&u=http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,285685,00.html&prev=/language_tools

[Atlant]

65. Are you sure about that link? That produced German for me.

But I certainly can recognize "the Big Dig" when I see it. :)

Atlant

[phillybri]

59. 4 more years...I hope your "morality" will get you over helping it happen!

:grr:

[Iverson]

60. think

Is this response more likely or less likely to result in a hardening of attitudes?

edited typo

[Atlant]

63. I honestly don't find Bush much more soul-crushing than the DLC.

Sorry.

But that's the way I see it.

Atlant

[Deansspecialinterest]

78. I do

I'm sympathetic to a lot of your frustration, but I really believe that Bush is the worst president of my lifetime, and while a negative vote is never especially inspiring, in his case it comes pretty close. Even if you believe Kerry would make the second worst president (which I don't buy, even though I'm no fan), I think it's hard to make the case that things wouldn't be better with Kerry than with Bush. At the very least, a candidate who swings with each turn of the political weather vane would have noticed all of us who took to the streets to protest the war. Not sure what he would have done with that information, but he wouldn't have pretended we weren't there. Activists tend to vote, after all.

I do strongly object, however, to the Democratic party selling out our values in a desperate attempt to appeal to "moderate" voters, then expecting the progressive and/or liberal contingent to fall in line with the first crack of the whip. The idealist in me won't call this race over yet, and as long as I have a choice, I won't support the man who, when questioned about a fundamental civil rights issue facing our country, came back with "I have the same position as Dick Cheney." This wasn't a guilty admission, either, he really seemed to think he was scoring points. As if we needed to be reminded of all the times he has seen eye to eye with this administration. THIS is how we're supposed to beat Bush/Cheney? By agreeing with them? I swear, I have no idea where this perceived electability is supposed to be coming from, but I do think more people are going to be turned off and turned away than the party leadership thinks. So we trade liberal and progressive votes for moderate ones, and either lose because we failed to take a stand, or score a "win" that feels like a loss to a large segment of the party. Is it any wonder so many of us are feeling a bit let down as the Kerry machine just keeps gaining steam?

[Atlant]

86. Let me be perfectly clear about this: Kerry is better than Bush.

Let me be perfectly clear about this: Kerry is better than Bush.
My argument doesn't hinge on this point.

My argument hinges on the point that the Democratic Party has
taken a general direction which causes it to lose elections to
the Republicans. That they run candidates who are better-suited
to my interests than the Republican candidates I have no doubt.
And these candidates lose, over and over again.

The fact that the Democrats won in '92 and '96 with Bill Clinton
absolutely ruined the party because it reinforced in the Party
higher-ups the belief that Bill Clinton's politics were winning
politics. They weren't, and they aren't. He just happened to be
an extremely charismatic candidate who came along at a moment
that was fortuitous for him.

And the fact that Kerry might win in '04 doesn't say much for the
Democrats either. It's hard to imagine how they could *LOSE* against
Bush, given everything that's going on in this country. But I'll
still bet you that when all is said and done, even if Kerry wins,
that in 2008 the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the
Media will still be firmly in the hands of the Republicans.

And that's why I can't support a Kerry candidacy. Because, with
the sole POSSIBLE exception of the Presidency, a Kerry candidacy
will do NOTHING to advance progressive ideals in the long term.

Atlant

[bhunt70]

66. On point 1 - I think it's wrong to think S&B is only republican

[Atlant]

69. I don't think I made the claim that S&B is only Republican, but...

I don't think I made the claim that S&B is only Republican, but
I certainly do believe that it does favor the Power Elite which
tends to be more-Republican than not.

I tried to phrase claim #1 rather carefully; if I failed, I
apologize.

Atlant

[CWebster]

67. Maybe not you, but look who supports Kerry

"US political commentators have speculated that Mr Kerry has enjoyed the support of the media community in an effort to head off the challenge of Howard Dean, who has fallen back in the race despite being the frontrunner before the primaries began. Mr Dean made statements last year about wanting to break up media conglomerates."



http://media.guardian.co.uk/city/story/0,7497,1144464,00.html

[w4rma]

71. IMHO, if you want the left-wing to do well, then you can't hold grudges.

Don't let them think that they will never get your vote. If you allow the DLC types to paint the left-wing as never able to vote Democrat, then they won't change.

[CWebster]

75. No they just lose the left wing

Isn't that what they want?

[w4rma]

80. I think that this is why the Dean campaign is doing poorly.

Media chiefs back Kerry campaign

Owen Gibson
Tuesday February 10, 2004

Fresh from his latest win in Maine, the favourite to challenge George Bush for the US presidency has secured the financial support of some of the most powerful media moguls in the world.

As John Kerry's campaign to secure the Democrat nomination - and with it a crack at the White House - continues to gather pace, it has emerged that it is being bankrolled by key executives from News Corporation, MTV-owner Viacom and Sony.
...
Others who have pledged to raise more than $50,000 include the Viacom chief executive, Sumner Redstone, and Sony chairman Howard Stringer, whose name has recently been linked with the vacant chairmanships at ITV and the BBC.
...
US political commentators have speculated that Mr Kerry has enjoyed the support of the media community in an effort to head off the challenge of Howard Dean, who has fallen back in the race despite being the frontrunner before the primaries began. Mr Dean made statements last year about wanting to break up media conglomerates.
...
http://media.guardian.co.uk/city/story/0,7497,1144464,00.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=302493

I think that this is exactly what happened. I also think that they still support Bush over Kerry and it is big media that we need to get mad at, not the pink tutu Dems (who, after seeing what happened to Dean, maybe they have a point in donning pink tutus on this issue.)

[Hav]

76. .

I really wonder what one poster's intention is to continue with these numerous "Why I won't vote for Kerry" (or fill in whoever the current frontrunner of the time is).
Your preferred candidate isn't in the lead,you have made up your mind what to do on election day, so what? Do you want attention or do you just want to annoy other people on this board ?
It's not even original anymore after these points and topics get repeated daily.
These kind of arguments and positions are already well known because they appear here every day.

I remember a long time ago when there were these "I'm leaving DU , sniff" posts, which most of the time were just cries for attention as well.

[bowens43]

85. Maybe the poster wants to discuss his political position

on a political forum.

What bothers me is all of the 'vote for who we tell you to or you're not really a Democrat' posts.

[Atlant]

88. There is still time to change course on the "nominee".

As another poster observed, there is still time to change course on the
"nominee". If I can see a train wreck ahead, and can stop it, shouldn't
I try to do that?

Atlant

[Terwilliger]

81. See?

It's easy to be a pariah :D

[Atlant]

99. I'm a Democrat living in NH. Believe me, I *KNOW* about being a pariah! NT

[DancingBear]

82. Atlant - I understand - but

We hoped for the same goals in this election - a new beginning for the Democratic party. You supported Dean, while I chose Wes Clark. Our candidates differed, yet our reasoning was shared. I, too, wanted the Democratic party to actually stand for something this year.

Alas, it is not to be. The candidate looks to be another of the same old same old, and we will see no difference in this years model. Oh, perhaps the packaging has changed some, maybe a "new! improved!" stump speech here or there, but nothing to differentiate Kerry04 from Gore00 or Carter76. I'm saddened by that, so much so that it will be difficult for me to pull the (D) lever with any conviction this year.

But I will. As I watched the bumbling bastard lie his way through MTP last Sunday, I knew I had to. As visions of coat hangers and back alley butchers flash before me, I know I have to. As PNAC gears up for round 2, unencumbered by election concerns and with the Congress firmly up its collective ass, I know I have to.

This election is special, due to the dire damage that will be caused if * gets re-elected. I am disgusted with my party today, as it places safety over change, and lets the good ol' boys still get the front seats in the bus. These feelings, though, can not rule the day, at least not yet. The horror that is GWB must end, and it must end in November.

There are millions of us out there who, come November, will go to the polls and vote for the best way to remove the smirking fool from office, and at least (temporarily) save this nation. In this case, should things hold, that will be John Kerry. When I pull that lever, I will have done my duty - to remove Bush from office . I may not feel like I am voting FOR John Kerry, but I damn well know I am voting AGAINST George Bush.

I hope you'll join me.

[OKNancy]

89. Bush or Kerry,

Bush or Kerry....Bush or Kerry.....Bush or Kerry???
Let me think.

Okay, I think Kerry is better. In fact, there are a bunch of Republicans that are better than Bush. Bush is not just any old Republican. He is the worst president in modern times!!

I guess I just hate Bush more than you do, because I would never vote third party if it meant helping Bush.

[RichV]

91. Bah.

This attitude couple with Republican unity is why the Dems don't control any one of the three branches of government. Our classic Democratic circular firing squad. It's a real shame too, as NH should be a battleground. Your friends in the Democratic Party could use your vote, but apparently ideological purity is more important.

FWIW, those who have read the resolution understand that voting for IWR was not giving Bush a blank check for war. There were conditions in it that he did not satisfy before waging war. The argument this really should spur is whether Congress needs to reassert its war powers and rein in the executive. Because Bush violated the resolution.

[bigtree]

92. More Bush?

Thanks.

[arwalden]

93. <Sigh> Oh Well... It's A Pity You Feel That Way.

You've already made up your mind and I won't try to talk you out of it.

Instead I'll spend some time later on today talking to three or four other people to let them know why they should support Kerry or whomever the Democratic nominee should be.

I'd hate to see it happen, but I suspect that if Bush* happens to win, the folks who have their "principles" will find them to be of very little comfort for the remaining duration of his TWO TERMS in office.

-- Allen

[Catherine Vincent]

95. Vote Kerry but Support Someone Else!

ABB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mike_c]

96. I'm with you on that, Atlant....

Kerry is more of the same-ole, same-ole. We need a change in American politics.

[RichM]

97. Very reasonable.

The Skull & Bones stuff is being way overdone, IMO. However, I heartily agree with you on the rest of it.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[Atlant]

103. We weren't discussing Dean.

But thanks for helping to make my point that we, each of us,
must ultimately vote for the Candidate and NOT the Party.

Atlant

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[deutsey]

126. That's bullshit

I don't like Kerry for many reasons, but I'm willing to vote for him if he wins the nomination.

I lead a Dean Meetup and know, firsthand, what kind of people are involved in the volunteer end of the campaign and the leadership end of the campaign. I am also a lefty who has been an active anti-Bush and anti-corporatist activist for a long while now. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in this mischaracterization of yours.

It's easy for you to sit here in the virtual la-la land of DU and the echo-chamber of the Internet and TV news and lob all sorts of insane accusations against Dean and his supporters (just as it is for any other supporters here to do to your guy--and I continue to defend Kerry despite how low my opinion of him has sunk...we just don't have the luxury of forming the usual Democratic circular firing squads this time around).

But when you turn off the computer screen and the TV and actually get out and see who is really involved in the campaigns (from volunteers on up to officials) and understand what's motivating them, you see a different reality than the profoundly erroneous perception you offer here.

You do nothing for your candidate by making such ludicrous accusations and you certainly do nothing to help make it palatable for those of us who support other candidates to join you if your person wins.

[blm]

129. I'm matching hyperbole against Kerry

with my own overthetop accusations.

I don't believe Dean is BFEE. I do think they used the media and Dean's candidacy to try to keep Kerry from becoming the nominee.

Doesn't feel good when people go over the top against your candidate does it?

How do you think it feels to KNOW that Dean's record is the most corporatist record of all the candidates and then have YOUR candidate with the highest ratings from environmental groups and high ratings from labor groups and the highest liberal rating overall of all the candidates be called a corporate shill every day by Dean supporters?

Don't even pretend that is fair.

[deutsey]

131. I'll say again: You do neither your candidate nor the Democrats

any good by behaving this way.

Does it feel good "when people go over the top against your candidate"? Why, now that you ask, I have to say it does. It feels mighty fine, thank you... :eyes:

Of course it doesn't. And you know what? If your guy is going to win, he is going to need my vote and other Dean supporters' votes along with supporters of other candidates and those who don't have a candidate at the moment.

And you know what is more? This kind of crap that is being slung on all sides is only going to intensify animosities existing especially between Dean and Kerry supporters and weaken the unified front we need to develop to confront what the GOP has in store for us.

I do not like Kerry. I have my reasons that I've mentioned before so I don't need to rehash them here. But I don't tear him down nor am I fixated on bringing them up every moment I can here on DU. More postively, I've done all I can to promote my candidate on these boards and, more importantly, in the real world offline.

Even so, I'll vote for Kerry if he's nominated despite my deep reservations about him (and many of them are as strong as yours are about Dean).

The bigger enemy here is Bush and what he represents. While I don't think it's a matter of just relying on a candidate to take him down (it has to be an enlivened citizenry actively participating in not just our political process but in all facets of our culture that will take him down and really challenge the corporate interests he represents).

Therefore, I'll put aside my reservations about Kerry and will vote for him if he's nominated. I wish some Kerry supporters here would stop grinding their axes about past grievances (justified or not) and start trying to build up an inclusive movement, rather than tear down one that threatened their campaign.

[Tinoire]

130. So who does that leave us? Kucinich only then

I agree with many of the points you make and think you're very astute about certain things going on that many of us over-look. I have not been very impressed or pleased with Dean and you know that but he is at least not part of that empire-building Washington machinery that has been so carefully crafted and tweaked over the last 200 years. He also has a huge populist movement behind him that is empowering itself in the name of the people and could, just possibly, give the people a chance to have a voice in the system. That's extremely important to me and is the reason I could get behind him.

If Kerry wants my vote, based on his solid domestically liberal record, he needs to start by denouncing the DLC and distancing himself from them AND their positions. He will also need to spend a bit more time explaining how they were "fooled" with some depth & why I should trust him when there is another Congressman running who was not fooled and whose international views are much more consistent with my own. Internationally, Kerry has lost me. Scott Ritter's bomb-shell reminded me how we begged and pleaded with these guys not to enable Bush; how we faxed, called, handed our cell phones to strangers so they could call too, marched for hours and stood on street corners with our pathetic anti-war signs & were dismissed as unpatriotic naive fools. It hurts to remember that & it hurts everytime a child is killed in Iraq and a transfer tube brings home the silent remains of fine American boys and girls. I expect more from Kerry & Edwards than "We were fooled". If they were fooled by a bumbling idiot like Bush, then maybe they are not clever enough to lead this country. I know they are damn clever men. How can they expect us to believe they were fooled? I am once again digesting last year's painful realization that they willingly went along.

Your defense of Kerry has been awe-inspiring and I think they owe you for your hard work and all the research you've done to honestly compare his positions to other candidates'. I will keep looking forward to your posts because there's a lot of good information in them that needs to be digested and could sway some antiwar pragmatists (but not me, you know how entrenched I am; IF you ever manage to sway me, I will personally invoice the Kerry campaign for you!).

Peace to you.

[adriennel]

102. I'm afraid I agree

with Atlant, especially points 2, 3, and 4. Kerry's not my first choice as a candidate, nor I am refusing to vote for him in the next election. I am very curious to see what happens between now and election day. I am concerned at this point with Kerry's support of the DOMA and his voting re: Iraq war et al.

point 1 doesn't bother me...I guess because there was also a secret society at my college (Michiguama)so maybe I'm just used to it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

106. On your reasoning

He is a member of Skull and Bones Society. In this, he may
be too-closely aligned with the interests of the Bush family
and other members of the Republican elite.

I think this is handily refuted by the Bush family interests he brought to light with BCCI and Iran Contra, since the majority of conviction from Poppy and Reagan's admin came from Kerry's investigations and would have held but for their pardons by Poppy.

Therefore, on this point for one to believe Kerry is aligned with Bush family interests one has to work very hard to believe what they want to believe since the evidence refutes it rahter handily.


He voted for Iraq War II. He did this after telling at least some
of his supporters that he would oppose the war.

No comment. There's nothing I can say to refute this.

It appears as if he would support the Defense of Marriage Amendent
to the Consitutition (both US and Massachusetts constitutions).

Here's his entire statement. His position is nearly identical to every other candidate on civil unions:
Broadcaster: Would you support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual union.

Kerry: Well it depends entirely on the language, whether it permits civil unions in partnership or not. I’m for civil unions - I’m for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage as much as the rights that people are afforded. Obviously under the constitution of the United States you need equal protection under the law. And I think equal protection means the rights that go with it. I think the word marriage gets in the way in the whole debate to be honest with you. Because marriage to many people is obviously sanctified by a church it’s sacramental…clearly there is a separation of church and state here.

Supporting Kerry now would reward the Democratic Party for the
shabby treatment they gave several of the "insurgent" candidates this
year, and would not help to bring about the sort of fundamental reforms
that the Democratic Party needs to undertake if it is to start winning
any elections *OTHER THAN* the 2004 Presidential Election.

Yes, I agree. They didn't treat Mosely Braun, Kucinich nor Sharpton with much respect.

Dean did a good job of imploding on his own.

[adadem]

117. Resoundingly agree n/t

[Donkey007]

107. Independence is pretty nice as well.

Since everyone is so big on their rights. THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Being independent and having your own opinion feels nice, I know I got one. Some people should really try it. IT feels great.

[Donkey007]

109. I don't quite understand this change that ppl are wanting...

What change do you want? Seriously I don't understand. You have a president that wanted to go to war. You want change from that because I know someone who voted for that war. I just can't quite understand this change. Is change someone who was there and didn't do their job? Seriously, if you will help me understand I would greatly appreciate it.

[progressiverealist]

112. Karl Rove thanks you n/t

[adadem]

115. As does the

entire BFEE. W in particular.

[NV1962]

121. I agree with #4 - but it won't be allowed to happen... n/t

[Desertrose]

123. atlant, you & I have had our differences, but I am with you on this

....I agree with you about being unable to support Kerry....wish I things could be different
:shrug:

Good post...good discussion, thanks

Peace& hope
DR

[Atlant]

125. We did?

> atlant, you & I have had our differences, but I am with you on this

We did?

My wife always says that I have a "good" memory; I only
remember the good things. :)

Regardless, ...


> Good post...good discussion, thanks

Thank you for your kind words.


Atlant

[info being]

128. I think I'm with you. Supporting Kerry makes me part of the problem

I'm more interested in solutions.

DK for President.

[IndianaGreen]

136. Kerry's waffle on gay marriage is strike 3, and a big strike it is!

A marriage license is a civil document issued by the State, not the Church. It is just as wrong for a state to deny a marriage license on the basis of sexual orientation as it was to deny it on the basis of race.

If Kerry doesn't understand that, then he is no better than those that are quite content to sacrifice civil rights on the altar of political expediency.

IWR, PATRIOT, the right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.

3 strikes, Kerry's out!

[welshTerrier2]

137. i often have agreed with you

but not this time ...

let's take your points one-by-one ...

1. skull and bones ... you said kerry may be too closely aligned with bush ... you base this on something from 30+ years ago ... kerry joined a movement against the vietnam war ... did bush? you may be right with your speculation ... but it seems to me one in the hand is better than two in the bush ... kerry might be great; he might be awful ... with bush, there is no doubt ...

2. IWR ... i hated kerry's IWR vote ... i called his office to ask him to vote against it ... and i make NO DEFENSE of his vote now ... but i will tell you that if you're worried about perpetual war, if you're worried about a U.S. invasion of Syria, Iran, N. Korea, etc. etc., you're far more likely to see this under bush than under kerry ... is that a guarantee? of course not ... but, with bush, there is no doubt ...

3. It appears as if he would support the Defense of Marriage Amendment ... kerry's voting record is very similar to Ted Kennedy's ... i don't really know how kerry would vote on this ... i will say that you have to balance the political realities with voting your conscience ... stated another way, you have to pick your battles ... many civil rights have been eroded under bush ... and look what he's done to our country's courts ... want more of the same? why guess at what kerry would do? surely his judicial appointments will be vastly better than bush's ... kerry might restore many of our civil liberties ... with bush, there is no doubt ...

4. as far as "rewarding" the party for what they've done to the insurgent candidates, again i think you have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em ... if the republicans were running a moderate, like a Bill Weld, maybe Giuliani or Thomas Kean, i could really relate to where you're coming from ... if we lose, it would stink but it wouldn't be catastrophic ... it just seems like there's too much at stake right now to be sending what would otherwise be a good message ... the democratic wing of the democratic party has finally found its voice ... i give Dean tremendous credit for his contribution ... we need to build on that activism in future elections ... but not now ... this is a time for a laser-like focus on THE mission at hand ... bush has got to go ... and of that, there is no doubt ...

i appreciate your sentiments, and even you're arguments, but hope, that with a bit more time and reflection, you'll reconsider ...

[batman]

138. I'm right there with you!

I feel he is a partner in Bush's crimes. I dont trust his hollow message. Nor do I buy into his reasons for being sympathetic to the Bush administration.

[Atlant]

139. I'll bet there's a whole new crop of people who understand today what I...

I'll bet there's a whole new crop of people who understand better
today what I was saying yesterday.

Folks, I'm sorry.

I mean this most sincerely.

The need to reform our party grows more urgent with every
passing day.

Atlant

[Kamika]

140. Well I'm sure you'll get a nice thank you letter from Bush

:hi:

[Atlant]

141. I ought to get a thank-you from Terry Mcauliffe, too...

I ought to get a thank-you from Terry Mcauliffe, too, because
win-or-lose, he seems to always get to keep his job.

(Well, I *ASSUME* it's "win-or-lose"; he hasn't actually won
one in quite a while.)

Atlant

[Cheswick2.0]

142. Yes, that almost sums it up for me

but add to it that he is a double-speak genius, arrogant, dishonest, supports world domination (with a liberal sugar coating).

[goobergunch]

143. Don't forget his vote for the Homeland Security Act of 2002

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00249

Despite my concerns with particular provisions in this legislation, I do support the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and believe it is an important element in our efforts to protect the American people from terrorism.

These provisions included union-destruction, INS dismantling, and liability protection for vaccine producers.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S11449&position=all

[Atlant]

144. Noted -- thanks! (NT)

[Xanth]

145. I see your points, but

those issues don't bother me as much as Kerry using his time in the war as campaign rhetoric. Your points show he has to become moderate to get more votes. The hypocrisy irritates me.

Kerry comes back from the war protests against the war he fought in. If he felt betrayed then I can acknowledge that. But to use the same war he hated to gain votes for the presidential nominee disturbs me. Consistency in your core beliefs is everything. I can see right through Kerry and I have never met him.

And Dean may have looked a little to serious early on, but now he has toned it down and looks more diplomatic.

These two may both disagree on this terrorist war now. The problem is the war will still be in progress after the election no matter who is president.

[SOS]

146. Four years ago

some people said there was no difference between Bush and Gore.
Gore has stated repeatedly that he would have attacked Afghanistan after 9/11, but not Iraq.
Thus the difference between Bush and Gore turns out to be 530 dead Americans and 40,000 dead Iraqis.
Oooops!

[Progress]

147. Here's why I can't...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=319475