Why should any elected Democrats stand up for us again?

[KaraokeKarlton]

We can all essentially agree that Howard Dean stood up for us when it wasn't popular or safe to do so. When virtually all of the others (except Kucinich and Sharpton) were busy sucking up to George Bush and letting him get away with bloody murder, Howard Dean put his neck on the line for us. He took the risks that turned out to put a huge dent in Bush's armor. Dean made Bush vulnerable. I've read many, many posts about how frustrated everyone is with the Zell Millers of the Democratic Party, about all the pink tutus and what not. So Howard Dean storms onto the scene and says what we have been longing to hear for how long? Ages it would seem! And how do we reward that bravery? By voting for one of the Democrats who everyone was complaining about not standing up for you. Just take a minute and think long and hard about the message you are sending to Democratic politicians before you cast your primary vote. If I were a Democrat elected official I would get the message that the voters don't care if I stand up for what they believe in anymore as long as I don't offend the Republicans. If that's the message that you want to send, then by all means, support John Kerry. If you want to let elected Democrats know that you will reward them and stand by them when they act on your behalf, then support Howard Dean so politicians will actually see that we DO care about what they do and that we DO value those who stand up for us.

[Iverson]

1. 3 possibilities

1. They are zealots.
2. We earn more than $200,000/year.
3. We have power and influence.

[The Magistrate]

2. A Small Question, Mr. Karolton

Gov. Dean has gotten only a very small percentahge of the votes cast by the rank and file of the Democratic Party in the primaries. Sen. Kerry has gotten a great many more votes. What is the basis for your belief these people who did not vote for Gov. Dean were not voting in accord with their own beliefs and desires? It seems both an unwarranted and demeaning assumption they were not.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[cornermouse]

5. One possibility to consider.

Dean got people excited. He made them feel involved. He was a new face; not a Washington insider actively participating in the current going ons in Washington. Do you honestly say that you see, feel, or sense that in Kerry?

I think that the older generation were basically who voted Kerry in and I strongly suspect that the Democrat party will lose the next generation of voters over this.

[mitchum]

23. Wrong...wrong...wrong...

about "the older generation (who) basically voted Kerry in" Kerry has been garnering the lion's share of the youth vote. It's true (look it up yourself)
Hmmm...seems like someone can't even deliver their own alleged constituency

[cornermouse]

25. Time will tell.

[mitchum]

26. I will certainly give more credence to time than to an opinion...

on a message board.

[He loved Big Brother]

71. I concur, cornermouse

[spooky3]

35. Looking only at the most recent 2 primaries,

I think that's really a matter of interpretation.

Both of the exit polls showed that Kerry did much better with those over 44 than with younger folks. He got substantially less than half of the younger voters and a higher proportion of the older voters, with this difference most pronounced for over 65's.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/TN/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/VA/index.html

[mitchum]

52. As you said, "...really a matter of interpretation"

when one ignores the earlier primaries.
I really don't care about getting down with the kids (as long as he gets enough of the puppish votes)

[BL_Zebub]

27. If you don't mind, sir, I'd like to take that question.

I personally observed so called "Kerry supporters" at a caucus who could not articulate one reason why anyone should vote for the man, except to repeat the media lie that "he can beat Bush". Not one of them mentioned Kerry's platform, his record, any personal like for the man, etcetera. And therefore, one can only logically conclude that such people put their personal convictions aside - assuming they had any to begin with - and voted for political expediency, based on what the talking heads on TV told them was the answer.

[The Magistrate]

30. A Small Point, Sir

It seems to me that the conviction a candidate can beat another political figure in an election is a perfectly valid reason to support a candidate. It also seems a large stretch to me to assume that persons are incapable of making judgements and reaching conclusions on their own, from their own experiences of life and politics. Saying it is "a media lie" that Sen. Kerry stands a good chance of beating the wretch now ensconced in the Oval Office come November seems to me quite a stretch. Any number of people, myself included, have drawn that conclusion, and not necessarily recently. It is not wise to assume everyone who disagrees with you a duped fool, or worse. It is probably not the case....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASATARDS!"

[quaker bill]

43. It is a perfectly valid reason to vote, its a free country

However, as precious as these feelings may seem, they are not predictive of the outcome.

I would never state that others are duped fools. That being as it may, they are mistaken, for whatever reason, who knows?

Kerry will not be able to use any issue with great effectiveness against Bush* simply because he voted for them.

Remember, the people we are trying to sell here are not diehard democrats. They are that 5 or 6 percent in the middle. The fact that you and democratic primary voters are convinced in large number about Kerry means very little. The best this will do is get us to a respectable loss.

We need to move the fence sitters over to our side. This will not be done with carefully nuanced policy arguments that point out the different shades of pro-war and tax-cut oriented domestic policy that seperate these two men. It could be done with bold strokes, but since Kerry has supported most of the Bush agenda, he will not be able to draw them.

[The Magistrate]

57. It Does Not Seem So To Me, Sir

To take simply two elements, war and taxes, as illustrations.

If you imagine outright opposition to the war in Iraq is a sure winner at the polls, you are quite mistaken. It will not attract the center, and will easily be caricatured as support for Hussein and calling for impotence as a national policy. Remember that the great majority of the people supported the invasion of Iraq at the time, and this will include for certain the middle voters of whom you speak. A campaign approach that amounts to "I told you so! I was right and you were wrong..." will not move them to your side, but rather rouse resentment in their hearts. The approach that will work is this: "You were lied to! I was lied to! This man took advantage of your patriotic concern for our country, and deceived you for his own gain!" Sen. Kerry is well positioned for argument on these lines, and that argument will be effective. Electoral politics is a business of getting people to identify with a candidate, and this is an excellent point for such identification.

If you imagine a platform of increasing taxes across the board to what they were at the start of the current administration is a sure winner at the polls, you are again mistaken. You will be telling the greatest proportion of the people you are going to cost them money, and doing so at a time when most feel rather hard-pressed for a little more of the stuff. They will be unmoved by talk of future fiscal disaster; they have no knowledge of that, and little awareness of just what a serious thing it will be to them. But you will not be able to educate them in economics during the course of a campaign. The approach that will work is this: "The rich have to pay their fair share! Restore rates to what they were for persons making over, say, $200,000 a year, reinstitute the estate tax, and shut down loopholes that give incentives to businesses to move overseas, and similar swindles!" This exempts easily nineteen out of twenty among the people from any increase, and identifies a target that these can focus some ire upon.

Both these are noteable differences, that can be painted in bright colors and bold strokes. The first is the clear difference between the deceiver and the deceived, the second the striking difference between the fat cat bosses and everybody else. Do not deceive yourself with imagining the people as a whole are hungering for great change in the system and arrangements of the country; they are not. They resent being frightened for no good reason, and want not to worry so much about making ends meet in their lives.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Dhalgren]

79. I grow weary of people saying that the only reason

some folks voted for Kerry is because "some talking head" told them he was "electable". If a person who strongly agrees in principle with Kucinich can say, "but he isn't electable", then someone can just as legitimately say "I will vote for Kerry, because he is electable". What's sauce for the goose...

[nofurylike]

28. please check this out about that.

http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2095311 /

Kerried Away
The myth and math of Kerry's electability.
By William Saletan
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004, at 9:41 PM PT

-snip-
Two weeks ago, Kerry beat Howard Dean by 12 percentage points in the New Hampshire primary, convincing Democrats around the country that Kerry was their most electable candidate. How did Kerry win? By racking up a 4-to-1 advantage over Dean among voters who chose their candidate because "he can defeat George W. Bush in November." Among voters who chose their candidate because "he agrees with you on the major issues," Dean and Kerry were tied.

Let me say that again: Among voters who picked the candidate they wanted based on the issues, not the candidate they thought somebody else wanted, Kerry did not win the New Hampshire primary.


peace!

[KaraokeKarlton]

42. That's MS Karlton to you...

I'm a chick.

Why are people voting for Kerry? Democratic fear mongering, like that Osama Ad, for instance. You know the one, don't you? It's the one Kerry's fundraiser chipped in $50,000 for. Then we should talk about those dirty phone calls that documentary film maker got on tape from a Kerry phone banker in Iowa against Howard Dean. We could talk about the stealing of Dean's supporter list in NH by an opponent's operatives.

Basically, many who really want to vote for Dean are voting for Kerry because they are being conned into believing that one of the few guys who actually was right about Iraq would be weak on national defense and foreign policy. Go figure. People are so dumb sometimes. :shrug:

[curse10]

55. Yes, we are all conned

:eyes:

The attempts made on this board to lay blame for the failing Dean campaign on everyone but Dean himself are laughable.

Dean lost on his own accord. His tax plan is crap. His higher education plan is crap. His wishy-washy stance on numerous issues is crap. His personality is abrasive. He blew his money on two states that Dean supporters now claim to be unimportant. He puts his foot in his mouth every chance he gets. He continues to attack the other candidates.

He has ran a bad campaign. Period.

[quaker bill]

76. You are not conned at all

You are conciously making a bad decision. Being correct does not equate with being popular. Sometimes people actually see it as abrasive.

Kerry's tax plan is morally repugnant. It continues to take surplus payroll taxes from the working poor to fund a tax cut for the well employed middle class. It may well be popular, but it is immoral.

[The Magistrate]

60. You Mean, Ma'am

The advertisement put up by a group headed by a leading Republican lawyer, to which backers at the time of Rep. Gephardt gave some money to, and some backers of Gov. Dean donated to as well. It seems to have been a rather impressive scheme the founder of the thing had going for himself; most creative....

Calling people dumb, Ma'am, is a very poor way to win them to your side. My own view, from my first sight of Gov. Dean last year, was that he would be a disaster in a general election. No person from the press told me this; it was my immediate, size up another guy just met judgement. It is not my habit to claim any special perspicacity in such matters, and so there is no reason for me to image many other people might not have made that same judgement. It does not surprise me much to see many people, apparently, as the crisis nears, acting on such a judgement.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Malikshah]

50. It's all open to interpretation

I don't think it's demeaning at all.

It would appear that we're due for a world-wide umbrage shortage quite soon, what with everyone's sudden sensitivities being tweaked.

To ignore the drumbeat of the media, the Osama ads, and the like and their effect on the psyche of the average citizen who pays scant attention to who they will vote for is bordering on the naive.

The chips fell Kerry's way for any number of reasons, but the Texas no-limit hold em game is not over just yet.

I, for one, would have been more interested in viewing this in a more impartial fashion--analyzing the way folks from all sides twist and turn words to suit their purposes (done by supporters of all candidates) -- The problem, however, is that the stakes are much too high to be disengaged completely.

One thing I have noticed, though, is the constant use of "get over it," "that's offensive to me" lines be some. I'd seen these sentiments voiced in the past, under completely different circumstances, and completely different people.

Says something about the human condition.

[nofurylike]

68. they said so in the exit polls.

http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2095311/

Kerried Away
The myth and math of Kerry's electability.
By William Saletan
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004, at 9:41 PM PT

-snip-
Two weeks ago, Kerry beat Howard Dean by 12 percentage points in the New
Hampshire primary, convincing Democrats around the country that Kerry was
their most electable candidate. How did Kerry win? By racking up a 4-to-1
advantage over Dean among voters who chose their candidate because "he can
defeat George W. Bush in November." Among voters who chose their candidate
because "he agrees with you on the major issues," Dean and Kerry were tied.

Let me say that again: Among voters who picked the candidate they wanted
based on the issues, not the candidate they thought somebody else wanted,
Kerry did not win the New Hampshire primary.
-snip-
****


peace!

[genius]

3. Kucinich is the only one who is standing up for us on all issues

If he doesn't win, no other candidate has the background to win on this issue.

[Cuban_Liberal]

6. And he has two chances to win the nomination: slim, and none. n/t

[genius]

33. He's got a better shot of winning than Dean.

If the convention is brokered, most of the delegates will like Kucinich (because he's nice and accurate) and I doubt that too many other than the Dean delegates will like Dean.

[JVS]

37. They won't pick him.

[ShimokitaJer]

81. nice and accurate?

Is that how you think delegates choose a candidate?

[shance]

4. Beautifully said Karaoke****

If we dont support our stand up candidates, how can we expect to recruit blue chip candidates like Governor Dean? Although, I will take it a step further and say, you know, we just MAY have the support and commitment, but our votes arent reflecting our commitment and passion,

since 2000 (some say prior*) and the onslaught of computer ballot tabulation I dont believe we are electing our candidates,

I believe our votes arent being fairly tabulated and many refuse to fully consider this option, including Terry McCauliffe, who I have mentioned the problems with computer voting fraud myself. He continues to minimize the issue, albeit giving lip service, but has not acted in any way to promote the necessity and urgency for a voter-verified paper trail.

Ill keep bring this issue home, until it finally is home. I think this is the elephant in the living room, and for whatever reason, we continue to deny its literal control over our elections.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. Given how Howard Dean has responded on the campaign battlefield

I'll stand up for myself. The odds of survival are just as good.

[Edwards4President]

22. LOL!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Howard Dean stuck up for himself.

He said what he thought people wanted to hear. And eventually the voters rejected him.

[killbotfactory]

9. I don't expect Kerry to stand up for my values...

He didn't stand up for my values on an immoral and unjust war which has hurt our country tremendously, the effects of which we are just beginning to see.

He didn't stand up for my values on education reform when he voted for NCLB.

He didn't stand up for my values when he referred to Deans advocation of adopting labor/environtal trade standards as "protectionism".

He didn't stand up for my values when he scoffed at Dean's suggestion of sanctioning Saudi Arabia for their terrorist support. (well, until a month later when he suggested the same thing)

He didn't stand up for my values when it came to free speech on the internet when he voted for the Communications Decency Act.

He didn't stand up for my values when he criticized Dean for wanting a fair trial for Osama Bin Laden.

He didn't stand up for my values when he said that not thinking our country was safer with Saddam out of power "muddled thinking".

He didn't stand up for my values when he said he would support an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage.

So, I don't expect much from a Kerry presidency, other than to not fuck up as much as Bush.

I will be pleasantly surprised if he actually wins against Bush, and then proceeds to stabalize Iraq, give us universal healthcare, etc. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Ditto, ditto, ditto

I agree 100%!

[shance]

14. "Ditto, ditto, ditto again"***

:)

[WillyT]

19. What YOU Said KBF, What YOU Said !!!

Right kucking on!!!

:bounce::kick::bounce:

[Anwen]

34. And this is why

Kerry has NOT earned my vote, let alone my respect.

Well said killbotfactory! :toast:

[JVS]

38. Yeah, he sucks.

[quaker bill]

41. I would go farther yet

Kerry did not stand up for my values when he called for censure of Bill Clinton.

He did not stand up for my values when he called for strikes on Iraq with "sustained targeting of the regime" in 1998.

He did not stand up for my values when in September 1999 he said:

SEN. KERRY: So, what has happened? I mean, you may have described -- I just read your testimony -- have described a little bit. But, I mean, what really has happened here? Have we been bamboozled? Is our policy simply a failure? Are we frightened? Is there something that has changed in the nature of this threat? Because I really don't understand it. And it seems to me that for the cause of proliferation, whether it's with respect to Iraq or any other number of countries about which we have enormous concerns, the message that comes out of this is that maybe the forces aligned to try to hold people accountable are, in fact, paper tigers and not serious about it.
...
So I think it's important for us to be thinking about where we go, because I've said, and I think you and others have said, there's an ultimate time -- as long as he's there, and it may well be that the Iraqi people will settle that. But as long as he is there, I think most people understand that that threat remains and it's real. So -- and there's a time of confrontation. So I think we're better to do it sooner rather than later and to be real about our resolve.

Mr. Kerry has not stood up for my values for a very long time.

While it has been portrayed by Mr. Kerry that Bush exceeded his mandate in Iraq, a more accurate picture is that Bush is a President who was willing to be 'real about his resolve' in just the way Mr. Kerry called for.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. You are assuming that all Democrats opposed the war

[WillyT]

12. Good Point !!! --- One Has To Wonder Though...

how many Dems CONTINUE to support this war. Especially after recent revelations.

Anybody have a current poll on THAT???

:shrug:

[The Magistrate]

13. Soon Enough, Mr. Stubbs

You will hear from the tattered crew who claim President Clinton is no Democrat; not a "real" Democrat, anyway....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Eloriel]

49. I've always called him the only Republican I ever voted for`

(As Begala used to also, btw.)

As a joke because he was no liberal, by any means, and that triangulation shit didn't help the party one little bit, other than perhaps for his initial election win. The longterm damage has been atrocious, not just on things like NAFTA and welfare reform, but also he taught the Republicans the same trick. They no co-opt OUR policies and languge, and being far less restrained in their procilivity to lie, convince people their policies aren't any worse than ours. (See; NCLB, Clean Skies, etc., etc.

No, Clinton did the party no favors, and was as far right as I ever want to endure in a self-described Democrat.

[shance]

15. Tell me, what did you support about war Freddie?

n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Removing Saddam from power isn't a bad thing

[LeftCoast]

36. If we did it illegally and based on a lie, it is a bad thing

So where are those WMD's again??

[quaker bill]

73. If you truly feel this way,

then be sure to congratulate Bush* for a job well done.

Personally, I think killing 20,000 to 30,000 people to accomplish it was a bad thing.

[ShimokitaJer]

82. creating a precedent for pre-emptive warfare IS a bad thing

Come on, Freddie. Do you honestly think it was necessary to spend hundreds of American lives, thousands of American wounded, and billions of dollars to depose a dictator who was contained by the US and possessed no weapons with which to threaten his immediate neighbors, much less America? And do you think it was worth it even at the cost of alienating our allies and destroying the goodwill America had been enjoying since 9/11? And do you think it was worth defying the UN charter and creating a precedent for pre-emptive, agressive warfare against a sovereign nation with NO proof that the nation was a threat?

Saddam = bad therefore America = invade Iraq is absolutely stupid. Why do you think Bush had to make up all that shit to talk people into invading?

[Iverson]

83. context, please

It may take more than a full sentence.

[KaraokeKarlton]

44. You are assuming I support Dean because of his position on the war

and that's not why I support him. It's never been why I support him. I support him because I know his leadership first hand. I lived under it for over a decade. He's a GREAT leader and he isn't afraid to call bullshit exactly what it is, even if it's not politically correct to do so. I KNOW Howard Dean truly represents people like myself. He isn't in politics for the glory like Kerry is. Dean is in it because he truly wants to do something to make a difference for the people he serves. Politicians like that are a rarity in this day and age and we should cherish them when we find them, and support them with all we've got. This has nothing to do with the war and everything to do with doing what is RIGHT for this country.

[zoeyfong]

58. No, but opposition to the war is much more intense than support for it.

Anti-war dems are much more likely to refuse to vote for a candidate who was pro-war than vice-versa, i think. It is a big mistake to think that kerry can take the pro-peace left for granted, and just focus on getting votes in th middle. This is one peacnik who will not vote for kerry or edwards. Remember, we tried the 'move to the middle' strategy in 2000 and lost. Why should it work any differently this time?

[IndianaGreen]

63. Many oppose the war on religious, moral, and ethical grounds

and they are not likely to be dissuated by partisan pleas.

From an ethical and moral point of view, support for the war stands in stark contrast to the views expressed by mainstream religious leaders from all faiths in opposition to an American war of aggression against the people of Iraq. Pope John Paul II, in his Christmas message called on the world to ''extinguish the ominous smoldering of a conflict.'' Other Vatican spokesmen have been more explicit in their criticism of another Iraq war, expressing particular concern about American unilateral actions against Iraq and in defense of the long-suffering Iraqi people.

The American invasion and occupation of Iraq obliterated a system of international laws that have been in place since the real Axis Powers were defeated at the end of World War II. The cornerstone of that system was that the sovereignty of every member of the community of nations was to be respected. No nation was to wage war on another nation! Disputes between nations were to be aired and resolved at the United Nations.

The United States was one of the original signatories of the Charter of the United Nations, which was signed at the end of the United Nations Conference on International Organization on 26 June 1945 in San Francisco. In its Preamble, the Charter declares that its purpose is "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," and that the signatories to the Charter agreed that "armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest."

America did not embark on a righteous crusade to liberate an oppressed people. Like the Christian Crusades in the Middle Ages, this was an invasion to conquer land, to loot and to pillage the riches of another nation. The Bush regime is not going to allow free and democratic elections in a post-Saddam Iraq, for to do so will give the majority Shiites power, and it would lead to an independent Kurdish state. The Bush regime is more interested in taking control over Iraq's oil reserves in order to use them as leverage against OPEC, and as the first step in controlling the entire Persian Gulf region. Another Saddam will replace Saddam Hussein, but one that will be backed by American military might and that will obey the wishes of his masters in Washington. The very troops that went to Iraq under the pretext of liberation are now being used to enforce the American Occupation of a post-Saddam Iraq. These troops now find themselves being used to murder the very people they were sent to liberate.

The Imperial Japanese army marched into China in 1931. The Italian army marched into Ethiopia in 1935. The German army marched into Poland in 1939. The American army marched into Iraq in 2003. Bush has joined Hirohito, Mussolini, and Hitler in the pantheon of men that brought nothing but calamity and destruction to an unsuspecting world. Bush has turned America into the first arch villain nation of the twenty-first century.

[Dhalgren]

80. Very good piece!

I agree with you on each point. If the Democratic Party is the party that it looks to be shaping into, then the most patriotic thing anyone who loves his/her country could do is to create a true opposition party. We live in a one party state, that speaks with the voice of tyranny. If Democrats supported this blatant war of agression, then I am no Democrat.

[brentspeak]

16. Agreed that we owe a lot of thanks to Dean

And he is my ideal candidate for the nomination. But that doesn't mean I'm going to take my ball and go home if/once Kerry gets the nomination. He's still going to get my support in November.

Brentspeak

[styersc]

18. I loved Dean's energy but the fact is that

he did not have the foreign policy experience to convince anyone in the middle of the road to turn towards him and away from Bush. Lots of people are scared right now and Dean never said or did anything that would convince people he could take care of business. He was effective in pointing out that Bush was a failure but had no game in regards to convincing people that he could be a success.

For me the issue that killed Dean was his support of rolling back all of the tax cuts- from the upper classes down to the working poor. The economy has been hard on everyone of us in the lower brackets- I can't afford to give back the very little that I recieved.

Other candidates had a better plan to take the $ from the slobs who Bush had showered with rewards while cutting back the benefits the rest of us need and exp[ect from our government.

[KaraokeKarlton]

45. The others are making promises they can't keep

If any of the tax cuts are left there is no way any of them can deliver all the things they say they will deliver unless they do the same thing Bush is doing by running a totally irresponsible and massive deficit that grows larger by the day. Our kids and grandkids are ultimately going to pay for it with cuts to THEIR social services. I choose not to be selfish. Here's the bottom line, you can have the meager middle class tax cut OR you can have a national health care program and real prescription drug benefit. You can have the meager tax cuts OR you can have fully funded special education and better schools. You can have the meager tax cuts or you can have jobs. You can have the meager tax cuts or you can have a real investment in renewable energy. You can cut defense spending, but it will mean a continuation of the overwhelming majority of our ports not being inspected for things like Uranium smuggled in via shipping containers. The fact of the matter is this: All these promises are never going to be delivered because it's IMPOSSIBLE if you don't control spending and dole out irresponsible tax cuts. Howard Dean is telling voters the truth and he knows what he's saying because he's the ONLY one who has ever actually had to balance a budget. Well, he never "had" to balance it because it's not required by law here in Vermont. Instead, he CHOSE to balance it because he knows that you can't have social justice without fiscal responsibility...and you save SO MUCH money on interest that gets charged to all those unpaid bills you have when running a deficit.

So, vote for pie in the sky lies told to you just to get your vote. As for me, I'm going to vote for truth in advertising, because I really respect that. :shrug:

[styersc]

77. You have the Dean

condescending lecture down to an art form. Thanks for reminding me why Dean doesn't have a chance and why the party is better for it.

Although I do have to agree with you, balancing the budget of a state the size of a medium city is quite a feat. And to his credit, Dean's strong Vermont Defense Program has kept terrorist attacks down to a minimum in Vermont.

[buddhamama]

20. i'm inclined to think HD actually did believe

going to War with Iraq was a bad idea. now, i can continue to think that, in which case i'll respond thusly, sometimes we stand alone in our beliefs, ideals and principals. it sucks but when you hold to them, it is to be expected.

on the other hand, if HD was just pandering to anti-war crowd to garner votes, well, that makes for a shallow empty person let alone poltician.

[KaraokeKarlton]

46. Dean honestly believed it was a bad idea to go to Iraq

He wasn't pandering to anyone. He actually never sought out the anti-war crowd. They just heard that he opposed going to Iraq and were so relieved there was a voice speaking out that was actually being heard and reported on and they latched onto his campaign. They found him long before he even knew that they had heard about his campaign. In fact, he was rather surprised to discover he had such a big online following. He never planned it the way it played out, it just happened.

[mitchum]

21. You misrepresent the intentions of Kerry and the voters who overwhelmingly

have voted for him so far. This lifelong DEMOCRAT doesn't really appreciate that. Odd that one would know the hearts and minds of we Democrats so well.

Kerry 2004

[Edwards4President]

24. Which explains why Dean is having a difficult time in the primaries

Democratic voters do not like and certainly do not appreciate being told that they are stupid, self-serving, blind, deaf and dumb. It's particularly galling considering many of the Dems who are being accused of such have been activists in the party, fighting for our principles long before some of the Dean supporters who deign to lecture us were even thought of.

It's not a good campaign strategy to tell potential supporters that they're clueless Republican wannabees if they don't get on board with the one true candidate and then tell them to f*** off if they don't join the clique.

[quaker bill]

39. The poster understands my heart and mind perfectly

I have been a consistent straight ticket democratic voter for 32 years. I not only appreciate the words, I applaud them.

[WillyT]

40. Ditto, Ditto, Ditto !!!

Sounds right to me too!

[mitchum]

53. Okay, as long as you are comfortable with a self-professed...

Independent defining you, it's fine with me.

[quaker bill]

74. I define myself, thanks

But will listen to and applaud the truth from any source. I am a lifelong Democrat. John F. Kerry does not stand up for my values.

His "progressive internationalism" is little more than a vaguely kinder and gentler "Project for a New American Century".

While these values may be yours, they are not mine.

[mitchum]

54. Well, since you don't prefer Kerry...

I don't think you fall into the camp which the poster was maligning.

Is Kerry still ahead of Dean 3to1 in Wisconsin? Most be a lot of we poor deluded Dems out there

[quaker bill]

72. I would not choose the term deluded

I would use the term mistaken. Deluded implies a certain lack of awareness that I would never credit to Kerry supporters. They are making their choice fully conscious and aware of the circumstances. They have just reached the wrong conclusion.

Just like tech stocks, it will seem like buying into Kerry was a "good idea at the time"

I recall that Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis were quite popular among democrats at one time as well.

[eileen_d]

29. I opposed the war, and I didn't need Howard Dean to stand up for me

He does not speak for me. So I guess I'm not one of the "we" you speak of.

[KaraokeKarlton]

47. It's not just about "the war"

If you truly believe that, you haven't been paying close enough attention.

[eileen_d]

65. Well, let me expand my analysis

I was an angry Democrat before Dean came along. I didn't need him to speak up for me about ANY of the several issues that he gets credit for speaking up about.

I'm sure you will disagree, but for me Dean projects a kind of self-righteous anger that immediately turned me off the first time I heard it. It drowned out his message (which I know is more than just about the war; I was using that as an example).

And please don't ask me to defend my support of Kerry. I'm quitting that business; it is not worth the energy.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[mitchum]

61. Perhaps the poster is very smart or not a single issue voter...

or both (that's the one I have my money on)

Kerry 2004

[eileen_d]

66. That was sweet, mitchum.

:hi:

[zoeyfong]

70. Well, i must say that when it comes to murder, I am a one issue voter.

Kerry is complicit in the murder of thousands, and why did he do it? Cuz he knew that there are always more votes in supporting war than in opposing it. Fine, you be 'smart' and vote for kerry; i think i'll just maintain my self-respect and standards of morality.

[eileen_d]

67. That is a complete misrepresentation of who I am

and what I believe. But it's nothing I haven't heard before.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[hellhathnofury]

48. Who's going to stand up for you?

SPAM!

[Anwen]

32. This is precisely why

Dean has earned my vote :)

[nomaco-10]

51. but, but, but.....

we have our ham sandwich, John Kerry, well turkey ham, but nevermind that point now... never mind that bush* has buried himself with party favorites and media whore pundits with his: "He's run up the deficit to 400 million dollars, he's allowed those "ferners" from Mexico to come in here or he's outsourced jobs to every "ferner" in the rest of the world that ain't from TexASS. All "evil doers and "terrassts" are on alert, don't light near Crawford Texas or "you will face the consequences" of bad PR and a bunch of dumb SOB media from CNN hanging out on my fake, prop pig farm. That's why we have no tourists from foreign countries, they think they will be rounded up and sent to Guantanimo Bay or even worse, Crawford, TexASS because they are "teerists" not "terrasts", hence the tourist trade is dead too, another casuality of the administration, as if we had anything cultural to offer anyway, but WOOH HOO, been to the pumps lately, checked your child on iliteracy ratings, tried to get goober jr. thru college, gay, want to get married? It's OK for 100 plus Arabs to die in a 48 hour period in Iraq, he's still gonna get the prisoners in this country right with god and the athletes off steroids. It's just been mind blowing to hear O'Reilly. Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Novak and Lou Dobbs chip away at him everyday til he is getting no credibility whatsoever and throw in the AWOL equation to boot. It's a good time to be a democrat whatever your candidate is polling. When the republicans start eating their own, it is a rare and beautiful thing, savor it. Somehow it comes to mind the old saying here, that a ham sandwich can beat bush*.

John Kerry, our ham sandwich cause by god the DLC and special interest groups said he's mighty tasty and is damn near electable in their tiny little minds. BAAAAAAAAAAHHH BAAAAAAAAAAHA

Please note that this is a non sheeple endorsement of all ham sandwiches in the democratic party. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAH BAAAAAAAAAAAAH

[zoeyfong]

56. Exactly. Politicians like kerry only understand winning and losing.

[question everything]

62. Stand up for what?

First, a disclaimer. I did not start following the candidates closely until a few days before the Iowa caucuses, resigning to the fact that by the time my time would come - super Tuesday - the candidate would have been selected.

Still, I seem to remember that Dean first came with economic issues, was very much at the center. But when he went to visit Iowa the first time he realized how strong the objection to the war was there and changed direction.

If anyone knows better, please enlighten me.

[quaker bill]

75. Dean was outspoken

against the war before the IWR vote in 2002. John F. Kerry has been outspoken in favor of a 'get tough on Iraq' policy since some time in the mid 1990's. Bush's policy was the fulfillment of everything Kerry had been advocating for about 5 or 6 years.

The only objection Kerry has held about this war has been that Bush* did not secure enough allies before going in.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

64. You stole that line from Dean

"(except Kucinich and Sharpton)" Except most of the time Dean forgot to say that part.

Anyway, Dean has done some good things and spoke out. How did Dean make Bush vulnerable? On what issue? Kucinich VOTED AGAINST the war and rallied over 100 members of the house to vote NO. I would tend to believe the opposite. Kucinich put and IS STILL PUTTING his neck on the line for us. **Dean did a little bit too(that's my asterisk) I still don't buy the excuse because the media over-exposed Dean that his angry speeches were more important than Kucinich's ACTION.


"If you want to let elected Democrats know that you will reward them and stand by them when they act on your behalf, then support Howard Dean so politicians will actually see that we DO care about what they do and that we DO value those who stand up for us."

Although in some definition that sentence could apply to Howard Dean, it applies in multiples to Dennis Kucinich. Basically if that is a reason to support Dean, then it is an even better reason to support Kucinich.

Just my lil ol opinion.

TWL

[LWolf]

78. Do two lil opinions

make a bigger one?

One of the great things Dennis brings to the table, that no other candidate does, is actual action on the issues closest to us. Actually standing up to Bush Inc. with his voice, his votes, the legislation he's introduced, and his work in Washington. Sharpton, Clark, Dean, Braun...all talked the talk, but weren't in a position to do the work in congress; so we have to take their word for what they might have done. That's fine; I appreciate their stances in oppostition to Bush. Kerry, Edwards, etc. were there. They didn't demonstrate the same resolve on the front lines as they do in campaign speeches, IMO. That doesn't mean I don't like them, or wouldn't vote for them in the general election; it just means that Dennis has a better record when it comes to upholding truth and justice in the face of Bush Inc.

Dennis has demonstrated his willingness to act on the issues important to us. He's walked his talk.

[Lexingtonian]

69. Seems to me he focussed on his payoff for that, really

All that empowerment and Revolution stuff went from Vladimir Lenin to Anthony Robbins in tone as soon as the Gore Establishment embraced him and the polling numbers were high enough.

As I recall.