Why i still vote for dennis moore

[Guava Jelly]

numbers period.
we need seats .
even a dem that acts like a repuke is better then a repuke
when you look at the numbers
I disagree on almost every vote dennis moore cast.
but we need seats so we can control the house.
So we can control the agenda
if we had the seats we could have impeached W .
But we dont because politicians are stupid pandering vote hogs

[cornermouse]

1. No. We need decent challengers in the primaries to replace them.

[Guava Jelly]

2. i agree

but to quote rummy
you go to war with the army you have

[Jon8503]

3. Not from KS but the Border State; Dennis Moore has a

constituency that makes it where he is not going to be able to vote like he is in a Blue State. With that you have to look at it in a way if you want him in office representing you or would you rather have others like the opponent he recently defeated.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Until I went to Camp Casey

and met Cindy Sheehan and learned so much about the war in Iraq and how very wrong it is and how badly we need to bring our troops home, I agreed with you. I have for years voted for the Democratic candidate many times regardless of his/her vote history. But not any more.

Dennis Moore lost my vote when he told me he supports the war in Iraq. I will vote for no candidate who will not work to bring our troops home immediately.

[Guava Jelly]

5. well then you vote for the republican agenda

lets put it this way
the repukes control the media the house the senate the whitehouse.
if you vote for a candidate that has in no way any chance whatsoever to win..like Nader or kucinich then you may have well of not voted at all.
because your vote truly has no effect you cant offset a republican vote by cancelling it out with your democratic vote. And the only other option you have of defeating the republicans is to vote dem even for a dino.
here is the rundown
two conservatives one fiscal(not a true one) one neocon
two democrats one is a yellow dog one is a far left liberal
fiscal person votes bush 1 vote
neocon person votes bush 1 vote
yellow dog votes kerry 1 vote
far left liberal votes nader 1 vote

score card 2 bush 1 kerry 1 nader
bush wins and you helped him

I am against this war i dont care for the batch of wimps we have on our side.
but cutting off your arm because you hate your hand is just silly
If people didnt vote for nader in 2000 we wouldnt be in iraq maybe 911 could have been stopped maybe katrina aftermath would have been better
less poor folk dieing..Kerry was there before bush..nader didnt show up.

We are such snobs sometimes..We look at poor republicans and think they are voting against thier best interest..When we do the same thing by voting against the democrat and cancelling out a republican vote.

I agree with sheehan but realistically telling hillary she is going to loose her job and she does just gives the republicans 1 more seat more power to stick nutcases on the courts and raid our treasury and future

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. It's very simple actually

I can't support a candidate who advocates continuing this war. Period. I have two kids in their 20s. I am not willing to sacrifice either of them for this idiotic war. I am not willing to ask any parent to make the sacrifice Cindy Sheehan made.

If more Dems like me took this stance, I am certain we would get our party's attention. Just count me as one of the few - at this moment. If we are still in Iraq this time next year, I have a feeling a lot more folks will be saying the same thing I am saying now. No way will staying in Iraq become the desire of the majority of voters. No way.

WHEN (not IF) the latest Abu Ghraib photos are released, I think many more will be running to my side of the fence. So it could be I am just ahead of the crowd here. :)

[Telly Savalas]

11. Automatically voting for the lesser of two evils is an indication

one has been politically blackmailed.

Obviously compromises have to be made, and I can't expect a candidate to agree with me 100% on every issue. However, there has to be a point where a candidate can stray so far from my principles that (s)he loses my vote. For example if Dennis Moore were to advocate a $1 billion grant to NAMBLA, mandatory 6 month prison sentences for parking violations, and a ban on the use of air conditioning in the month of August, are we still obligated to vote for him just because Kobach is worse? (And yes, Kobach would still be worse even if Moore held these positions.)

A coalition can only work when the concerns of all of its members are being addressed. For most members of such a coalition, the only real power they hold is the choice to leave. So when the Democratic Party tells its more left-leaning voters to STFU and vote for our candidates or you'll get stuck with the GOP, it's not addressing their concerns, and hence it shouldn't be too surprised when these voters walk.

If the election were today, then I'd probably still reluctantly vote for Moore if he were up against a Kobach. However I strongly agree with proud2blib that there's a line the candidate can cross to lose my vote, even if I differ on where this line is.

[ComerPerro]

6. Primaries, yes. But given the choice between, say, Moore and Kobach

...

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. I would abstain

I am serious. We need to take a stand here. The war is wrong. It took this kind of stand to get us out of Vietnam. I remember it well. Public opinion was changed. I saw it happen.

I am a contributor to Moore. I have put his sign in my yard - on a busy Johnson County street - every time he has ran for office. But not anymore.

I realize what a tough battle this will be. I went to the non-existent anti war march in Kansas City last weekend. I know how few people (even among my friends) listened to my radio interview last Saturday. And it wasn't because they were marching against the war. I know I have few allies willing to take this stance. Few seem concerned about this idiotic war. But in the late 60s few were as concerned about Vietnam as I was. Within a few years, though, I was far from alone.

SOMEONE has to start. I am gladly volunteering. I am starting with my vote. I also plan on joining the anti war rallies here in KC. Even if I am the only one there.

And if by some miracle, Kobach advocates pulling our troops from Iraq while Moore continues to favor leaving them there, Kobach will get my vote. For the 2006 congressional election, I am planning on being a single issue voter. I don't do this often, but I feel strongly enough about how wrong the war is that I am taking this stance.

[Jon8503]

9. Go for it Proud2BLib; I understand where you are coming from

especially as a mother of 2 20 year olds. I can see your point and why you feel as strongly as you do. Unfortunately, you and I are in states where we do not have a abundance of candidates that I believe are on the right track. We are hurting there.

I feel that Dennis Moore has done a good job for KS but again I understand where you are coming from and would probably feel the same way as you if I was in your situation. I do think you may have to wait a while for Kobach to vote against the war though.

I put this question to the board as I have never believed in "One Issue" voting but that is not saying it is not right. I was just curious how others felt about voting on a single issue as I know there are many others on this board in other states that have the same problem.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. Normally I am not a one issue voter

But I began my voting life as a one issue voter (voting against candidates who endorsed the Vietnam War). As I said in my earlier post, more and more voters came to agree that war was bad. I was merely one of the first.

I think the same thing will happen with Iraq. One year from now, what will the midterm election campaign look like if the war in Iraq looks like it does now?