Attacked by a Deanite tonight because I was supporting Kerry

[Sweetpea]

Of course he attacked me about supporting the war. I told him that I was at almost every anti war protest in NY the past year. I have to say for 6 weeks after the war ended, I was holding my breath because there was reasonable doubt(a la OJ) in my mind that there could be WMD's and if not, they could be planted. Maybe the media, helped create that doubt too. I can't say I was cocky confident. And I believe that group is more than capable of planting something.

Can you imagine the climate now if either had occurred? All anti war people would be Traitors, there would have been a lot of "Ha HA We told you so". There would be more support of Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft than ever. The Democrats would have had NO chance. The neocons are sooooo treacherous, but we still have to play in their realm. That realm(including the media) is deceitful and dangerous. They are not going away anytime soon, and are going to fight with tooth, nail, and a vial of anthrax to keep the White House.

I still support Kerry.

[Clete]

1. I don't think attacking each other over the candidates you

are supporting for the primary is very smart. Whatever happened to the good old days when everyone cheered for their candidate like they did for their football team? When did things get so nasty?

[ronzo]

2. geez...

agreed. That's the problem with free thinkers. Too much thought.
We will unite against shrub when it's said and done.

ABB,
ronzo

[Octafish]

4. One thing to be a Free Thinker...

... It's another thing entirely to be condescending. Too many people, it seems, have been raised to believe they don't need to respect another person or their opinion, let alone consider what they may have to say. That's too bad. Believing we all are equal is about the most important part about being a Democrat.

BTW: A hearty welcome to DU ronzoNOLA!

[ronzo]

9. Alright!

Thanks for that. You guys won't hear from me often, but I'll try to keep it really wry or really relevant.
cheers!

[newyawker99]

16. Hi ronzoNOLA!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[AP]

5. When Dean started walking around with a baseball bat like he was

going to crack some skulls.

Ach, just kidding. I like his spunk. He's bringing some energy to the camapaign.

[regnaD kciN]

7. "When did things get so nasty?"

Whatever happened to the good old days when everyone cheered for their candidate like they did for their football team? When did things get so nasty?

Offhand, I would say that it was after the 1972 election, when certain people in leadership positions in the Democratic Party decided that the way to win was to "move to the center," and thus became more concerned about silencing "liberals" than acutally defeating Republicans. Out of that takeover (the Robert Straus coup) came the future Democratic Leadership Council and a determination to make war upon other party members first and the GOP second (if at all).

:grr:

[realFedUp]

3. Kerry did a good job

He's leaning more to the left, which is in part due to
Dr. Dean's crowd. Not a bad thing.

[sandnsea]

12. Well, he's leaning to the center

He's traditionally been waaay left on almost everything, I worry that he's got too many liberal votes in his past to actually beat Bush. But if it makes you happy to think that Dean got him to go left, it's really okay with me.

[blm]

25. How can you lean more left

when your record is already the closest to Wellstone's of any of the Dem candidates?

[Old and In the Way]

6. Here's a scenario for you.

Bush has his Iraq War vote just before midterms. Rumors about WMD smuggled into the US...anyone remember? Al-Qaeda = 9/11 terrorists = SH.

Now what if the Dems had voted en masse against the War? Would another "event" have occurred? Since Al Qaeda seems to do things that support the Republican Roilist Party, this is not completely outside the realm of possibility. Given our SCLM, it would have been game/set/match for the Democrats for at least a generation.....the Party of Terrorist Appeasers.

[ibegurpard]

8. If this was the case

And was the reason that many of the Democrats behaved as they did (assuming they knew about it)then, to paraphrase Janeane Garafaolo, I will crawl across glass to apologize to them.

[Sweetpea]

10. They stole an American Election

Planting of evidence is still not a stretch to my imagination.

[dobak]

11. bingo

I think that is exactly why alot of Democrats voted to give Bush authorization to go to war.

They were worried that if they voted no and won, then we were attacked - the SCLM and the repugs would point at them and say "if only".

[sandnsea]

13. Let me add a bit of a twist here

Senator Kerry can't say anything bad about the actual war at this particular point in time. The troops are on the ground. There is no way he is going to say one bad thing about what those troops are doing. He is going to hit Bush on putting those troops in danger every way he can, he's going to work every way he can to get Iraq resolved and keep those troops safe; but he'll never say anything negative about the 'war' those troops are fighting. Not unless or until there is absolutely no other choice.

[Terwilliger]

14. It's only September of the year before...and ALREADY Dems act like Pukes!

Its only going to get MUCH worse before it gets better

[ronzo]

15. The issues, though...

Here's where I saw a wee bit of progress tonight. There were some great ideas that registered with the crowd- the attacks on other candidates are and will be coming from the desperate. Without naming names, some candidates need to raise issues and not point fingers. With this diversity of candidates and ideas, the Dems should come away with an appealing platform. Here's to it...

ronzo

[Old and In the Way]

26. But you wouldn't expect it to be any different, right?

Because, as we all know, "there is no difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties".

Honest. Ralph Nader told us so.

[Terwilliger]

30. no...I'm getting to the point where I see so few differences

it's really troubling to think that I thought the Democratic party was anything other than a bunch of self-interested political hacks

[quinnox]

17. Not surprised

I also was against the war, but the candidates I favor, Edwards, Gephardt, and Kerry all voted for authorization. Although disappointed by their vote, I look at their whole record to make a decision on who I like, among other factors such as electability. I am not a one-issue voter, or use the war vote as a litmus-test. I also recognize that if any of these had voted against, it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference. Bush would still have invaded Iraq, because he had the votes. I put the blame squarely on Bush, because it was his decision and agenda (long time agenda, if you look at the past motions by him, he was going to invade Iraq from day one of his presidency, it was just a matter of the right timing, and Sept. 11 gave it to him) as commander-in-chief.

[Starpass]

21. quinnox--Amen and Double Amen

If people start looking for a candidate who is perfection they not only will not find one but they will end up playing mind games with themselves as they start seeing their candidate's flaws being exposed, end up lying to themselves, and end up bitter that no one else could see how utterly saintly their candidate was.

[quinnox]

22. I agree

n/t

[Sweetpea]

23. Yeh, Kind of how Bushites view Bush.

[He loved Big Brother]

18. Were you attacked-

At a Dean meetup?

[Sweetpea]

19. NO, at a debate party.

[Walt Starr]

33. so was this an "attack" or a "debate"

Just want to know.

To be clear, I dislike Kerry greatly because of his war vote and if nominated, I may not vote for him in the general election.

[Sweetpea]

34. Well, I don't have any bruises but it was quite unnerving when

someone is yelling at you, in your face, saying you were for the war, after all of your anti war volunteering. I felt it was more a personal attack than a debate.

[Walt Starr]

35. Sounds like an attack to me

If you were frightened for your well being, then it was not an attack, it was an assault.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. Pre-emptive strikes are all the rage these days.

Probably a passing fad.

[sangh0]

24. It's propoganda and it's false dichotomies

According to "those whose principles are better than thou's", a vote for the resolutions was "a vote for war" AND "a vote for Bush*". According to them, there were only two choices. Either you were "for war" (and voted for the resolution) or you were "against war" (and voted No)

The possibility that you support a candidate because you think his/her resolution vote was based on the possibility that Bush* might plant evidence IS NOT ALLOWED!! because "a vote for the resolutions is a vote for war". Alternative opinions are PROHIBITED by the propoganda.

"a vote for the resolutions is a vote for war" uses the tactic known as "framing the debate". Framing the debate is meant to limit the debate to a small number of specific arguments, where only one of those specific arguments (the one the propogandist makes) makes any sense. Any reasonable arguments that undermine the propogandists position is eliminated.

So either "you're for the war" (an undesirable position) or "you're against the war" (the anti-war propogandists position). The possibility that you are against the war, but ambivalent about the resolution vote IS NOT ALLOWED!!! (So please stop saying that! :-) )

[Old and In the Way]

27. I agree...don't know how we can define any candidate on the results

of one vote. Too many other "considerations" in the equation that need to be factored. See my post 6 on this.

Kerry was one of the few who have experienced the horrors of war, firsthand. He, more than most, would be understand the risk and sacrifice that such a vote brings.

[Sweetpea]

28. Just like you believe Bush won fairly

Believing he didn't steal the election doesn't count.

What a time we live in.

[sangha]

29. I've got news for you

I don't think Bush* won at all, never mind winning fairly

[Terwilliger]

31. every other Democrat does

or did they miss that little bit of history where they accepted Bush as president?

[Sweetpea]

32. I doubt anyone at DU believes he won at all

Surely not me..

[Mechatanketra]

36. Trying to be tolerant, but frustrated ...

While I sympathize with almost anyone who gets verbally savaged for the candidate they support (and I honestly fear the day someone posts "I was punched today for endorsing ___"), that sympathy is coupled with a big spoonful of aggravation towards many of the sentiments you express.

1) You can use the same "but what if we're wrong?" reasoning to cave in on any Democratic platform. "What if Bush's tax cuts turn out to create jobs and prosperity? We can't be seen opposing that!" "What if affirmative action programs are keeping the next Thomas Edison or Dr. Salk from getting an education? We can't risk it!" "What if God will smite us for being lenient to atheists? We can't stand in Roy Moore's way!"

I guess you could say, I was "cocky", though I liked to think of it as having faith in the power of reason. Belief in Iraqi WMDs is and was (for GWB's term, at least) irrational. And hey, check it out -- the "yaysayers" look just as dumb now as you imagine the naysayers would have if they were found.

2) "But what if they plant WMDs?" is an even worse reason to cave on an issue. Citing it as a pragmatic defense of a pro-war vote is legitimizing the tactic. It's paying the ransom quietly and not calling the police. It's insurance that the other side will use even dirtier tactics next time.

3) Kerry was my #1 candidate until the war vote. I went through a brief period of trying to recapture that good-will, telling myself "It's OK, it's just one issue, it's not a litmus test" -- and I couldn't convince myself. The problem is, as I said, that support for the Iraq war resolution was irrational. It required denying reality and buying into the White House's fantasy ("lies" doesn't even cover it, because their vision of the Iraq situation had no credibility -- one couldn't be fooled into believing it, one must choose to be fooled). It was 'admitting' there were five fingers instead of four.

What this whole "what if we were wrong" mentality ignores is that this wasn't a binary issue. There were other options for dealing with the potential WMD threat, and the Iraq war resolution discarded them. Kerry (and other Democrats who voted in favor of the resolution) specifically gave Bush the power to circumvent the solution (UN inspections) that was already working (and despite the common myth cited to the contrary, Bush did need that resolution to use his war powers, and it did not bind him to any level of cooperation or involvement with the UN).

I wish I could say Kerry's as good as any other candidate, but I can't. The fact is, the Iraq resolution does serve as a fair litmus test, precisely because the case for war was such a farce -- those who signed it may be intelligent, morally upstanding, or possess the will to oppose Republican aims ... but can't have all three virtues. And that's why, if Kerry picks up the nomination, I'll vote for him -- but I'm going to be crying inside when I do, because I don't think it will do any good. We'll have already lost the bigger fight, and the Republicans will be back in power soon enough worse than ever.

[Sweetpea]

37. Preying on the Fears of Americans post 9/11 is different

from the tax cuts... All of those terror warnings...raising the terror alerts to silence opponents. That is a different issue than a tax cut or affirmative action. I thought they were following the Nazi propoganda prototype with a media that was not willing to tell the truth.

[Sweetpea]

38. The Propoganda is Still Working

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=285855>

Whether we like it or not, All of the Candidates are up against a mean machine. Bush says jump and a lot of America still says how high .

If he says that WMD were found in Iraq in his speech on Sunday, there will be a large part of the population that will believe him. People may be pissed off about the tax cuts but the Big Bad Boogie Man generates fear.

[Impeach Whistle Ass]

39. Bush fooled Gephardt, Kerry, and Hillary just like the rest of America

Selfish political calculation played no part in their decision to support Bush's war. And if you believe that, I've got some oceanfront property in Utah I'd like to sell you.

Dean or Kucinich the rest are WHORES.

[Sweetpea]

40. Sorry you feel that way.

I didn't support the war but I do think they are playing on people's fear. To call the rest whores is pretty low and I do hope that in the coming year, those 2 candidates you mentioned don't say anything that is taken out of context and their characters destroyed.
I don't dislike Dean. I like Kucinich better in terms of his record. I was bothered when K spoke at the Human Rights Campaign and said he would appoint a cross gender to the Supreme Court. I thought that was too advanced for the average American to swallow. Those are the type of statements that will be used to show that liberals will lower the morality of this country, in addition to not keeping the country safe by not supporting our President or should I say "Their President"

[Impeach Whistle Ass]

41. Sorry, those 3 care more about their political careers than principles

They knew war was the wrong thing, but voted anyway. Now they're crying that they were "mislead"? BULLSHIT. They, especially Kerry, had all sorts of access to US intelligence, more than any of us will ever have. In short, they are whores. Self-serving WHORES.

[Sweetpea]

42. I think Kerry's record speaks for itself

<http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/security_plan.html> Not a whore

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the next year.