Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Was it ever possible to elect a nominee that was against war?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
tobius Donating Member (947 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:29 PM
Original message
Was it ever possible to elect a nominee that was against war?
It looks like the nomination is Kerry's to lose, but some still hold out hope that Edwards can pull off a great comeback.

As the primaries proceeded many latched on to the slightest indication that the candidates didn't support military removal of Saddam. Now that it is more clear who the nom will be, the revelation is sinking in that both Kerry and Edwards are quibbling with Bush about process not ultimate military intervention. Only candidates who were extreme long shots came right out and called bush a liar.

Whatever the feelings of members of DU about Iraq, would a Dem nominee have a shot at election with voters of this country if he was against ultimately using military force for Saddam's ouster?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
democratreformed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. I have my doubts.
It certainly seems those of us opposed to the action are in the minority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. LOL isn't that funny?
All these folks defending Kerry now were SOOOO pissed at him a year and a half ago.

They're against the war then, but they're FOR it now. Shouldn't things be moving in the OPPOSITE direction, especially with Democrats gaining power again?

Do these people realize what they're doing? They're justifying Bush's war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. You're right
and of course, it's NOT funny. Guess they don't realize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovedems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. I am not justifying bush's war at all.
I am trying to prevent bush from having free reign to pre-emptively invade any country he feels like. As much as I hate the situation in Iraq, I hate the thought of future wars more.

So you can laugh all you want but I don't think a future in a perpetual state of war is funny at all. My kids will draftable before I know it and that isn't funny to me at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-04 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
23. *I* am STILL draftable. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deaner1971 Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Didn't realize that I was justifying Bush's war
Sen. Kerry's speech about why he was voting for the resolution was specific and intelligent. Our Congress made the mistake as a group, except DK and a "fair play" to him for having done so.

However, there is a difference between voting for hostilities when being told that a leader has WMDs and that the president will work with the UN and will seek a coalition versus voting for what ended up happening.

I don't believe, for a second, that any Dems and few Repubs would have voted for a war with Iraq if they were being told, "Yeah, he has no WMDs, it will be just us and the Brits, I am giving all the contracts to Dicky's old company, and I am basing this on what I want to see in the data". John Kerry got mislead by this administration, as did Congress, as did many Americans. Everyone claims, "Oh, I didn't. I knew it was all a lie," but the poll numbers immediately after Iraq surrendered tell another story. Most of this country supported that idiot from Crawford and his friggin' war.

Ironically, had the Congress not given the President the power to go to war, and had we not invaded Iraq, much of the country never would have known what a big liar Bushy 2 is...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DjTj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-04 04:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
25. I am for Edwards.
but I am one of these people. The object of my anger was Dianne Feinstein, since she was my Senator, but I definitely still believe the Senate Democrats (including Kerry and Edwards) severely let us down in the fall of 2002.

I'm not sure what you mean by *justifying* Bush's war, but I'm simply not interested in moral retribution anymore.

We are so very lucky that in November 2004 we have an opportunity to remove Bush from the White House, and I am going to do everything I can to make that happen. I feel that is the strongest statement I can make against Bush's war.

I am still against the war, but I am more concerned about the future: How can we win back the White House? How can we get ourselves out of Iraq? How can we regain the respect of the UN and the rest of the world?

I support Edwards because I believe he has the best chance of actually making these things a reality. (I also like him best on several domestic policy issues.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. I disagree
Those of us opposed to the action are in the majority when you add in those hindsight converts. The problem was that even us hardcore caucus-goers didn't base our caucus or primary votes on that issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revcarol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. We have forgotten the valiant Senator Byrd
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 12:40 PM by revcarol
who BEGGED Senators not to trash the Constitution.

We have forgotten that we were among the millions protesting the war.

We have forgotten that many of us signed the pledge not to vote for anyone who voted for war.

Now the only action left to many is to vote for Kucinich as a protest vote against our non-leaders and to contribute to his campaign.

It makes me want to cry.

Maybe we can get our candidates to listen to us if we turn out in the MILLIONS on Mar. 20. But I am not hopeful.:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tobius Donating Member (947 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-04 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
22. The ABB faction was stronger than anti-IWR faction.
and I am truly puzzled. It seems it ended up SOLD-- some one like dubya.


late night kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BruinAlum Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. I don't believe those candidates were rejected over that one issue
The majority of voting Democrats are not using the IWR as a litmus test for their choice of candidate. Nor do the majority of the public blame the Iraq war on the Senators who voted for the IWR like some people here in GD 04 do - they place the blame on Bush where any reasonable person knows it belongs.

The Iraq war is not even the priority in most Americans minds. Voters are MOSTLY concerned with replacing Bush - they are angry as hell with him and want him gone. They are more concerned with domestic issues. JOBS!! Deficit. Civil liberties.

They are not single issue voters for the most part. Your candidate did not lose out just because he was against the Iraq war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. More to the point
Millions of moderate America were also misled by pResident Turd and his chickenhawk brigade...a candidate whose message is "Nyah, Nyah told you so" is not likely to draw much support.

And whether or not we have kicked over the anthill, the fact remains that this unelected drunk DID kick it over and NOW we've got ants...and we have to deal with that...not with what should have been said in February 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoCountsTheVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. no - the war is about oil, and oil production is peaking
simple really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
7. Yes
they would have had a great shot at the nomination. If not for the media & if not for the DNC. But those if not's don't exist and we're left with Kerry & Edwards. It's a sad situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
8. Maybe this war is really popular
We got a whole country and a bunch of oil for less than 1000 killed. I could see people being happy with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. I just wanted to say, 'I agree.'
I loved the progressive messages of Clark and Dean. I still love to listen to Kucinich, but the mainstream media largely ignores him. Before the war, when I was in law class, I repeatedly protested this administration's steadfast determination to go to war in Iraq, that you could just feel in the air. I was told to leave the USA. I went nuts, and told my fellow students that vigorous and robust debate re government policy was the cornerstone of the USA's success...they needed to re-read their ConLaw cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldcoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. I am glad that you stood up to them
It is frustrating to deal with people who accuse you of being "unpatriotic" for daring to disagree with the government. If you oppose the war, you must hate the U.S. or the troops according to their twisted logic. Indeed, one of the tragedies of this war is how war supporters were able to paint themselves as "supporting the troops." If they really supported the troops, they would have actually done a little bit of research into the first Gulf War to see what sort of dangers that the soldiers might face. Instead, they decided to spend all their time screaming at us to "leave the country."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodHelpUsAll2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. You may be on to something
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. People are never outraged for purely idealogical reasons
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 01:22 PM by wuushew
Drops in support for the Korean war and Vietnam war were correlated to the rate of casualities sustained. Rereading various case studies by RAND it is clear that noticeable drops in support would only occur if causalites were higher by an order of magnitude.

You can see this effect on a microlevel when a large helicopter goes down. For some reason a sudden peak in deaths is worse than then the same amount over a longer period? With something like 70% of public still supporting an illegal occupation of a foreign country it is simply not pragmatic to go against the grain.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj00/sum00/hyde.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. The Iraq casualties are very small
We could handle ten of these wars before people started to get mad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revcarol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Maybe people don't realize that we got NO oil
and a $127 BILLION bill so far with more expense to come.

Do the voters not realize that the whole economy will be in shreds before we get out?

And could we have foreseen this to select an anti-war candidate? Yes.I, one lone unqualified civilian, out in the middle of no place, wrote LTTE's about what was going to happen in the OCCUPATION, including the financial devastation that would result from long occupation. I guess people just like to have other people's lives decimated and only think about that when it is their life.:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. But we own that country now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
14. your question says a lot about the party
And it's not very pleasant to face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tobius Donating Member (947 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. I think it also relates to the reason
this forum was started, which I believe was a reaction to election mess in 2000. Would the party nominate someone who would run against "selection", BBV,and media power in elections? If neither question can be answered affirmatively, what does that mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightNurse Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-04 04:49 AM
Response to Original message
24. Of Course! Trippi Blew it!
Couldn't Even pay a Deli Bill in Ames,Iowa..he was so greedy!

Engage!:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 14th 2024, 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC