www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/6/201943/8224
Parent this pic makes me think ( 400 / 3) i'd rather have a veep with a hand in the prez's face, than a veep with a hand up the prez's ass "It is the peacemakers, above all, who earn a place in history."
none / 1) My brother first explained to me the "Politicians' Thumbs-Up" in which the thumb is barely extended above the fist, as executed by Kerry above. Once you start looking for it, you will see that virtually all politicians do it that way. Apparently the normal "Fonzie/hitchhiking" style focus-grouped as too vulgar. Or maybe the Politician-style version isn't as offensive overseas.
Tue Jul 6th, 2004 at 20:23:00 EDT I also felt that Kerry was a spineless politician ( 337 / 8) when it came to the war and I was about as strong a Dean supporter as they come because of it. But, beating Bush is the goal, because he is evil incarnate. My ideal candidate (Dean) did not make the cut, so I'll have to suck it up and support someone with whom I agree 90% of the time (and then work at electing progressive politicians incrementally, as I assume you're suggesting). What alternative do I have, not supporting Kerry/Edwards and thereby tacitly supporting someone with whom I agree 0% of the time? Therein is the logic of a left-leaning non-voter, or Nader supporter. The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.
none / 0) Kerry knew he would get these attacks for taking a pro-war VP nominee. I assume he wants to be attacked by people like me to position himself as a "centrist".
They and other members of Congress owe thousands of people, both American and Iraqi, an apology. Kerry and Edwards, however, are both politicians in the middle of one of the most important campaigns of my lifetime, so I don't expect to hear any apologies any time soon, if ever. Having said that, I'm not sure the Kerry/Edwards position on invading Iraq is the issue. The important question, now, is: will they make similar decisions in the future? Sure, with regard to Iraq, they voted to allow the use of force (-which was wrong), but that doesn't mean they would have acted on that option had they been in the White House at that time. Being a senator has its privileges and responsibilities, but even more so if one is President. We know what kind of decisions the current occupant of the White House is willing to make. I think Kerry/Edwards will take a different approach on foreign policy. And, without forgetting the past, that's the Kerry/Edwards position with which we should be concerned. "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria."
Parent Much like Clinton's ( 400 / 5) The authorization for the President to use force was seen by many as the only way to pressure Saddam into cooperating with Hans Blix. It was felt that unless there was a credible threat of force he'd just jerk them around. I opposed the war because I thought that these guys were lying about Saddam's weapons programs. Now, I didn't know that Saddam didn't have a credible nuclear program, but I felt that he probably didn't. And I felt that the administration was probably exaggerating the threat. I always felt that there was at least a chance that there was some sort of intelligence that these guys had that was air-tight. There was no penalty for us to pay if we had guessed wrong and they really did have credible information. Our government officials have a very real responsibility to protect the citizens of the country. They had every right to expect that the administration wasn't lying to them. And even if they suspected that the administration was lying, how could they know for sure? I think it was disgusting the way the Bush administration essentially used this responsibility against the opposition in congress. They sat across the table and with a straight face made the argument that Saddam had "reconstituted a nuclear weapons program". But I don't think a responsible government official could take the chance. It would amount to gambling with the safety of the population. When John Kerry voted for the authorization of force, he followed it up with a detailed exhortation of what he expected in terms of a responsible exercise of the authority that had been given to Bush. Needless to say, Bush never come close to living up to these minimum standards. I opposed this war and believe that the only thing for us to do is get the hell out of there. But I don't hold a grudge against the senators who were manipulated into that vote. It strikes me as having the scent of blaming the victim.
none / 0) Lincoln was elected in part by abolitionists, but he wasn't one himself, and held off the Proclamation as long as he could for fear it would wreck the war effort. Kerry's and Edward's opposition to the war wasn't entirely opportunistic. It reflected the difficulty the American people had in believing their president was a liar and a fake. A lot of us saw him for what he was, and Howard Dean stood up to him. But it is legitimate to ask whether Dean would have stood so strong if he'd had an inside track to the nomination in Feburary through April 2003. This is not to do the man I gave a fairly large sum of money to any disservice. We live in a world where a lot of people disagree with us, and we have to take that disagreement as a given. The Bush administration is a glowing example of what happens when you don't.
And even if she did run for President, and congress amended the Constitution to allow it to happen, why in the world would she choose Don King as her running mate? Sheesh - the political speculation around here sure is wacky. Next thing, you'll insist that Kerry actually considered someone named Vilsack for Veep! I'll tell it and think it and speak it and breathe it, and reflect it from the mountain so all souls can see it.
Parent in general I agree ( 400 / 4) with not characterising your opponent as evil. But I make an exception for an administration that tries to legalise torture.
if Democrats (yes, Democrats) voted for Dean in Iowa, pre-scream. Again, Democrats in a very big union state with a legacy of anti-war liberalism voted for the current "pro-war" ticket over Dean. And I say this as someone who gave Dean a lot of time, held house parties, etc. I have moved on, recognized Dean's role in revitalizing the grassroots of the party, thanked him, but now see he was the wrong vehicle for the Presidency.
none / 0) the original author of this thread, and not me. I'm advocating supporting Kerry/Edwards and trying to move the party to the left once we get a Democrat in the White House (as I suggest he does too). The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.
Again, if you want to be so freaking pure that ONE VOTE determines whether someone is liberal or not, be my guest. Kerry is one of the most reliable liberal votes in the Senate. Don't let little facts like that get in the way of a wonderful little fantasy that Dean or Nader are really better alternatives to our current Kaiser. PS: We were going to war anyway, with a congressional thumbs up or not. Most of the troops were already there and they were already preparing. Also, the fact that the vote wasn't a straight up vote on war doesn't have to enter into the equation either, does it? Some folks seem to like to bastardize the old pharse and turn it into: the good is the enemy of the perfect. We don't have a parliamentary system and we don't have the luxury of throwing our votes away. If the Republicans stop telling lies about us, we will stop telling the truth about them.
none / 0) If you think his Massachusetts voting record is representative of how he will govern, I expect you will feel betrayed. Here are my choices: 1 vote Bush 2 vote Kerry 3 not vote at all 4 undervote for president; vote other races 5 vote a prez candidate that is neither Bush nor Kerry Why don't you Dems shit on the non-voters like you shit on non-major party voters?
none / 0) Yeah, you're for "the truth" and not labels while you label two guys as just about like Bush based on one vote. You're for truth, yet you can ignore a man's true voting record and magically see how he will truly rule if he becomes president. Your congressional strategy is poi...
|
http://csua.com/feed/