I've become a single-issue voter, and that issue is WAR

[DerekG]

Loathe as I am to draw ire from the disciples of lesser-evilism, and the cadre of IWR apologists, I think I'm going to take Scott Ritter's advice, and join the effort to punish pro-war Democrats. (Alas, I'll have to multi-task, since both of my senators--"Gog" Schumer and "Magog" Clinton--are neo-liberal supporters.)

What can I say? After having taken a sojourn through yet another website that showcases the Iraqi dead, I must confess that my contempt for "stay-the-course" Democrats is pretty palpable. I reserve my sympathy for the tot who had his face shredded from one of our cluster bombs (click on the link below for images of a similar nature), not for the vile politicos who expect our votes because they have a soft spot for Roe v. Wade.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm


I'm done.

I don't vote for murderers of children, nor will I pull the lever for their collaborators.

[still_one]

1. i am right there with you

at least one of my Senators, Barbara Boxer, saw the falacy from the start

[seabeyond]

2. you will vote repug? or just not vote? my children thank you

for your moral stand, and the other children of this nation. the ones without health care and not have a dem fighting for them to get that health care. and those that will continue to lose their free lunch. and those that will be left behind

but hey, as long as you are comfortable in your moral stand. that is what counts

[LWolf]

13. Neither.

I'll vote for anyone with a record of moral courage and the ability to stand and deliver when it comes to honesty, integrity, social and economic justice, and peace.

If my party does not nominate such a person, I will not vote for the republican. I will not "not vote." I'll choose a 3rd party candidate who can take a moral stand, and I'll stand with them.

I will again work very hard to nominate such a person; if the person I've worked for is not nominated, but the candidate fits the bill, he or she will get my vote. If not, he or she will not.

I don't recall too many Democrats willing to go to bat for universal not-for-profit health care; the last nominee wasn't.

Unfortunately, NCLB legislation leaving all our kids behind was a fully bipartisan effort; as a matter of fact, it was Ted Kennedy's baby.

I want some assurance that the Democratic nominee is not another "I'll do the same thing, but I'll do it right" Democrat. I want a "throw the bums and their policies out" nominee.

[DerekG]

17. My children will not be thrown into the next meat-grinder

Liberal militarists no longer sway me. No Square Deal, Fair Deal, or Great Society will ever absolve their respective architects of their war crimes.

To put it another way: the beneficence of HEADSTART does not negate the horrors of the Indochina war. I'm grateful for Lyndon Johnson's domestic vision; I'm also grateful that God is just, so that right about now, there's a remote chance a vulture is perpetually feasting on LBJ's liver. In Hell.

I ask you: if we don't make the endorsement of war dreadfully unpopular, then how on earth are we going to escape it?

[seabeyond]

18. not this way n/t

[DerekG]

20. How then? You either reward them with your vote, or you don't.

n/t

[seabeyond]

21. i will say this slowly. we have to get repugs out

they are ruining our nation, cant you see.

and they are doing it really really fast.

start locally. get community active. build what you want for the nation in your local community. let it grow. the more we take care of each other, the less anger and fear. the less crime. the less abortion. the less child abuse. start working locally creating jobs and higher pay and a good environment for people to live in the happier they will be. the more evolved they become. and then..... then you have the possibility of not having war. war is out of fear, fear of lack. the ability to make iraqi's insignificant is the fear of lack on our part.

look this is a huge subject, but not voting dem isnt going to do it. and it isnt going ot happen today or tomorrow. it is something to work on for our future and our childrens future. we have allowed so much corruption and dishonesty in these short years, it is going to take a long time just getting that back out of our world. where it is no longer ok

and

dem or repug alike, party doesnt matter, break the law, go to jail
(i mean it is a little late and a hugh subject to get into right now. reality, you are going to do what you want and i am really able to respect a persons choice on morals, at least you are standing in integrity. my reality, get repugs out)

[DerekG]

22. Thank you for your thoughtful response

I agree that the regeneration of the community is not only necessary for forging a braver, more loving ethos, but should, in fact, demand more time than campaigns waged on the national level.

Still, I refuse to endorse those who are filled with the same poison as the rightists. Am I to support the Sadducees, when I see they are clearly tethered to the Roman occupiers? No, I would rather confront them--and expose their calumny--than bow in deference, hoping, all the while, that theirs is a kinder, gentler imperialism.

As our greatest abolitionist once said: "Power concedes nothing without struggle."

[seabeyond]

23. i have been thinking about you

the reason this does not work is it is seperatiopn. you cannot fix being outside of. you need to be within. i ma seeing a lot of awareness in the dem party, and ability to do a lot of fixin. i have seen the people voice being heard, i can give example when voice changed mind of representitives

if you are not a part of you cannot fi\x

i do not see dem party as bad. i see a lot of good. and i see somebad that needs to be address. i feel their is the ability to work within

the bottom line i see a lot more integrity and honesty in dems than i do in even some third parties. and of course the repug. i see a morality in the dems and at least the understand we have to help all for all us to be strong. in all us being strong we are winner winner. no loser that is the best for all, the best for mankind

that is why i am sticking with dem. and i am not even a democrat you know. i never have been. there is more to this. and i am going ot think more about this. if nothing else, thank you. for allowing me to seriously think about this. you passion for the best, even if it means ....... not settling for good of others.....i do understand

i grew up asking a couple questions of myself. now and then i would reflect, what white would i be during the slave times. railroad, owner, .... cracking the whip. what german would i have been

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. Any chance I can get you to name names?

"not for the vile politicos who expect our votes because they have a soft spot for Roe v. Wade."

[Nite Owl]

4. They are my senators too

and I agree with you I can't bring myself to vote for Hil no less campaign for her. There might be some things being planned, sit ins in her offices. I'll let you know if you are interested.

[Walt Starr]

5. Could I ask you a favor, then?

Support those who voted for the war if they turn and say now they were duped into voting for the war.

Those sorts will be needed, but only long enough to help get us out of Iraq.

[DerekG]

19. I would pull the lever, even as I stave off my bile

Make no mistake, these politicians who drone on about being deceived and betrayed by Bushco are either professing their stupidity, or lying through their teeth.

But if they develop an anti-war consciousness, I would reluctantly cast my vote for them. Anything to end this madness.

[Walt Starr]

25. Just never forget their original stances

A time will come, and then you repay them by voting against them.

[sweetheart]

6. yes war, drugs war

same feelings indeed.... and my senators, schumer and clinton as
well, are vichy wannabe inheritors of empire.

And whomever has the balls to end the *wars* gets my vote.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

7. I understand, sympathize and largely agree

One of the things that makes it tough to be a Democrat is the paucity of democratic principles espoused by our political leaders.

You would be proud, for instance, and probably are, of my senator, Robert Byrd's stance against this war, this hideous assault on what used to be our national decency.

And yet the man turns around and votes to confirm a thug like John Roberts and apparently will do the same for Sammy Alito, in each instance out of a deep-seated need to pander to the religious vote in West Virginia. I'm getting VERY close to telling him that, while I may not vote for his opponent, I damned sure don't have to vote FOR him. I can leave it blank.

I've formulated a theory for political reform in the United States. Henceforth in all elections, we don't vote for the person we like most, but the one we hate least, including a box that says "DO OVER: these candidates suck."

[bluestateguy]

8. Well, not everybody has that luxury

I'll be with you in supporting an anti-war candidate in the Democratic primaries, and I hope that such a candidate will be nominated, thus making this issue moot.

But for women who may lose the rights to control their own bodies, or gay people whose rights are being further eroded, I suspect that most of them just can't vote on the war.

Once the primaries are over, I support the nominee without hesitation. I don't care if Lyndon LaRouche gets the nomination.

[jwirr]

15. I agree, for God's sake, have any of you realized that

lack of medical care can kill just as easily as an illegal war? I am lucky because my congressman voted against that damn war but even if he did not I would support him because he has supported my rights under roe vs. wade, my disabled daughter's needs through medicaid and medicare, though housing programs, through transportation programs and finally through environmental issues. That stupid vote based on a lie is in the past - the lose of all these issues are in the present and the future. We need to win the election and that means that we need to work for those who care about more than the past. I want out of that war as much as any and I knew it was wrong from day one - I do not hold it against others who did not. Especially when one considers what the emotional atmosphere was after 9/11. Very few people were thinking clearly.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

16. I recognize all those things

I also recognize this: a presidential candidate's stand on Roe may be mooted by the 08 election cycle. When Ben Nelson (D-Neb) and Rob't. Byrd (D-WV) come out making favorable noises about Sammy Alito, Roe is pretty much toast.

Alito will make our fifth Roman Catholic on the Supreme Court, if my information is correct. No flames please. It's just a fact. We could well see a Roe re-do that is 5-4 or 6-3 or even 7-2. Remember: the guy who is now Pope has already meddled in one presidential election. What makes you think that was a one-time deal?

I have a strong suspicion that womens' reproductive rights may become a state-by-state battleground.

Medicaid may also be severely damaged by 08, a fait accompli.

Universal healthcare is almost impossible. One need only look back to all the shivs Clinton took in the back from Democrats in the early phases of his first term to understand that.

That leaves the war, and its long term implications. Any democrat who voices vacuous idiocies like "We need to win in Iraq" shows him or herself to be a political hack out of step with the future of our nation, and unworthy of support.

If I must, I suppose I will hold my nose and vote for a pro-war Democrat. But while my nose may be pinched closed, my eyes will be wide open.

[jwirr]

27. I agree that we do not want a "we must win at any cost in

Iraq" candidate - I to will be working for that but I do wonder how we are going to get out of there without all hell breaking loose - not that it hasn't already done that with us there. I asked this question once before and got no answer. What happened right after we left Vietnam? A repub I was arguing with said 3000 people were massacred.

[DerekG]

28. Three thousand? Johnson and Nixon massacred 3 million

If I were to choose between the certainty (if we stay, there will be chaos) and the uncertainty (if we leave, there will be chaos), I'd opt for the latter. At least the empire would be out one client state.

There are times when I wonder whether Kipling wrote the words "white man's burden" in ink, or blood.

[jwirr]

29. There is a quote from Gandhi that reminds us that wars are

often fought with the same amount of life lost as would have been taken if the atrocity had continued but I do not have a link.

[Bjornsdotter]

9. That's exactly why I had a hard time

...voting for Kerry. I did it, but it was tough.

I feel that we all have our own personal "line in the sand" that for whatever reason we will not cross. I respect that in a person even if I don't agree with the placement of the line.

Cheers!

[paulk]

10. give me a break

please give me a break from this kind of stupid shit

the Democrats who voted for the IWR are now "collaborators" in the killing of children

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. I can't do that, too many other issues at stake.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. The "war" is not a single issue. But, I'm with you.

It's about death, and colonialism, and capitalism, and racism, and torture, and "politics as usual", and American militarism, and groveling, self-serving politicians, and profiteering, and a corrupt government, and a bungling military, and the decline of America.

But, the "not as bad as" crowd are all too eager to turn their faces and apologize for the politicians who send kids to kill and be killed to further their political ambitions.

[Ms. Clio]

24. Yes, very well-stated

"The war" is also a war on the middle-class and on civil liberties and on workers around the world. All the horrors are inextricably linked; these thugs did not steal two elections to do good things for us or the rest of the planet.

[Double T]

14. WAR is an important issue, but so are a lot of other things..........

that this repugnant administration has completely destroyed.

[blm]

26. You'll have to punish Ritter for his role in it then. It was Ritter who,

in 1998, criticized Clinton heavily for being soft on Saddam, and who testified under oath to the Senate Committee that Saddam was still very much a threat.

Unless weapons inspections were allowed to happen, that was the last official testimony from a UN weapons inspector. IWR directed weapons inspections must occur first as per UN, and nly after the inspectors went in could Bush make the determination war was unavoidable.

You make a big mistake in blaming the IWR, a resolution which would have prevented war if administered by any other president, including Reagan - You don't realize that by blaming the IWR, the bottom line is that you let Bush off the hook for violating its guidelines.

Smartest tact would be to allow Bush's VIOLATIONS of the IWR become the story.

[triguy46]

30. Well, all things considered, I'm a single party voter...

Yellow dog democrat through and through. Can't let the finer points of voting records cloud the choices when there's one dem and one repug to choose from. Sometimes you just have to swallow hard. Punish pro war dems? What good is that going to do? Put more repugs up there?

[MadHound]

31. Hear hear, I'm right there with you

Death and destruction caused by an illegal immoral war takes precidence over anything else. And quite frankly I can't trust any of our so called leaders who voted in favor of the IWR, and who continue to support it with every funding vote that they approve.

Call me a purist, an idealogue, or whatever, I don't care. I don't play political games with ongoing murder, and find anybody who is willing to do so morally repugnant.

And I don't buy the excuse that these people were "duped". First off, how in the hell were they, sitting in DC with the acces they had, duped when I and millions of ordinary citizens weren't. If they were truly duped, then they are too stupid to be in office. If they're just backpedaling and lying to save their asses, then they aren't trustworthy enough to be in office.

And finally, if they voted for the IWR, then they failed in their primary job duty, that of representing the collective will of their constituents. The millions of messages to the Hill were running 268-1 against the IWR. Millions upon millions both here and abroad were out in the streets saying NO to the IWR. Poll after major poll showed that the American people didn't want to start any action, including the IWR, until the inspectors finished their job. And yet many of our leaders failed miserably in doing their job that day, and quite frankly they should be held responsible.

I will vote for a solid anti-war candidate in the primaries, but I won't ever vote for any candidate who voted for this illegal, immoral war. How in the hell are you going to get these people to do what we want if we keep rewarding them with our votes simply because they have a D behind their name? Such reenforcement of bad behaviour is a bad way to train a dog, and even worse when training a politician. It is high time we hold these people accountable.