Why we need to support whomever wins the nomination even a pro war nominee

[dsc]

Forget but all the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Forget about every last one. This war was cooked up by Rove to split our party in 2004. And if it works, it will happen again, and again, and again. People continue to do what works. If we let Rove do this now we have a war in 06, and 10, and every four years until it stops working. Make book on it.

[wuushew]

1. There is no reciprocity in that respect

We on the left oppose war but those who are more towards the center will not oppose peace. What is wrong with a well funded left of center peacenik?

[dsc]

2. Clearly this has to go the other way too

but if you look at my avitar you should see why I posted this the way I did. I am saying people like me have to give something up if we lose the nomination. I am working to avoid that choice but if it happens we have to suck it up.

[aquart]

7. Nothing. It's not what we're discussing.

The question on the table is what we'll do if the decision of the Democrats who VOTE in the primaries is to make our candidate one of the war voters.

Well, in the primary I won't go for a war voter.

But I will vote for the Democrat who's on the ballot.

Because I understand the importance of this particular election. I know it matters who appoints judges. Who speaks to foreign powers. Who writes those little presidential thingies that end run around Congress. Who's in charge of the Treasury.

We have to win.

[BeachBuckeye]

32. Excellent post

Good reasoning.....you can keep your principles and be practical too.

[indigo32]

3. I'll be supporting whomever

the Dem candidate is.

[wuushew]

5. Even Lyndon H. LaRouche?

[indigo32]

8. Last I checked

he wasn't running on our ticket

[aquart]

9. Amazing how little I worry about that.

Giggle maybe. Worry not at all.

[indigo32]

14. I'm assuming this wasn't directed to me

considering your post #7 we are in total agreement.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

10. what if it were questionable

as to whether or not the election results were "fixed".
Wouldn't it be in the pukes' best interest to not 'fix'
the real election
--the repukkks could just fix the dem primaries and make sure the guy can't win the general election
--then there's no need to 'fix' the actual election.
Watch the touch screen results !!

[indigo32]

13. what does that have to do with my vote in the General?

I'm not saying that couldn't happen... risky strategy really, figuring out who can win and who can't, but really what does it have to do with my vote in the general election?

[jpgray]

4. Agreed

It is my personal belief that either Dean or Kerry will be the nominee. Kucinich would be nice, though. You can look at my rambly Nader thread below for why it's better to support even half-assed nominees then to take our ball home.

[Pastiche423]

6. No "we" don't

Maybe you are o-kay w/the slaughter, but many of us on the left are not, nor will ever be.

In an email from my Rep. Pete DeFazio:

"Even before I voted against the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, which Congress approved in October 2002, there was plenty of evidence available to anyone who was paying attention that the Administration was misrepresenting the danger posed by Iraq.

I raised red flags about the Administration's arguments prior to the
congressional vote (see: http://defazio.house.gov/iraq.shtml). For example, even if Iraq had active chemical, biological, or nuclear programs, Iraq did not have a delivery system capable of threatening the United States. Iraq's missiles could barely hit its immediate neighbors. Regrettably, the majority of my colleagues chose to ignore the holes in the Administration's arguments and voted to authorize the first ever preventive war."

I will not vote for anyone that was not paying attention. Thousands of lives were lost because they were not paying attention.

[jpgray]

11. Self-righteousness is cheap, it's all over these boards

Four more years of Bush means more death and destruction. It also means more ruined lives at home. Sorry, but there is a profound distinction between Bush and a Democrat who voted yes on the war resolution.

[Pastiche423]

15. Wanting more than

Saying hello to your new boss, same as your last boss is not self rightgeousness.

It is wanting a change, a desparately needed change for our country.

Though, if the voting systems are corrected, I won't have to worry about voting for someone that sanctioned death.

[jpgray]

18. There is a big difference between Bush and any Democratic candidate

Certainly big enough to choose between the two. There is the SCOTUS to consider, for one who is worried about elections. There is foreign policy to consider, which is not only biasing the world against us and creating more terrorists, but causing death and destruction in Iraq and escalation in North Korea. There are economic policies to consider, and the current policy is designed to bleed social progams dry and ruin the lives of many people. There is the FCC to consider, because the media is such an issue. There is the environment to consider, and energy policies like those pof the Bhsh administration will lead to more crises like in California.

Those are just a few issues. I think anyone who voted for the war is either incompetent, flowing with the corporations or being too careful. Even though I think this, I think the above problems make the decision very clear. You can do whatever you want, but there IS a significant difference between Bush and any Democratic candidate.

[searchingforlight]

21. By allowing Bush to win

you are sanctioning the war. That is the key here. If Bush wins he can claim that the majority of Americans support his decision.

I don't like the war either but after the primary, if my man doesn't win, I believe the only way to protest the war is to vote against George W. Bush and his crowd.

[molly]

24. The realities of life is difficult for those that

live in a dream world. Living in a world where there is no death and destruction would be ideal - but we are light years away from anything like that - just look at history. We need leaders that are realists to lead us out of the mess we are in. Until this administration we were never the agressors - we were the defenders of peace. To defend, one still needs to know how to fight. As I look at all of our candidates, I play a what if scenario. I place each in a horrific situation and try to determine how they would react. I will be voting for whomever our DEM candidate is.

[Aidoneus]

27. slavish servility and self-desception are far cheaper

Look at our history:--there is a very logical and clear path from now back to previous events, tied in to "untouchable" economic structures and party machinery, and it doesn't begin and end with "BFEE" like so many self-deceived revisionists are quick to spit out. The question that should be asked, and rarely is, is would you like to derail this destructive path or just put a friendly face to it? How much, really, did that distinction mean to an Iraqi, who spent a decade being bombed and starved by the hundreds of thousands alternately by the fascist right, "liberal" center, and once again by the fascist right?

The "death and destruction"/"ruined lives at home" doesn't begin and end with the party figurehead of some faction or another, but rather the system they serve:--failure to address the latter in favour of the former is an entirely pointless endevour that will always lead to the same bullshit "business as usual".

[dsc]

12. Then you will

be responsible for the slaughter of 2006, 2010, 2014, and on and on and on. If you let Rove's trick work and he does it again it is on you and all who do the same as you.

[Aidoneus]

30. ok

To give a couple easy examples, what about the slaughters of the 1960s and 90s made them different from the slaughters of the 50s, 70s, and 80s? I don't see how "status quo at all costs", in whatever package it is presented in, will solve these things..

[shimmergal]

35. You can't bring those lives back by voting Green

(or not voting at all).

I personally think a lot of the Democrats were craven in voting for the war. However, it's pretty clear now that the Bushies were so hell-bent they would have gone into Iraq even without Congressional approval, so in practical terms neither the "evidence" nor the votes made any difference.

I don't think _any_ of the Dems who did so would have started a preemptive war like * did. So, push come to shove, I will vote for any of them against Bush. If we can't bring those people killed for oil and Repub. spin back to life, maybe we can at least prevent more thousands from being killed in the _next_ "preemptive" war.

[Pastiche423]

38. Where did I mention

the big bad word "green". I will not vote for the war rag signers, so that means I'll vote Green? I am so fucking tired of the people that sneer and snub the Green Party.

The Green Party had nothing to do w/the SCOTUS decision and it's about time many here face that fact.

I will vote Dem in the general election. It will be a write in vote, if the Dem candidate was one that voted for the slaughter. To do anything different would be to go against the very essense of me.

How many times have DUers bitched and moaned about the pink tutu Dems? They say they want the Dems to fight for us! I want that too and that is why I will vote for a sans pink tutu Dem.

Try as you might, I will not accept the guilt many will try to throw at me. I will feel no guilt when I vote for the candidate that I believe is best for our country.

[LSdemocrat]

16. I agree

For one thing, the war might not end up being a big issue in the general election.

[wuushew]

17. If war is not an issue shrub can't win on domestic issues

I suppose he will pull out the terrorism boogey man out for 2004

[LSdemocrat]

20. well, the problem with politics is

you never know. We might end up with someone who runs a piss-poor campaign again (i.e. McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis) or the economy might miraculously "improve", compared to 2001-now rather than improve in real terms.

[DagmarK]

19. Of course.......I will vote straight dem ticket......as ALWAYS

Even if .......oh, I so hate to say this......EVEN IF it's Lieberman.

(is there even a lieberman supporter on DU???n If there is, I apologize for putting your candidate down.)

[searchingforlight]

23. I'm with you there. It makes my skin crawl but I'll do it.

[LiberalLibra]

22. dsc: I agree with you but just in case some don't have you helmet and....

bullet proof vest handy. You are exactly on target with the issue and reason though.

[msanger]

25. Anybody But Bush Pledge

Take the pledge at to support anybody but bush. Of course, if by some chance the Democrats nominate Rush L., you will not be held to your pledge.

And I'll only send out emails from the list once a week.

Michael

[Eloriel]

37. What a perfect way to send a message to all

the spineless, worthless Dems that they don't need to do a damn thing to get your vote. Just slap a D at the end of that name, and everything will be fine.

They've taken their base -- esp. African Americans and Hispanics too -- for granted for years and years now. They have gotten so bold that the DLC is dissing us "far left fringies" or whatever they call us, and expecting still to win elections somehow.

And YOU -- and many others here -- want to let them know that's perfectly fine.

Well, it ain't fine with me. And even if it were, I don't do loyalty oaths.

Eloriel

[tomp]

26. i've got a better bet.

make book that no dem will get us out of iraq or afghanistan. make further book that we will engage elsewhere, dem or repub in place. make book that the draft will be passed with dem support, with enough loopholes to drive a division of chickenhawks through.

[newsguyatl]

28. like i've said in many posts

i am a dean supporter but i will vote for whoever gets the nomination EXCEPT lieberman...

having lieberman in office (not that he could ever win anyway) would do FAR more harm to the democratic party than bush getting re-elected... if it's a run of bush against lieberman, i'll be pulling for bush, b/c i know that 4 more years of him will be a disaster beyond words for the country, and that will fire up the democratic party more than anything else... having lieberman in would only weaken us...

[Generic Other]

29. Nope

I am not supporting turning the US into a mercenary soldier of fortune military state. If a PRO-WAR Democrat runs, he can go play GI Joe in his own sandbox. If I wanted a madman in office, the Repubs already have given me one.

Better the evil warmonger be one of them not one of us. Democrats don't need to be a part of Bush's campaign of evil. You are either with him and a warmonger who doesn't deserve to be in public office or against him. I will vote for those who oppose Bush, not some lukewarm, namby pamby kiss the rich boy's ass candidate.

End the war or lose the election.

on edit: typos

[poskonig]

36. What is a 'prowar candidate'?

Kerry's myopic vote for the war stemmed from political strategy and one gets the feel he doesn't support the endeavor. Does he count as a prowar candidate?

I don't think so. If Kerry wins, you're obligated to vote for him.

[sendero]

31. even if the nominee is not someone....

... I really care for - I'm going to vote Dem, period.

I'm unwilling to cut of my own nose to spite my face.

[NNN0LHI]

33. If the guy has a (D) behind their name I will vote for Satan himself

I do not think some understand the danger each and every one of us are all in right now with the psychopathic dry (maybe?) drunk we currently have living in the White House calling himself President George W. Bush with his finger literally on the nuclear trigger 24/7 that could lead the destruction of us all. That amazes me. No shit. Anyone care for a pretzel?

Don

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. You Can Go Back As Far As Aristotle

who said leaders will find an external enemy to take the minds of the masses off their internal problems.

That was one of the subterrranean factors in Bush's decision to invade Iraq.


............................


............................

Removing the Republican junta from Washington and the detritus that followed it is a moral imperative.

[Mairead]

39. No, we need to support the person with the BEST principles and record

Nothing less will do! The lesser evil is not good enough this time.