Why would Dean people organize behind Edwards if Edwards was pro IWR?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

I keep hearing of groups getting behind another candidate if one drops out to stop Kerry, but on every Kerry thread that has ever been in GD 04, the main arguments against him are that he voted for IWR and voted for the Patriot Act.

Why then would anyone transfer their support to a candidate who also was?

Something doesn't fit for me, about this rationale.

[Padraig18]

1. Because not all of us are single-issue voters.

That's why.

[Kahuna]

52. Not you. Because...

:yourock: :pals:

[funky_bug]

95. I cannot believe what I just read

More than one Dean supporter has posted inflammatory messages about our support of Kerry, now that Clark is out. We were lambasted for going to an IWR candidate. We were hypocrits, and Clark was selling out.

You're right though...some of us are NOT single-issue voters. I will mark these words the next time this comes up.

[Dookus]

2. I believe

people want to punish Kerry for beating Dean. I also believe such a view is childish, petulant and does great harm to the Dem's chances in November while doing everything to help Bush.

Some people would rather lose than admit their guy isn't the savior they thought he was.

[w4rma]

10. Sen. Edwards had no part *whatsoever* in the Iowa smear campaign. (n/t)

[Padraig18]

42. I agree, he did not.

He also denounced the Osama ad.

[ibegurpard]

3. Because Edwards is the lesser of two evils.

eom

[Paulie]

4. What about the anti-evil????

You know, the invisible canidate? :)

[HereSince1628]

6. The invisible candidate was seen on Milwaukee television!

as part of a promo for coverage of the primary.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. I really didn't intend this as flame bait but the responses so far

indicate it isn't going to get and reasonable responses. I guess I'll just ask for the mods to lock it.

[Padraig18]

7. What was unreasonable about my response?

:shrug:

[ibegurpard]

28. I could actually go into detail as to why I would prefer Edwards

(not a ringing endorsement by the way) but what's the point? Why waste the energy typing it when it will get the exact same kind of stupid response that I just gave?

[KC21304]

12. Jeez, how did Dean stick around so long with all these evils.

Gephardt was evil too, I believe. And Sharpton. He was way too evil at that one debate. Kucinch threw in with Edwards in Iowa so he is soooooooooooo evil.

[BL_Zebub]

8. Edwards Because Kerry is the candidate with NO chance of beating Bush

Edwards has a slightly better chance, because at least he has a message - even without the experience to back it up.

Dean remains the best candidate. Kerry remains the worst.

[Dookus]

what is the evidence for that?

Kerry is winning handily among Democrats.

National polls of all voters show him beating Bush. The same polls show Dean losing to Bush.

What evidence is there that Dean would do better against Bush than Kerry?

[IndianaGreen]

19. Kerry will hurt Democrats in Indiana!

Those polls are meaningless because it is the Electoral College votes that really count, not the popular vote. I remind you that Al Gore won the election by getting more votes than Bush. Had the recount been allowed to proceed, Gore would have carried Florida in the Electoral College as well as in the popular vote (which we all know he did win!).

Kerry will hurt Democrats in Indiana! Although Indiana always goes GOP on the Presidential, Democrats have been very competitive in Indiana.

Kerry's position on guns will hurt the Democratic ticket in Indiana. We have a strong challenge from Mitch Daniels against our incumbent Democratic Governor Joe Kernan. Our Congresswoman Julia Carson is probably have another close race.

[Padraig18]

21. 'Taxachussetts', 'Massachussetts liberal', 'gun grabber', 'womanizer', etc

Those things will hurt Illinois Democrats, too.

[Dookus]

23. Sorry

that isn't evidence. That is rhetoric and unfounded rumor.

[Padraig18]

27. Too bad.

It'll still be used, and it will still cost us votes. Get used to it.

[Dookus]

33. LOL...

And there would be nothing negative said about other candidates?

The fact remains, that Kerry is beating Bush right now in the polls, and Dean is not. He's beating the snot out of Dean among Democrats. Those two things tell me that Kerry is more likely to beat Bush than Dean.

In fact, the utter unlikelihood that Dean will win a single primary tells me that the question is moot.

[oasis]

51. You forgot to mention Willie Horton.

:shrug:

[Dookus]

22. Please provide

the evidence that Dean will do better than Kerry in the electoral college.

[IndianaGreen]

26. You misread my post

I am only speaking of Indiana, and the fact that Kerry will be a drag on the Democratic ticket in Indiana, unlike some of the other candidates i.e., Dean, Clark, Lieberman.

[Cocoa]

30. Kerry too liberal?

maybe he could put Zell Miller on the ticket so he can win Indiana.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Kerry is not liberal

He is the most anti-gun rights of all the candidates running.

His votes on NAFTA, the war, PATRIOT, will also lose him votes from the Left.

Zell Miller is too rightwing for many Indiana Republicans, many of whom are pro-choice and frequently vote against the more rightwing candidates of their own party.

[Dookus]

39. By all the regular measurements...

Kerry is indeed a liberal. Much more liberal than Dean, in fact.

[IndianaGreen]

67. True, Kerry is more liberal than Dean

However, since 9/11 Kerry's voting record has not been liberal at all!

There is nothing liberal about voting for a war of aggression.

There is nothing liberal about PATRIOT Act.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. Ted Kennedy voted for the Patriot Act...

Does that make him a conservative?

[Dookus]

80. as did all the other Senators

except for Russ Feingold. Byrd, Kennedy, Harkin, Wellstone... all conservatives now, I guess.

[IndianaGreen]

84. If they think the Bill of Rights is not that important

then I don't think their political careers are that important either!

Our civil liberties are not for sale by anyone, even by Democrats!

Dennis Kucinich voted against PATRIOT!

[Dookus]

86. but that doesn't answer the question

do you consider Byrd, Kennedy, Wellstone and Harkin conservatives based on a single vote?

[IndianaGreen]

89. A real Conservative would have never voted for PATRIOT Act!

There are people on both sides of the political spectrum that have a deep appreciation and respect for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of which it is a part. They oppose PATRIOT!

That single vote was not a liberal or a conservative vote. It was a vote for Fascist government, giving the federal government powers that can only be granted when there is a Declaration of War. It was a horrible vote for which there is no excuse!

There is even less excuse in those that oppose outright repeal of PATRIOT.

[dionysus]

92. so that makes it okay?

nt

[Dookus]

35. If you think there's nothing in Dean's

(or Clark's or Lieberman's) record that would "be a drag" on the Dem ticket in ANY state, I think you're wrong.

The fact that Kerry is soundly defeating the other Dems AND beating Bush in the polls tells me that right now, he's the best chance to beat Bush in November.

[IndianaGreen]

38. I am only speaking of Indiana

I don't know why you keep bringing up other states.

[Dookus]

43. because

I don't see Indiana as being terribly different from many other states.

But let's leave the discussion to Indiana. Is there NOTHING in Dean's record that would hurt him in Indiana? How is Dean currently doing in polls in Indiana vis a vis Kerry?

How is Dean doing against Bush in Indiana polls compared to Kerry?

[Padraig18]

47. The polls are meaningless, 8 1/2 months away from the GE

You might as well be a Roman augur trying to read bird entrails, as to think a poll today means ANYTHING vis a vis November.

[Dookus]

50. again...

because evidence is not proof doesn't make it meaningless.

By your logic, Sharpton has the same chance of beating Bush as Kerry. I think that's mistaken.

There is SOME evidence Kerry can beat Bush. There is NO evidence any of the other remaining candidates can.

If the polls showed Dean beating Bush in November, I suspect we wouldn't be hearing how useless the polls are.

[Padraig18]

56. And again it's meaningless.

Circular argument? Yes, so last post in this thread. Bye.

[Dookus]

59. LOL...

ok, bye.

But there's nothing circular about my argument. I'm simply saying that because evidence is not proof, it doesn't make it meaningless.

Since I can't PROVE that Sharpton would lose to Bush, it doesn't mean it's reasonable for me to believe that Sharpton can beat him.

[IndianaGreen]

69. None of those polls are according to likely voters in each state.

Neither Dean nor Clark are seeing as gun grabbers. Lieberman is respected by many, including those that disagree with him, because at least you know where he stands on the issues.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. Ok that's at least a well reasoned response to an issue

[KC21304]

64. I don't see it that way , NMSA

So we should fashion a candidate to win Indiana, which we probably won't win anyway, even though we might lose other states ? The contortions the anti-Kerry people have to go through to try to justify saying Kerry can't win is stupefying.

It is getting silly really. I think you and I are on the right track and shouldn't change anything.

[salin]

71. It was a fair response to the question asked which was not

how do we fashion a candidate to win Indiana.

It was why would a Dean supporter switch to Edwards rather than Kerry.

As a hoosier, I certainly follow IGs logic - that when chosing between K and E that one might factor in how it might impact other state races. And per Indiana, IGs logic is also correct. On the federal/presidential level won't go democrat - regardless of the candidate (haven't voted blue since 1964) - but at the state wide level - democrats are competitive - a boost from the top would help. A top position that can be used by the bushmeisters in resident to make "My Man Mitch" win the governorship as a wedge to help Mitch - could tip the governors race. I don't know how I will vote - and personally feel it is irrelevant given that our primary is in May. But to the question asked in this thread - which is not about who the party should select... but how an individual voter might select one other candidate over another... seems to be a reasonable response.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Governor can be as independent of presidential ticket as he wants...

He's not running for congress and doesn't need to say whether he is going to vote for the president's positions or not. Since you say Kerry can't win Indiana anyway, I wouldn't mind if the governor even criticized Kerry.

[salin]

82. The issue is more that the bushfolks are going to be in force in that race

b/c it is their man, Mitch Daniels, running. Thus the big money will run an ugly campaign - if the top is neutral to the state then it will be a close race. If they determine that the top is a negative - then they will use it and association to get at the Governor's race.

[shivaji]

83. Let's not keep deluding ourselves that Gore won in Florida....

EVERY RECOUNT made by all major news media organizations came to
the conclusion that no matter what standards were used to count
votes, Gore loses in Florida.

The sooner we determine the real causes of the loss in 2000, the
better we will be in a position to win in 2004. In my honest opinion,
we should keep emphasizing IN DETAIL the POSITIVE initiatives our
man will push for is far more likely to help us win in 2004 than
the smoldering anger of Gore's loss in 2000.

And amongst Kerry & Edwards, I see Edwards as far more effective than Kerry.

[Dookus]

87. that is entirely untrue

a statewide recount using almost ALL the standards would've yielded a Gore victory.

[vi5]

11. Again......proof?

What shred of proof is there anywhere that Dean is the only one who can beat Bush. Honestly, from a purely realistic perspective how is a guy who can't even win a primary among democrats going to beat Bush?

I know this may sound like a dick question but honestly people keep still saying this about Dean but without a single solitary shred of proof and I'm just wondering if maybe it's me who is missing something. I'm strictly ABB and will vote for whoever is the nominee. But I keep hearing this still being asserted.

[Padraig18]

There's no 'proof' that anyone can beat *.

No one here has a crystal ball. All there is is opinion and speculation---on ANYONE'S part.

[Dookus]

37. Agreed....

I agree there's no proof. There's only evidence pointing to a conclusion. That evidence shows Kerry being the best candidate to defeat Bush. There is NO evidence to indicate Dean would do better. None whatsoever. Zip. Nada. Nil.

[Padraig18]

45. The evidence is crap.

Again, did I mention Dean's name? It would be helpful to confine the arguments to what I have actually said, rather than arguing against a straw man.

[Dookus]

48. The evidence

is the evidence. You choose to ignore it.

The fact that it's not PROOF doesn't mean that all candidates have an equal shot at defeating Bush.

Since I can't PROVE that Kerry will beat Bush, does that mean Sharpton has a chance equal to Kerry's? Of course not.

I keep pointing out that there at least IS evidence that Kerry can beat Bush. There is no such evidence that any other candidate can.

And that includes Dean.

[Padraig18]

53. It also includes Clark.

Your point? The so-called evidence is crap. A poll 8 1/2 months before the GE is about as useful as used toilet paper.

[Dookus]

55. Of course it includes Clark

which is why he had the grace to drop out. He couldn't win.

Because evidence is not proof doesn't mean it's crap.

Do you believe Sharpton has the same chance of beating Bush as Kerry does?

[vi5]

46. You're right....but the person to who I asked the question....

....said that Dean is the only one who can beat Bush. I asked for any information he/she may have had to back up this assertion. His statement was not predicated by "in my opinion" or " I am speculating".

[markus]

60. Sorry, Dookus: It's your job to prove your candidate innocent

If you can't then the GOP will eat our collective lunch.

That's not very fair. It it, however, the way things are.

[Dookus]

63. sorry Markus

not sure what post you're referring to. You replied to somebody else's post.

[Renew Deal]

9. Because he is not Kerry.

That's the whole story.

[w4rma]

13. Edwards isn't studying how to purge Dean activists from positions of power

either.

[Padraig18]

15. Another excellent reason. n/t

[Renew Deal]

20. Kerry is?

Proof?

[eileen_d]

57. I would love to hear how Kerry is

Or how Edwards isn't for that matter.

[salin]

72. to what are you refering?

conjecture - or did I miss a story somewhere?

[w4rma]

75. Sorry about that. This definitely requires a source. Here is one.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040223&s=foer022304
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=323388

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

14. Skull and Bones, baby. Skull and Bones.

The dark, evil, fanny-paddling cult that dominates the earth.

[maxanne]

16. many won't n/t

[Cocoa]

17. the Dean campaign was not about the issues

it was about "you have the power" or whatever.

[DjTj]

58. "You have the power" is not whatever...

...Dean built his following from people who were outside the political process, people who were outraged about the war and how the government had seemingly forgotten about them.

John Edwards similarly builds his following from rural communities and working families that have been left behind in the political process. Edwards says, "I can't change this country on my own, but you and I can change it together."

Maybe this is style over substance, but it is an important difference in style, because it is about giving part of the government back to some people who have been forgotten.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. FWIW I hit the alert and asked for this thread to be locked

Perhaps I framed it wrong but I wa interested in if anyone could enlighten me as to the obvious contradiction and why it might matter for one candidate but not another.

[MurikanDemocrat]

31. Ironically though, you did get your answer

I don't think there is anything wrong with the way you framed the initial thread.

This only confirms my suspicion that the greatest perceived sin Kerry has committed in the eyes of some Dean supporters was to knock Dean off his throne.

[54anickel]

24. NAFTA/WTO, Now AFL-CIO backing, "Insider" image. n/t

[chocolateeater]

25. Not all Dean supporters would support Edwards

because of his support of IWR. But there are quite a few who would. Speaking for myself, Edwards is my 2nd choice because he brings up some good economic policy to the table. Also along with Dean and Kucinich, he still seems to have some connection with how most people in the country live. Not to speak ill of Sen. Kerry but, I don't see much of a connection in this regard. Though, if he's the nominee I'll vote for him in the GE.

[DU GrovelBot]

29. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Padraig18]

32. Reason #1: he's not John Kerry. n/t

[dkf]

34. Better Edwards than Kerry.

Kerry has a reputation as a womanizer that is going to get us in a heap of trouble.

This is a reputation that Kerry has long held with the press (I saw it in The Note months ago...it was a teaser about the lovelife of an unnamed senator who was running for President).

Remember - once the press has an opinion, they will go all out to try to prove it.

Here is a blurb from Worldnetdaily which as you know is suspect and needs a warning or whatever:

"Kerry needs to come clean and be absolutely clear about this rumor and other ones now starting to surface," a Senate source close to Kerry told Insight Online. "We need to know flat out if he's around with women besides his wife."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37122

[Dookus]

40. his "reputation" as a womanizer

is based on a silly unfounded Drudge rumor.

By your logic, I can dethrone ANY candidate by starting an unfounded rumor about him. Perhaps I'll start a blog and make up stuff about Dean. Would that then be a legitimate reasont oppose him?

[dkf]

62. Do you believe Kerry has never cheated on Teresa?

Honestly?

Al Gore didn't believe it. That's one reason he crossed Kerry off his VP list. That is good enough for me.

[Dookus]

65. I have no reason to believe otherwise...

just like I have no reason to believe Dean has cheated on Judy or Edwards has cheated on Elizabeth.

So in that sense, I believe Kerry has not cheated on his wife, and it will take more than an unfounded rumor on Drudge to change my position.

I can't believe how people here are letting that rumor morph into the "he's a womanizer" factoid absent any evidence for it.

If I start a blog and say Dean is a syphilitic chicken-fucker, would it be reasonable for everyone to think "well, he may WELL be a syphilitic chicken fucker" based on my blog?

[dkf]

66. Does it mean nothing to you that Al Gore had Kerry vetted

and found him wanting on the "womanizer" issue?

Frankly, if Kerry had a clean record and Gore had picked him for VP, I think Gore would have won.

[Dookus]

68. again...

a rumor. Can you back that supposition up with anything?

And let's talk definitions. Kerry was single for a few years and dated a lot of women. Is that womanizing?

An unfounded rumor is now being floated that he cheated on his wife. I see no reason to believe it based on the accusation alone.

If I called you a bank-robbing penguin molestor, should others believe that based on my words alone?

[Hippo_Tron]

77. I think Gore would've won had he picked Kerry for VP over Lieb...

There were far less "Bush democrats" around in 2000 than there are now.

[Cocoa]

49. if Edwards wins, he'll be accused of affairs

100% certainty.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. History's proven that those accusations hurt the accusors not the accused

Not even a majority of the senate would vote to convict Clinton and instead of Clinton getting forced out of office, Newt got forced out of office. Talk about bad karma for the GOP.

[Dookus]

79. as well as Livingstone...

They tried to bring down the President and lost two speakers. Clinton remained in office with very high approval ratings.

[goobergunch]

44. I don't know

Personally, I wouldn't support Edwards any more than Kerry.

[Jax]

54. I will not organize behind either of the pre-emptive war supporters

unless they have bigtime mea culpas, apologies, 'I was WRONG', etc, etc, for that despicable vote. Not getting over that one, sorry. It is directly impacting my family, like many others here.

I do not understand how anyone can differentiate between the two on these issues either. I do not. I will put forth no efforts in my neighborhood, at work, at the school board meetings, fund raising, campaigning for either of these candidates if they are the nominee.

Jax

[markus]

61. If we're gonna keep hope alive

then we ought to be lining up behind DK. No, I don't expect him to win the nomination, but I expect the debate to be kept alive throu 2004 and beyond.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

70. I'm voting for him in the California primary for that exact reason

and will contribute to any progressive org he generates out of this. On the sincerity mark, Kucinich hits it for me. On the effective action mark, it is very clear he wants to make a difference within the party ..which I am NOT opposed to multiple parties..it's just that in a system that is guaged to deliver to ONE of two parties, I see splitting the left as guaranteed mutiny.
With Kucinish at least MAYBE we can FORCE the actual word PEACE to appear at the DOD in something besides the name of a bomb.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. Or at least keep him in the race...

I support Kerry for prez but I wanna smack those people who don't want DK on the debate stage.

[eyeswideopened]

81. Because he's better than Kerry

[SangamonTaylor]

85. why? because Dean is more than just an anti-Iraq war candidate

Dean wants to clean up DC, which is one of Edwards' most distinguishing planks.

[retyred]

88. The "Only Ant-War Democratic Candidate" endorses a pro-war candidate

Now that would be funny!



retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[MuseRider]

90. Chuckle.

Not a big surprise.

[BL_Zebub]

96. But isn't that exactly what Clark just did?

Still think it's funny? Somehow I don't think Wellstone would. Of course he went to the other place, so I can't ask him directly :evilfrown:

[Adelante]

97. Of course not

Clark is not anti-war; he is anti-Iraq war. He is most strongly pro-national security and so is Kerry.

[loyalsister]

91. I prefer Edwards to Kerry now because...

he speaks more clearly. He steps out of his "legislators suit" and talks to people at a level that ordinary people can respond to.
Save things like "Bring it on," Kerry rarely stops speaking as if he's talking to his colleagues. It puts people to sleep, and it leads people to believe he is arrogant. Unfortunately, even if he can manage to stop using the words, he's got the MA accent that makes him sound terribly aristocratic. When it's contrasted with Bushes folksy accent, people will be really put off. Bush will just "sound" like a nicer guy.
Edwards will not run into that problem. He also knows how to talk straight. AND he never ran away from his war vote.

[dansolo]

93. Because Edwards didn't have an article in the NYT before the vote

The reason that Kerry generates so much animosity with the IWR is because he had an open letter written in the New York Times arguing against the war, but then turned around and voted for it. Edwards is not trying to take both sides of the debate. I can disagree with Edwards on his position, but at least he is consistent.

[KoKo]

94. I'm not organizing behind Edwards. I'm NC and can't stand the man.

Bad history with him. If folks here want to "love him up" then fine....but I'm not in that group.