What the hell happened to us?

[Skip Intro]

I was about to post this as a reply to another thead, but thought that thread more narrowly focused, where this is a broader question.

Yes, this is another thread on the Iraq invasion, tho not specifically about the IWR being a litmus test. I hope this doesn't get locked, and one major reason is because we need this out in the open - we need this talk, this debate.

DAMMIT!

Our nation just MURDERED tens of thousands of INNOCENT PEOPLE! Why? Well, supposedly because their nation posed a threat so great to ours that we were left with no choice. REMEMBER?

IT was a LIE. The whole thing was a SHAM.

I remember, it was shortly after I arrived at DU, reading the threads which flowed with each twist and turn in the perverted build up to the invasion, and the repeated supportive crap flowing from the whores in the media. And let's not forget the bashing of former allies and the "we found wmds - er, nevermind" charades.

People here were outraged and repulsed by what had been done by the murderous bush regime. We throttled the regime as each of their lies unraveled. We boasted about and took glee as we witnessed and participated with the hundreds of thousands - the MILLIONS - that took to the streets to stop this fraud, this mass murder. We wept as pictures of the slain made their way to our little corner of the web.

And we were united in our hatred of the evil bastards that would do such a thing.

Fast forward just a few short months and suddenly, its no longer an issue. The deaths go on, the occupation goes on, but now the attitude at DU is, "shhhh." It doesn't stop there, either.

Now, on the same site that marveled at the power of the people in the streets standing up to warmongers, even suggesting that this horrible and tragic operation by the bush regime be a measure by which we choose our own candidate to oppose him is met with scorn.

Seems we should just be quiet about all this now. What's done is done, I'm told. Wonder how long it will take the architects of the mass murder to appropriate that excuse, er, rationale? If its good enough for us, why not them?

I guess the once outraged majority has become tempered somewhere down the line, the flow of blood not withstanding, and now has grown short of patience for those of us who dare insist that this is a big deal, that we can't just pretend its ok.

I guess.

I'm ABB (Almost Anybody But bush), and I'm finding myself uncomfortably comfortable with our frontrunner, but I have to wonder - have we now given up our right, our duty, to point to crimes against humanity and express outrage and demand justice?

What happened to the outrage?

*sigh*

[Paulie]

1. Buck up and shut up

That's what they are telling us. It's about electing the Ham Sandwich (D) and getting bush out. Your issues? Your principals? They just don't matter. Or so they tell us.

This is the last year I will compromise. If we don't have change in the next 4 years, we're fucked, the bastard corporations/right wing facists won.

I'm voting FOR Kucinich on March 16, it will probably be the last vote I make FOR a canidate instead of against one. It sucks ass that this is the case.

[diamondsoul]

109. "...it will probably be the last vote I make FOR a canidate..."

Funny. I've decided my vote for Kucinich in the Primary will be the first in a lifelong series of votes FOR the candidate I believe is best. November MAY be my very last loyalist vote ever cast for the rest of my days, and that ONLY to get rid of the fascist regime holding my nation hostage.(depends on who the nominee is whether it's a vote to ditch Bush or a vote for a candidate.)

[JailForBush]

2. The Death of Outrage

Former Education(?) Secretary William Bennett wrote a book titled "The Death of Outrage." I never read it, but I believe it focused on America's increasingly warped attitudes and "liberal" permissiveness. In some respects, he was right.

Right-wingers are obviously sick, but liberals no longer offer a really tempting alternative. They claim they hate corporate corruption, yet they praise Bill Gates, if only for his phony "philanthropy." They shit on America's children, trapped in derelict public schools.

Campaign 2004 has made it increasingly obvious that only a tiny percentage of Americans still have their heads screwed on straight.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. All I can say is that if someone else were the frontrunner, including

the person on your avatar, I would have gladly given him my vote as I KNEW my goal first and foremost was to get rid of the SOURCE of our current condition.

I haven't given up anything. That is simply a tag people would like to place on me since I disagreed with their choice.

I do NOT hold the senate responsible for a war that was going to happen anyway.

I may NOT have been happy with the way that vote went, but I still do NOT think we do any good by tearing away at the FEW candidates left in the race that will be our nominee and TOTALLY RESENT the spiteful posts implying that anyone who did not support Dean or Kucinich is a war apologist.

Want to know what happened to us? A few of your comrades decided since I disagreed I must be the enemy and they are intent on making everyone miserable. At first I attributed it to grief..now I simply feel they can just go fuck themselves.

[liberalhistorian]

9. EXACTLY!

Thank you, that is EXACTLY the way I feel as well, you've really nailed it. And I'm especially tired of the whining and accusations from the Dean supporters. I liked him too, but let's face it, he was NOT the populist progressive he made himself out to be, and he pretty much was responsible for imploding and destroying his own campaign.

[AntiCoup2K4]

14. Just remember....

As big of an asshole as Bush Junior is, he needed the votes of a lot of other assholes to get away with what he did. Now you want me to vote for one of those assholes?

Now, I ask you, in a completely non spiteful way, if that's not being a war apologist, what the Hell is it?

Yes, the Senate is responsible. They could have grown some balls and told Junior to put up or shut up. They did not, so yes, they share the blame. Those who voted to throw away the constitutional authority of Congress to declare war, based on nothing but a lie with zero evidence.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. The don't fucking vote for them and live with the consequence

[MsDemeander]

50. Why doesn't Kerry support Gay marriage

That's what I want to know.

[Egnever]

67. What consequences? Kerry seems quite content to go along with anything

coming out of the bush white house why should I think he would change anything?

Welcome to apathy.

[Eloriel]

77. Okay, Sounds like a plan to me.

[JVS]

89. Are you giving your blessing by saying that?

edited typo

[wyldwolf]

112. Just remember, Howard Dean supported the Iraq war...

..yes he did. Don't bother to deny it. He had a slightly different idea for it, but he supported military action - leading me to believe there is good chance he would have voted for it had he been in Congress.

You want a true anti-Iraq war candidate? Kucinich is still in.

[peacetalksforall]

17. If we shut up about representatives who voted for the killing when x per

cent of the country figured out that there wasn't a threat from that country - Iraq - then what good does it do to think? If we shut up then we're giving approval. Yes, we have to stop at a certain point and the point probably won't be able to be passed until the election.

They've got to know that we can't except killing under the circumstances given, pre and post.

It was so easy to read the motives - they were so transparent. Iraq was just one stop along the way of the cabal - and the main reason they have had to steal elections.

[Skip Intro]

20. My avatar???!!!

with all due respect (and I'm not sure, but I think you just told me to fuck myself) this isn't about my avatar, or who I support/supported.

This is about exactly what the hell I said it was about.


Try this - pretend my avatar is a smilely face (a surfing smiley if it helps) and re-read the post.

Your tolerance of the questions and the quetioners pale to the the price paid by those who were shocked and awed to bits by our freedom bombs.

My avatar - sheesh.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. I made it clear it was SOME of your comrades not all

Quit pretending SOME DEAN SUPPORTERS did NOT use that approach...they did...and now they want to make everyone pay.

This LINE of defense strikes me as being as insincere as those principled people who stood by Nader in 00 claiming he was ONLY taking the votes of people who would NOT vote Democratic which is a TOTAL fucking lie as there have been countless people on this board who SAID they voted DEM in the past and voted Nader in 00.

it's the same old story and the same old fucking song and dance.

Maybe we need ten fucking parties on the left and ONE party on the right...that will certainly shore up our numbers won't it?

[9215]

4. I think there are alot of freepy/Psy-ops sleaze on this

message board sidetracking discussions into esoteric chit chat.

[BruinAlum]

5. We only disagree who to blame it on. Bush is responsible for the Iraq war

not the Congress. That is where poeple disagree. The IWR has no bearing on it, as the Iraq war would have happened without it. And I don't care how many ways it is twisted, the war was not the fault of the IWR or those who voted for it. Period.

[Demobrat]

8. So that's the spin now, huh?

It's OK that our cowardly Dem senators voted for it because it would have happened anyway. OK, got it.

[JailForBush]

11. Yes, that's their spin. What a great way to inspire the voters, huh? N/T

[Zhade]

19. Don't waste your time.

It's clearly not okay for Dems to have enabled b*sh. A lot of people look past this enabling in their desperation to find someone to get rid of b*sh.

It's not an uncommon reaction to the kind of fear we're facing with this ever-important election.

Pretty soon now, I'm going to just give up trying to point out the facts to people who don't want to hear them. Let them believe what they want. If Kerry or Edwards wins, we'll see just how right we were about them.

If I, for one, am wrong about them, I pledge to admit to being wrong. If, however, we continue on the same corporate-imperialist path we're on, I will remind every single one of their supporters of this, and also of why we were trying to point these things out in the first place.

The worst part is that if we don't win the election - which is possible, with all the blackboxing that will occur - we'll never be able to compare the eventual Dem nominee as president to b*sh's 'presidency'. That might tear this party apart even more.

It's all madness - and this is assuming we even HAVE elections this November. If b*sh is clearly going to lose, I don't think they'll leave the White House without a fight.

[5thGenDemocrat]

87. Um, no -- OUR Democratic senators didn't vote for it

MY Democratic senators, Levin and Stabenow, both voted against it. Too bad about yours.
John
Now you got it.

[JVS]

91. Kudos to them. I wish my Senators were as good as yours.

[not systems]

97. Levin and Stabenow!!!

Good vote.

[mike_c]

32. then they had nothing to lose by showing some spine...

...and everything to gain. That argument is bunk.

[MurikanDemocrat]

83. Bullroar. The Republicans would have used it as a weapon against

the Dems and they would have won that PR battle in spades. Dems would be portrayed as soft on defense, and have no standing right now in this primary. And it STILL would not have stopped the war.

It might have pleased a small minority of sanctimonious purists here at DU, but would have bombed with the voting public. The Dems played it smart and removed it as a weapon, and put some teeth into the IWR in the process.

That PROCESS included using the UN and the inspection process and building a coalition of allies to stand together against Saddam. The IWR provided that war was the absolute last resort.

It was Bush who ran roughshod over the inspections process. It was Bush who ran roughshod over the UN. It was Bush who ran roughshod over our allies, figuratively thumbed his nose at them, and pissed the rest of the world. It was Bush who rushed to war. It was Bush who never had any intention of doing anything BUT rushing straight to war.

The responsibility for the Iraq war rests squarely with Bush and his merry band of neocon’s, whose singular purpose was to enrich themselves and their ilk by exploiting Iraqi oil, and not out of regard for the people of Iraq as they would have people believe.

None of the Democrats who voted for the IWR started this war. Bush did. Senator Kerry did not start this war. Bush did. the Dem Senators would NOT have started this war. But Bush did.

It’s time to quit letting Bush off the hook for this and assigning it to the Dem Senators. The buck stops with the bastard sitting in the White House. Not with those who gave Bush an outline to follow that Bush refused to consider, or those who had no real control over what Bush had already decided to do, with or without the IWR anyway.

[fleetus]

120. I agree that blaming the Dems in congress takes the heat off Bush.

It directs anger at ourselves rather than at Bushco.

If it wasn't for the appointment of PNAC into the Executive Branch, it never would have hit the Legislative.

And I look at somebody's entire political career. Not just one vote. Although there was plenty of (then) speculation going around that the reasons for war were unjust, congress was certainly dealt a truck load of propriety "evidence" justifying the war resolution. When that info turned out to be filtered shit, I'm sure a lot of Democrats in congress wished they could turn back time.

Kerry. I give him the benefit of the doubt based on his overall good (although not perfect) record in congress.

[KoKo]

6. Absolutely! Yes! It started here last Summer when those of us who

protested against this "Invasion" suddenly were told we were A.N.S.W.E.R. apologists. That somehow we who read international news and listened to Robert Byrd's empassioned speeches on the Senate Floor were somehow now "Tools" of Socialist dogma. That somehow those of us who were violently opposed to this "Invasion of a sovereign country" without the help of "Major Allies we had since WWII (excepting Tony Blair's GB GOVT) were somehow so naive that we were being co-opted by the Socialists (i.e. Communists (RW code word for Socialist is bordering on Communist/Red/Pinko/weak on Defense, blah...blah) and that, therefore, we really needed to understand that to defeat George Bush we had to be EVEN MORE MILITANT THAN HE IS!

The "Commeraderie" felt by those of us who protested and were activists in other ways against this war disappeared early last Summer, and now we have been "cut off" from the party and indeed from DU.

:shrug: Someone could please explain?

[Zhade]

22. I'd forgotten about the A.N.S.W.E.R. stuff. Talk about nonsense.

I will be proud to march on March 20th.

[KoKo]

113. We MUST keep Protesting "IW" and ignore the criticism and chacterizations!

If we become afraid of being identified with groups that are villified by the RW folks then we are doomed to being without a voice.

I'm with you! March 20th....we will do what we have to do in our own communities with trying to participate in local demonstrations if we live to far away from the "big city" protests.

:thumbsup: and thanks for remembering what we all here did.

[rhite5]

99. Blame it on the media, I guess.

Too many people drank the Kool-Aid the media was dishing out.

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. Crimes against humanity and colonialism are popular with voters

and extremely profitable for the population reduction and energy industries.

To express concern for a few thousand dead Muslim children is one of the early warning signs of pre-terror.

Please rise calmly when your name is called, hands over your head, and move to the interrogation facility.

[mzmolly]

28. Not sure whether to laugh or cry at this...

:(

[Zhade]

10. It's desperation and fear.

We're all terrified of b*sh getting another four years. I don't think anyone here would deny that. As a result, we'll take who we can get, it seems - even if who we take helped to create one of the very reasons we are so desperate to get b*sh out.

Humans are very strange creatures sometimes. I know, I am one!

I'll pull the lever that will most likely remove b*sh, but don't expect money, loyalty, or the belief that much change will occur from me should the nominee be Kerry or Edwards.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

31. Great point

And it is very very sad because the majority of the population has sat back and said or done nothing to prevent us from getting to this point. We have dug our own hole so deep it is going to be very difficult to get back out again. 50% of the population doesn't even bother to vote. Hasn't in a long long time. Just think if we had an 80-90% voter turn out for each and every election what kinds of politicians we would have in Washington? I would almost be willing to bet my life if EVERYONE paid just a little attention and made just a small amount of time in their busy busy lives, while striving for the almighty dollar, to keep up on the actions of our elected officials we would never have gotten ourselves into this mess. Now that most (and I did say most nbut not all) of the country is asleep with no indication of waking anytime soon the politicians have free reign to run amok.

[Zhade]

34. Well, let's give credit where credit is due.

The ruling class has designed a nice, neat cage for us, full of distractions and limitations.

It's no accident, and no fault of the American people, that we're so busy it's hard to keep up. That's by design. Sure, you and I make time, but we also lose out on other things to do so.

At least, I know I do. But I'd rather be aware than asleep, no matter how tempting a bed the elite prepares for me to nap in.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

38. You are absolutely correct

It has been made so very difficult just to live your damn life these days. And it's not like you don't have to fight battles on every single level on almost a constant basis just to keep from being so screwed you can't recover. Business has gone to hell in a hand basket to the point there is no such thing anymore as customer service, local politics is non stop screwing with the public, and if you have kids don't even get me started on what an event it is to just get your kids the basic education you pay through the nose in school tax for. We have turned our country into a place where the average person is beat brutally on a daily basis just to survive. Manwhile, the big power brokers are sitting around smoking cigars and drinking martini's at the club discussing policy that will make them another million and cost me another 20%. I have often thought that what this country is in desperate need of is a good old fashion revolution.

[Zhade]

59. It's coming.

A lot of people don't realize it, but full-scale rebellion will come to America, sooner rather than later.

[Eloriel]

79. i will deny it, Zhade

I refuse to give in to the level of fear that would have me go into denial about our remaining candidates, or sing ABB hosannas (a loathesome and anti-democratic proposition to start with).

I wish I'd have seen all of it and/or caught her name, but a few days ago I happened on an interview with an Indian woman, probably on C-Span. She was talking about fear. "Good leaders," she pointed out, do everything they can to ally the fears of the people. Fear is corrosive, destructive. She pointed to FDR's famous line: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself," and praised him for being an outstanding leader because of his stand against fear and in favor of courage.

Bad leaders don't do this. They use the fear for their own purposes.

She pointed out that Gandhi's greatest gift or strength, his most potent weapon, was that "he was absolutely fearless." It was quite an excellent -- and inspiring -- piece.

And it confirmed and validated yet another way I see Kerry as a bad leader, since he too preys on our fears. Instead of standing up to the Bush fearmongering -- the lies and exaggerations about how vulnerable we are -- Kerry uses the whole set of memes to sell himself. I guess he either doesn't feel strong enough to counter the fearmongering, or he finds it useful for his own purposes. Either way, it's piss poor leadership.

Live in fear and they will control you (whoever "they" is). Live in fear and you give away your power. I'm just not going to do that any more. Something deep within me is rebelling against it with enormous force and power.

I've said all along anyway, on the occasions that we've actually had intelligent discussions about the macro view of what has been going on in this country and the world at the hands of the Bush Crime Family since before WW2 that until our "leaders" and the people get it about them and resolve to take appropriate action against them that would get them out of American political life forever (i.e., try the lot of the for treason and/or RCIO, and a whole lot more), another Dem administration is going to be but a brief respite anyway.

So my first step in letting go of my fears will be to refuse to vote yet again for someone who IMO is NOT just the proverbial "lesser of two evils," but who embodies everything I loathe about politics and governing the way they've been practiced in this country for too long now. Just ain't gonna do it. Can't. Physicall, emotionally, psychically, I cannot do it.

That's not to say I encourage others to follow suit -- unlike some of the rabid, fearmongering, goosestepping ABBers and would-be Party purgers here at DU, I respect that each person has a sacred right to vote as they see fit, with two minor exception: (1) that Dean supporters continue to vote for Dean in the primaries and (2) that any Dean supporter already contemplating a protest support in November consider writing in Dean (as opposed to, say, not voting, or voting for Nader, etc.).

[dawgman]

12. Hey hey hey there pal. You aren't properly goose stepping with the DLC

annointed candidates. Nothing matters but getting a kinder gentler coporate talking head to "run" our country. Real change? Forget it, everthing is and always has been so good that to change would be stupid. We need a candidate that will still recklessly endanger American lives both at home and abroad with asinine foreign policy and good old coporate American values by promoting anti-American sentiment and fostering future terrorists.

[Demobrat]

18. Haven't you been paying attention?

Real change takes time. Fall in line just this once, and we'll address your concerns after we win. Oh, and by the way, there's this gorgeous golden bridge for sale that you might be interested in.

[dawgman]

33. that's what they said about Clinton's terms and on and on

Bullshit real change is revolutionary. Real change could have been now but we went the safe route and now we will be slaughtered in the GE. Unfortunately the DLC will probably say that it is a combination of running someone as "liberal" as Kerry and having Nader eat away at the liberal base (which of course doesn't make any sense.) So fuck that there is no REAL difference and we continue to try and tread water as the current pulls us inexorably to the right.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

64. "Just this once."

Again.


It's getting/gotten old.

[dawgman]

75. How many times do we have to hear it?

YOu are right it is getting old.

[Scott Lee]

107. As often as they think they can make you swallow it.

Well the time is up, DLC/DNC. Kerry is toast, and so are you. Here's to a NEW Democratic Party...this time one that actually will oppose the rethugs instead of empower them.

[diamondsoul]

118. Um, right, except the least

corrupt of the candidates is filth even in your eyes. You've made that clear. You voting Nader because Kucinich isn't good enough, then?:eyes: :puke:

[waterman]

13. Not bad. I see where you're at. I wish I could respond intelligently but I

am so fried at the end of this day. I feel the frustration as we all do. I'm worn out from big battles and personal ones. It's easy to see the reason for your post. Lots of infighting now. Perhaps we'll come together at zero hour. Your points are valid and strong. It's a long trudge. I can't believe we haven't resorted to major upheaval in the streets, quite frankly. Our forefathers would probably be ashamed of us for not laying a little blood on the line at this point. There is still time. It's not over. Time has a way of healing all pain and suffering. Things don't happen without some eventual reason and some eventual justice. Just because we don't see it now, doesn't mean it's not registering with greater powers than ourselves. Hang in there as we all try to do. Live your life. Fight on. Trust your self.

[lovedems]

15. Nothing has happened to my outrage.

Because my outrage has always been towards GWB. He is the one I intend to hold responsible and my way of doing that is voting for the democratic nominee.

If you are pissed now, wait. I hear Rummy talking up Syria and Iran. If you want to hold the democrats responsible by refusing to vote or going third party, you are passing the buck. The buck stops in the oval office for me.

edited for ytpos.

[WitchWay]

98. Outrage?

So you wouldn't hold the democrats responsible? I mean, to tell you the truth, I don't see Kerry coming out very strong against the war in Iraq. It's almost like he doesn't really care. He's busy showing his patriotic war-hero side, right now.
They are supposed to be leaders, aren't they?
Yet, when I wrote to my congressman I get this blah,blah,blah response about how Saddam is trying to get uranium to make weapons of mass destruction and shit. He knew that wasn't true, then -- and I knew they knew it wasn't true. I knew he was LYING to me.
So why all the apathy? Where is the leadership? Kucinich stood up. Why not Kerry? What's he afraid of?

[Protagoras]

16. I was and am HUGELY against

what we did in Iraq.

That being said...I think that getting Bush out is the first/best way to start repairing the damage.

I was protesting in the street. I was writing and calling everyone I knew. And it wasn't enough. It happened anyway.

Now I do think we need to apologize. I do think we need help repair our damage. But I'm not going to take blame for it. And I'm not going to spend the next 9 months or the next 4/8 whatever years beating my chest about it. Instead I'm going to use my outrage in the most productive way.

That may mean voting for DK in my primary to send a message to our side that the issue is still alive....but it also means looking forward to beat Bush. We can go back and tear ourselves apart forever over every terrible mistake we've made (and we have made a hell of a lot). But at some point we have to apologize and fix things...that means looking towards the solution not the problem.

The solution is getting Bush out. That's not simply ABB...that's acting the the smartest way available to remedy as many problems as possible with my 1 vote.

[Zhade]

30. Hey, I'm with you there.

My biggest problem is that people talk up Kerry and Edwards on their good points and dismiss their bad traits, all in an attempt to make the candidate more appealing.

It does democracy and truth a disservice to ignore the potentially dangerous stances of these men. We need to be aware of them, because if either of them wins the nom and then the GE, we must be ready for whatever they may do.

I'll be thrilled to have been completely wrong about these guys if they turn out to be awesome. I would LOVE to be wrong about them.

If I'm not, then I need to be prepared for the coming battles, and that won't be possible if I blind myself to the things they've supported that I find reprehensible.

[gottaB]

21. Kerry is generally liked and trusted

You have to think about the future. Appeals to spite and indignation fall flat, because, among other reasons, they don't offer much guidance.

Dean wasn't the best messenger for the anti-war sentiment, and he positioned himself poorly. Candidates to his left were unambiguously anti-war, and candidates to his "right" weren't unambiguously pro-war.

I know for a fact that Kerry got some anti-war votes because he seemed like a reasonable guy who will (a) actually do something to get us out of this mess, and (b) prevent it from happening in the future. People with family in the military were especially concerned with electability, for obvious reasons, and John Kerry was favored on that front.

Bottom line, Democratic voters trust John Kerry.

One final word. I don't think you'll find another candidate on the ballot right now who will defend your first amendment rights with more energy and conviction than John Kerry. If you're litmus tests aren't telling you that, then I think that's a problem with your litmus tests, and not with John Kerry.

[Comadreja]

74. Kerry's appeal?

I don't like Kerry's Republican Lite positions, either, but I think his appeal is his aura of toughness, a thick skin and unflappability that long years of bumping heads in Congress has given him. Dean's my favorite, but in retrospect, his armor was too light for this year's poleaxe fight to the death.

[Paradise]

23. oh, we're out here all right,

however all we have left is our vote, we hope, for a candidate chosen by the media, the dnc, and iowans... therefore, it just has to be ABB!

[XanaDUer]

55. Chosen by Iowans...

and iowans... therefore, it just has to be ABB!



Isn't that democracy?

[Paradise]

104. that could be misinterpreted, so...

no offense to iowans, could have been any state, just would like to have a unified, single primary day, instead of MOMENTUM.

[mzmolly]

25. I hear you, I am struggling too. The only thing that keeps me from total

insanity is remembering that the coming election has so many issues.

*sigh*

I now give the Dems the benefit of the doubt on the vote for war, as I have no other practical choice. Did they believe Bush? Who knows??? I can only surmise they did. I can only assume the Bush plan to orchestrate 911 or at least allow it (to bolster the case for the erroneous/unjust war) in-fact worked.

[mike_c]

27. some of us are still outraged, and will never forgive the Bush* enablers

...and appeasers, regardless of their party affiliation. The IWR is a litmus test for those of us who screamed in frustration while the rest of the nation caught the latest "shock and awe" footage with all the ferver of Monday night football.

I want a DEMOCRATIC candidate who has shown opposition leadership during the past three years, but if I can't get such a candidate I'll look elsewhere. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the invasion and occupation of Iraq!

[corporatewhore]

29. I would love it if you chimed in on this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x389828#394122

[bigtree]

35. I don't see why anyone has to suspend their outrage at what Bush did.

I don't blame anyone but Bush and his cabal.

[RichM]

36. There's been a marked swing to the right in the general tenor at DU.

Here's my theory as to why this has happened. As primary season approached, DU lacked the ability, as a community, to choose a set of principled positions, and then to look at the question of which candidate would best represent these principles. Rather, the entire focus quickly devolved to an immediate choosing of candidates. The total & obsessive focus became persons, personalities, image and style. Many backed Clark just because he was a general. Many backed Edwards just because he was handsome and Southern. Many refused to back Kucinich just because he was short and resembles a leprechaun. Etc.

In stooping to preoccupation with image & personality (as opposed to rising to the level of principled analysis), DUers displayed characteristics very reflective of the shallowness of American culture. Each person formed his or her choice by some gut-level instinctive process. Each person naturally thought her way was better than anyone else's, & began resenting everyone who thought differently. There was no standard of principles to refer to.

When DU was good - which it's unfortunately not, anymore, for the most part -- it was good because there was something liberating in breaking away from the lies of the mainstream media. In trying to understand how our country so quickly became sinister & blatantly barbaric, while only a few short years ago we all assumed it was still a "beacon of liberty," everyone here helped one another with learning & understanding. There was a lot of discussion of relevant history (which is mostly lacking, nowadays). All this made for a creative & liberating process.

Bickering about candidates without first establishing a standard of principles is just utter trivial bullshit. If you accept the idea that a presidential candidate must be tall, charming, handsome, and Southern; or a general, etc -- then nobody will ever convince you of anything different. That kind of belief has nothing in common with, say, an analysis that goes like this: "I believe that the IWR and occupation are wrong, and that they result from the basic problem of excessive corporate power - in this case, oil & defense interests. I will NEVER support a political candidate who doesn't clearly share this analysis."

Another reason for DU's deterioration & rightward lurch is that it's become a haven, not so much for people astonished & terrified that a vicious scum like Bush has become president, as for plain old partisan Democrats. Anyone so unimaginative that they think being zealously loyal to a feeble corrupt dinosaur like the Democratic Party is a lofty value, is a person of mediocre consciousness. In political terms, you don't even start being conscious until you see clearly how disgraceful both halves of the 2-party system are. There is nothing good about Democrats, in general, except that they're not quite as awful as Republicans. There's a few percent difference, at best. // So, now that DU is no longer "underground," but an electronic cafe where party hacks discuss politics in very conventional terms, most of its original vitality is gone.

[JHBowden]

37. Bullshit.

I don't know where people get off claiming Edwards and Kerry promote excessive corporate power. Edwards spent his entire career defending regular people against large corporations, and the very liberal Kerry has never taken PAC money during his four Senate runs.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

44. Thus the point is proven

I don't believe either names were mentiond. Proving the point that the "strolling for the fight" and not discussing the issues mentality prevails.

[JHBowden]

51. I plead guilty.

While RichM is trying to justify another Bush term against a liberal Democrat in office, issues are meaningless without statesmen enacting them into law.

Given Kerry is very liberal, and I'm moderately liberal, your point is trivial.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

52. Why

I think that may have been the most mature response I have seen yet> Bravo!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

39. What a long winded way to say everyone who doesn't see it your way is

an unprincipled ass.

What I have discovered in my years at DU is that if one does not share the exact same goals as a certain percentage of left leaning people, then those people will be just as authoritarian as the people on the right who would like to dominate life and they will stop at nothing including long winded diatribes like your own to smear anyone who may disagree with lofty posts and ideals that don't bother to take into account the vast number of people and issues who congeal under that GREAT BIG TENT called the "left." I hate totalitarianism no matter who is hawking it.

Yes, there is nothing good about Democrats in general, they simply brought or protected every fucking law that the liberals define themselves by be it the Civil Rights Act, protection of women's rights, the right to collective bargain and every fucking environmental law that was ever passed as a protective measure.

You want me to take you seriously?

Please...DU fucking PUSHED me to the center with moronic posts like that one.

[RichM]

43. Response to selected points:

Yes, there is nothing good about Democrats in general, they simply brought or protected every fucking law that the liberals define themselves by be it...
- First, those strides were 40-70 years ago. Second, it wasn't "Democrats" that achieved them. Rather, it was grass-roots organizations like SNCC, SCLC etc, in the case of Civil Rights movement. The Democrats dragged their feet, but finally gave in to what became an irresistible social process. They didn't lead it; they grudgingly consented to it. // In any case, the party that consented to Civil Rights in the '60s and labor rights in the '30s hasn't existed for 40 years or so.

Second, how would you justify your use of the word "totalitarianism?" What did I say that qualifies as totalitarianism? I said Democrats are full of it. Does that suggest "totalitarianism" to you? // Last week, you repeatedly accused me of advocating the "The worse, the better" principle. This was also just some dumb BS you made up out of pure hot air. Don't you feel obligated to have your accusations correspond to some reality?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

53. You would have to completely ignore legislative history to claim

that those rights and the rights issues contingent upon and following them was 40 to 70 years ago. The Americans with Disabilities Act, The Clean Air expansion bill and the expansion of Head Start were all passed in 1990. The Family Leave Act in 93, as was Motor Voter to make voting registration easier especially in minority communities. All of those involve labor and minority rights.

Of course the last ten years has been a bit more sparse but that also seems to correspond with a witch hunt on a land deal, a zipperchase and a loss of the house, then the White House then the Senate.

[RichM]

56. Please let me hear your justification for "totalitarianism."

The other minor legislative achievements can be endlessly quibbled about. While it's always possible to find some small-bore piece of legislation or other and hold it up as a progressive achievement, this is not going to affect the overall weight of the record -- which is overwhelmingly one of failure, IMO. The balance would be something like Motor Voter and a few other similar (admittedly nice) odds and ends -- as weighed against quietly handing over the airwaves to the media giants in '96, dismantling welfare, passing NAFTA, doing exactly nothing to stop the growth of the MIC, etc. In otherwords, the weight is on the bad side, in most of what's truly important.

But please, let me hear you comment about calling my post an example of "totalitarianism." You can't just sling a term like that around, simply pulling it out of thin air. Or don't you agree? If I don't like stuff you post, can I call you "totalitarian" just because I like how it sounds?

Also: in my above post that you attacked as long-winded, don't you see that there is a serious point to it? If I hadn't said mean & scandalous things about Democrats in the last paragraph, you probably wouldn't even have objected to the rest. The point was that the DU approach to the primary was too candidate-o-centric, rather than being centered on principles. That's a pretty reasonable response to the thread's lead post.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

57. OK all three points

As to your first paragraph, there were other landmark legislations passed over the last 40 years. I simply went back ten. There have been noteworthy legislative fights every year and while they may not be the LANDMARK you are expecting, they were just as valid. Clinton DID markedly effect all the issues you claim and with his charm and seduction over the past 12 years moved this process right along but many many issues where he fell short, he also left every state more financially empowered to provide for their poor and in California we followed through...which then was blamed for a budget deficit which then was used for a recall which petitions were promoted by the left and the right which has as a result effected every area above...jobs, urban issues, healthcare etc.

I'll drop the totalitarian reference if it pleases you and feel free to use it as you wish.

Yes there's a problem. It lies as much with the laziness of the electorate in educating themselves on the complexities of issues as with the people walking the halls of our government. That doesn't make every opinion of every candidate other than the one you choose an "unprincipled" one. My support of Kerry is rooted in my principles. That doesn't mean I can't disgree with SOME of his past actions.

It helps when acknowledging the problems we face to acknowledge that some of them will exist as long as money is equated with speech and the guy with the most money or access gets to talk the most..again that goes back to Supreme Court decisions we are forced to live with and to FCC regulations which are currently under the guidance and direction of the current administration until they can be revisited by a more receptive audience in each of those institutions.

This is where I get a bit fatigued with the current attempts to paint everything in a specific frame of reference (i.e. it's good, bad, fucked, etc) as it precludes the entire picture.

[RichM]

70. Generally unobjectionable, but are you acknowledging that you used

the word "totalitarianism" for no real reason? It's not that I'm trying to get you to "drop the totalitarian reference" on grounds that dropping it would "please" me. Rather, it's that I'm asking you directly to support your contention that that word applies to ANYTHING I've ever said on this board. I'm saying that you just made up this accusation & threw it at me, with no basis at all.

On the other point: again, it's not really worth it to argue the details of the Clinton record. You claim here he left states more financially empowered. Actually, much of this was due to the speculative boom. Tax revenues were greatly enhanced by capital gains receipts. This is not really any mark of virtue. Some of the "credit" goes to congressional swine like Joe Lieberman and Phil Gramm, who helped push through laws that loosened oversight on financial firms & on accounting rules for stock options. // Thus, states being more flush in those times cannot really be interpreted as solid evidence of achievement on Clinton's part.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

78. Boy you really are committed to writing off any good in favor of a point

of view aren't you?

[RichM]

85. 1) You are not answering me about the "totalitarianism" charge. Please

try to back up this charge, or admit that you just picked the word straight out of the blue. (Or, I suppose, you could just dodge it again.)

2) My point about the capital gains receipts being a by-product of the speculative boom is dead-on. It's an accurate counter to your attempt to credit Clinton with the better finances of state treasuries in the late '90's. It's not ideology. This is a major part of the explanation of the flush-cash positions of those days -- not any mythical wonderfulness of the president.

And be honest, now. If I hadn't written that one nasty final paragraph about Democrats, wasn't the rest of it a pretty reasonable response to the lead poster's question - namely, "What happened to us," that here we are with the 2 leading candidates both having voted in favor of an absolutely immoral war?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

88. OK you get your answer

In a moment of anger, I used TOTALITARIAN rather than AUTHORITARIAN which I meant, and YES I DO feel that fits. You repeatedly categorize any values system that does not match your own as being too fucking stupid to vote. You say it in flowery language but that doesn't alter the outcome.

Now to address your post itself:

There's been a marked swing to the right in the general tenor at DU.

There's been a marked switch to totally fucking insane in the general tenor at DU and until I decided on a candidate, I had stayed relatively free of the sickness. I chose the WRONG guy for the pack and that has made all the difference in how I am treated...so I dealt it back...

Here's my theory as to why this has happened. As primary season approached, DU lacked the ability, as a community, to choose a set of principled positions, and then to look at the question of which candidate would best represent these principles.

I hadn't noticed a harmony of principles in the past whether we were discussing the war, tort reform or SUV's. Therefore, to think this community would AGREE on a SET of principles seems to be setting oneself up for an unfulfilled expectation. What there has been is a wholesale dismissal of the views of others largely set off by the MESSIANIC manner in which some relate to our potential nominees.

Beyond a FEW issues, most of the candidates ARE in agreement on CORE issues BUT FOR Kucinich who is VERY relevent but BUT SO ahead of his time, we should take five or ten calendar years off his life. His message is good, needed but it is too early unless one again unreasonably expects WHOLESALE transformation of the entire electorate which is highly unlikely. Even then, I can't SAY all his principles would be a match for mine or others as he has clearly voted in a controversial manner on women's issues and with his support in the past of DOMA which is a bit contradictory to his new found stance.

Rather, the entire focus quickly devolved to an immediate choosing of candidates. The total & obsessive focus became persons, personalities, image and style. Many backed Clark just because he was a general. Many backed Edwards just because he was handsome and Southern. Many refused to back Kucinich just because he was short and resembles a leprechaun. Etc.

Amnd therein lies the rub. You entirely dismiss all the very valid reasons people had for choosing who they chose. First of all before a single other campaign hit the ground we were in DEANWORLD where we have been for over a year..far before others got going.

Second, many of us refused to back Kucinich on PRINCIPLE which as WOMEN with reproductive rights, we were justified in doing. I am glad he had a transformation but I see no reason to give him a pass for his PAST votes while crucifying others for theirs.


In stooping to preoccupation with image & personality (as opposed to rising to the level of principled analysis), DUers displayed characteristics very reflective of the shallowness of American culture. Each person formed his or her choice by some gut-level instinctive process. Each person naturally thought her way was better than anyone else's, & began resenting everyone who thought differently. There was no standard of principles to refer to.

Again, you dismiss the reasoning of other choices. You would have done far better to say NOBODY AGREED TO MY principles since by demeaning the choices of others, that is your actual communication.


When DU was good - which it's unfortunately not, anymore, for the most part -- it was good because there was something liberating in breaking away from the lies of the mainstream media. In trying to understand how our country so quickly became sinister & blatantly barbaric, while only a few short years ago we all assumed it was still a "beacon of liberty," everyone here helped one another with learning & understanding. There was a lot of discussion of relevant history (which is mostly lacking, nowadays). All this made for a creative & liberating process.

You seem to long for a day that never existed. FOr as long as I have read DU which was about a year before I posted, we have been at lagerheads on some issues and in harmony on others.

When it comes to relevent history, again we pick and choose. Read my thread in this forum on the courts. There are people who think CORPORATE PERSONHOOD evolved over the last ten years. Be my guest and go teach them a relevent history lesson.

Bickering about candidates without first establishing a standard of principles is just utter trivial bullshit. If you accept the idea that a presidential candidate must be tall, charming, handsome, and Southern; or a general, etc -- then nobody will ever convince you of anything different. That kind of belief has nothing in common with, say, an analysis that goes like this: "I believe that the IWR and occupation are wrong, and that they result from the basic problem of excessive corporate power - in this case, oil & defense interests. I will NEVER support a political candidate who doesn't clearly share this analysis."

While I may join you in suffering the idiocy of geverning by focus groups and media created demographics such as SOCCER MOMS AND NASCAR DADS, no matter what sports Barbie is taking the kids off to or what sports KEN is watching, it is a portion of the electorate we are totally fucking stuck with and they choose their presidents like they buy their hamburgers. Being in denial of it won't change it.

This year it's a FEARBURGER.

AND NOW FOR YOUR ACADEMY AWARD WINNING PARAGRAPH WHICH YOU THINK MY EVER PROTESTATION HANGS ON:

Another reason for DU's deterioration & rightward lurch is that it's become a haven, not so much for people astonished & terrified that a vicious scum like Bush has become president, as for plain old partisan Democrats. Anyone so unimaginative that they think being zealously loyal to a feeble corrupt dinosaur like the Democratic Party is a lofty value, is a person of mediocre consciousness. In political terms, you don't even start being conscious until you see clearly how disgraceful both halves of the 2-party system are. There is nothing good about Democrats, in general, except that they're not quite as awful as Republicans. There's a few percent difference, at best. // So, now that DU is no longer "underground," but an electronic cafe where party hacks discuss politics in very conventional terms, most of its original vitality is gone.

That there is corruption is nothing new. It is the subject of every political conversation whether we are talking the acquisiton of New York, the TEAPOT Dome or modern times.

Having SAT in on many policy meetings in my state with very dedicated legislators who are trying at times to achieve the BEST DEAL for the greatest number of people with a minimum of negative consequences or BLOWBACK if you will, I very much disagree with your broad brush cynical portrayal of the game.

It isn't ALL smoke amd mirrors and speaking from experience, people like yorself BURN the fucking good guys out of politics with that number while the scmucks can survive your attitude just fine since they thrive in it.


NOW to wear myself out addressing this last post:


) My point about the capital gains receipts being a by-product of the speculative boom is dead-on. It's an accurate counter to your attempt to credit Clinton with the better finances of state treasuries in the late '90's. It's not ideology. This is a major part of the explanation of the flush-cash positions of those days -- not any mythical wonderfulness of the president.

You conveniently forgot that even after the bubble burst which would have meant CORRECTION in the market, there was HUGE sum of money that simply VANQUISHED from our economy and ended up offshore. You conveniently forgot that Clinton would NOT award contracts to companies that set up offshore shells to avoid taxation but that Bush DID. In doing SO you CONVENIENTLY dismiss the REVENUES that would have been forthcoming from THAT disaster...so NO the states would NOT be in the mess they were simply from your assessment.


And be honest, now. If I hadn't written that one nasty final paragraph about Democrats, wasn't the rest of it a pretty reasonable response to the lead poster's question - namely, "What happened to us," that here we are with the 2 leading candidates both having voted in favor of an absolutely immoral war?

It is entirely consistent with the gospel of Rich which picks and chooses the history it wants to acknowledge and recontextualizes the rest.

[RichM]

95. I'd like to thank the Academy, for bestowing upon me this Award....

I didn't exactly "forget" about money vanishing to offshore accounts, nor that Clinton was far less corrupt than Bush in awarding contracts. Rather, I was just not really trying to write a book. // Also, Democrats such as Lieberman were involved in keeping the rules regulating off-shore accounts lax.

Generally, I don't find much to disagree with in your dissection of my post. Which is another way of saying that you don't really disagree with me all that much, either. You see clearly that Kucinich is "ahead of his time" -- ie, an extraordinary candidate, who offers things of enormous value that the others are nowhere near. And feeling significant reservations re: his past history on reproductive rights is completely understandable. (Though for a proven straight-shooter like DK, a non-panderer who has already been willing to antagonize so many powerful interests with his truth-telling, it would be completely out of character for him to be lying about his conversion on this issue.)

The only thing that really seems to upset you is my scorn for, as you put it, "...all the very valid reasons people had for choosing who they chose." On the one hand, I acknowledge that it's reasonable for you to be upset about this. On the other hand, anyone who supports a candidate on grounds that he's a general or a tall Southern charmer, is an idiot. There's no other way to say it, & I don't feel obliged to sugarcoat it. It's the same thing as voting for Schwarzenegger because he's a kick-ass movie star.

Furthermore, my MAIN point was that the sequence should have been Principles first, Candidates thereafter. Not Candidates first, then fight like banshees from that point on. Once you establish a principled framework, such as: "imperialism and militarism are cancers on our society; the war was an enormous & unforgiveable crime, and anyone who failed to oppose it does not deserve consideration for high office" -- it forces candidate selection to take place on a higher level - above the level of image, personality, and superficial BS.

You admit I said nothing totalitarian. It was also not "authoritarian." If you want to call it "opinionated" you'd be on safe ground. // I don't quite understand your last sentence (about "recontextualizes the rest"). It seems like a very nice sentence; I just don't quite know what it means. I seriously doubt that I pick & choose my history any more than anyone else on this degenerated & pathetic website.

[RichM]

106. And another thing. When you attempt to defend Democrats by saying,

for example,

"Having SAT in on many policy meetings in my state with very dedicated legislators who are trying ...to achieve the BEST DEAL for the greatest number of people ..., I very much disagree with your broad brush cynical portrayal of the game...."

-- or when you mention Motor Voter, etc -- it reminds me of the parallel argument that would arise if we were discussing the corporate media, rather than the Dem Party. Suppose I said to you, in my inimitable broad brush style, "The corporate media sucks." Suppose you then tried to defend them by pointing to a few of the honorable exceptions, like Paul Krugman, etc. This type of defense is simply an inadequate rebuttal to the assertion that the corporate media is systematically & overwhelmingly a disgraceful & disgusting institution.

Pointing out a few honorable exceptions doesn't really help. Just as the corporate media is almost uniformly a servant of established power, so is most of the Democratic Party. The media has a few Krugmans; the Democrats have a few Kuciniches. Both institutions, nonetheless, are systematically disgusting.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

110. Wow I am a slave to your interpretations of everything

"The corporate media sucks" is also a generalization because what "sucks" and what does NOT "suck" are in the eyes of who is viewing the "sucking" or "not sucking."

IF you said, the corporate media has overwhelmingly demonstrated bias and offered up some specifics, you might have a point.

It is actually the OTHER way around. The Democratic party still has a number of liberals and progressives and there are far fewer Zell Millers than there are progressives in the party.

I think you are addicted to being in the minority, and now have your identity so rooted in it that furthering this conversation is as useless as it is hopeless.

[KoKo]

114. NSMA! I proudly join RichM in the DU "Minority Club!" Minorities Reign!

WhoooHooo and a DU :toast: to MINORITIES! I thought that DU was an "Underground" site. Sadly, I have been misled.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

115. Gee that's nice..most undergrounds had a mission of seeing the light of

day again....it was supposed to be a temporary thing not a permanent status.

I never noticed that the French underground when they had a chance said, "fuck it, we're staying here...we like it."

[KoKo]

125. Well "War's End" finished French Underground, but this "War" isn't

finished, in fact, it's only begun with those of us who started here being devastated over the 2000 Selection and realizing something was terribly wrong when the "Supremes" threw in our face what we had "suspected" from Clinton Impeachment on.

So, yes, some of us came here thinking we could be the "American Underground" against what appeared more and more to be a "fascist" movement taking over our country.

If you see this different and have found something worthwhile in this new "In Your Face/Crammed Down Your Throat Primary" then....Good for You.

Others of us feel very differently.

[RichM]

117. This is the best you could do?

You didn't understand that my tossing out "The corporate media sucks" was intended as a shorthand? You think it was an attempt on my part to present a full critique of the media, & you find it necessary to lecture me on its deficiencies? Oh, so I failed to "offer up some specifics," did I? Do tell.

Thanks so much for offering your insights into my psyche. You'd certainly be the first one I'd check with, if I wanted to know where my identity was rooted.

I'm frankly disappointed that you would sign your name - even an anonymous Internet screen name - to such a feeble effort at snarfiness. I'd really thought you were better than that.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

121. So now I am stupid and scum, eh?

I stated you slam the Democratic party with generalities which you do. I stated you frame everyone who disagree with your assessment as an undereducated meathead which you do. I stated many instances where the Democratic party didn't sell out or attempted to remedy the situation and explained how I saw the various powers at play on a state AND federal level....and all I get is:

"No it isn't" peppered with more generalities about more problems.

I guess I'm NOT better than that...I'll have to try harder.

You know...ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN - when people lament the past on DU...and that is..even when we disagreed there was some partnership towards a common goal which was getting Bush out of the WhiteHouse...I never realized that in order to sign onto that bargain, I needed to commit to electing the second coming of Christ...maybe that's where we got lost....in the details...I was simply interested in evicting Lucifer...LESS THAN PERFECT suits me just fine as a TEMPORARY replacement.

[KoKo]

126. Evicting Lucifer wasn't end to "HELL!" And, anyone who thinks evicting

this Lucifer (Bush) will be an end to what has happened to the Democratic Party and "peace will reign, the Lions and Lambs will lie down together and that the birds will sing in the trees and free range chickens and healthy steaks will be in every pot and pan and "clear skies" and fresh water will be assured in America is either very naive, or :eyes:

The Democratic Party is in terrible distress, taken over by an element which is only a step above the PNAC'ers and Corporate Corrupt Globalists. Only a step.

Removing Bush will NOT stop this, at this point. It's gone to far and we've all been complicit by focusing on Clinton and not seeing what it was all about,imho, of course. But that was what I've learned in my time on DU. And, I came here as what most of you would feel was, at that time, a "conservative Democrat."

[snoochie]

63. Fairly Weak

ADA is not enforced, and is so weakly defended it's about to be defanged completely.

FMLA? Unpaid leave? So were now only a few generations behind other western countries?

Motor Voter? Has anyone else tried this? I did, and they f$@!@$d me. No registration, missed the next election.


I think that by becoming so desperate for any tiny crumb we're willing to look at a crust of bread as if it's half a loaf. We haven't seen half a loaf since before I was born.

And in countries all over the world, the 'left' party is similarly self-destructing and encouraging its increasingly desperate adherents to accept less and less.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. And how is it destructing in similar countries except by division on

the left?

As far as your other assertions, when the party that passed ADA is not in power and the other party didn't want the program, you expect to defend it how? Through the courts mostly under the control of the party in power?

[snoochie]

69. The division on the left is caused by the failure of the main 'left' party

The major 'left' parties are creeping rightwards.

That's also the reason they're not in the majority in DC. It's far more common to have the party not in control of the white house gain control of the hill. That didn't happen. I blame centrists. I blame the weak cowards who voted for the IWR.

It's happening everywhere and by supporting these not-so-liberals we're enabling it.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

45. Next please

Another unwilling to "discuss" anything other than direct quotes form their preferred candidate.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

42. Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MurikanDemocrat]

49. What santimonious bullshit

[snoochie]

61. Wish I'd joined before the primaries

I only ever read the articles -- never had time for forums. Too busy reading news, writing letters, making phone calls, etc.

I hope it returns to its former state after the GE.

:(

[Eloriel]

80. I don't think it can

But, no problem. Certain people here insist there's absolutely no difference whatsoever between the "old" DU and the current incarnation.

[eileen_d]

94. Certain people can't seem to face the fact

that DU is not a private club where everybody is obligated to agree with them in order to belong.

:cry:

[Eloriel]

123. Actually, while that may be true (I don't think it is, tho), I'm not

one of those you think you're talking about.

[eileen_d]

93. "Oh my, what has happened to good old DU"

I know it's a terrible inconvenience for you old-timers, but the simple fact is that DU started attracting more Democrats. If there is some particular ideology we are all supposed to accept before logging on, please PM me a copy. ;)

And then the primaries came along. And people started talking about Democrats who are running for president, because one of them will have a chance to end Bush's four-year reign, and get his cronies out of office as well. Nobody is naiive enough to think that this will end all of the world's ills, but four more years of Bush is generally agreed to be a recipe for certain disaster. And people naturally disagree about who would be the best for this job, using all sorts of criteria. Is this really a surprising development to anyone?

Bickering about candidates without first establishing a standard of principles is just utter trivial bullshit.

Then you might want to avoid reading an open Internet forum dedicated to DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY ELECTIONS.

If DU did establish some "standard of principles" as a foundation for all candidate discussion, DU would be a meaningless echo chamber. Maybe you and two or three of your friends could continue to post and feel superior to the rest of us peons.

"L'ENFER, C'EST LES AUTRES!" :eyes:

[rhite5]

101. Very well said, Rich.

I guess the question is, Can the vitality be recovered?

[Scott Lee]

108. True! And hold on to your seat, it's gonna get worse.

When Botox, the establishment DNC conservative is the "nominee", it's going to resemble a lightly shaded Free Republic in here.

[seg4527]

40. John Kerry let me down on the IWR, and I'm gonna let him down in 2004

eom

[ozone_man]

48. Me too.

I'm going to add the spine that Kerry lacks and not vote for any IWR candidate. I'm still mad as hell over this war and it's not going away any time soon. I plan to vote Dean in 2004 to send a message that it's not OK to enable Bush wars.

[JHBowden]

54. Encouraging Bush to start more wars will send a message for no war?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

[snoochie]

71. Which candidates voted YES for the Syria Accountability Act?

It's a pretext for war. Just wait and see. No matter who is in charge out of bush / kerry / edwards, war for empire is on schedule.

:(

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

46. You may be right

Something radical is going to have to happen to truely change the path this country is on.

[corporatewhore]

47. Oh come on TweedleDee is the most liberal electable candidate ..

SURFACE CHANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!

[snoochie]

58. Hell if I know

But it's more than disconcerting.

I was so energized and hopeful after all the demonstrations, and with the overwhelming outpouring of sentiments urging restraint. Hearing people like Kucinich and Byrd was so inspiring.

Now I just want out of this party and country. :(

[leyton]

60. Tens of thousands of innocents?

I'm not trying to shush you here, but I don't think

"Our nation just MURDERED tens of thousands of INNOCENT PEOPLE!"

is accurate. Yes, we bombed Baghdad, and maybe for the wrong reasons. And though there were civilian casualties, that is part of war. People working for the Iraq government - that is, the Baath party - were culpable in the crimes committed by that regime. Rape, murder, genocide, torture, denial of human rights. Sorry, Saddam is not an innocent person, nor are any of the people who worked for him.

You can argue against the war, and I will probably agree with you, but let's get some perspective here.

[Paulie]

62. Kill one bad guy, take out 100 civilian non-combatants?

Seriously, think how sick that is. The ends justify the means isn't valid, we're talking human LIVES here! I've seen other nations do the same thing, shoot a missile into an apartment block to assassinate ONE BAD GUY. It's morally wrong, PERIOD.

Just because the bad guy raped, murdered, tortured, doesn't mean we get to BOMB people DEAD to SAVE them!!!

Come on, lets have some perspective here.

[democratreformed]

76. Maybe tens of thousands is an overestimation.

I haven't looked lately at the total of civilian casualties. But, I am sure there are thousands. Women, children, old people - yes, innocent people. Yes, we murdered them. It was an unprovoked war. I can't help it - that's just the way it is - murder of innocent people.

Now, don't get me wrong. I will never hold it against the soldiers. They were doing what they were ordered to do. It is the administration that is responsible for the murder of innocents.

[Skip Intro]

81. LINK - Guardian: " Up to 15,000 People Killed In Invasion..." - 10/03

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1073070,00.html
Up to 15,000 people killed in invasion, claims thinktank

snip:
--------
As many as 15,000 Iraqis were killed in the first days of America's invasion and occupation of Iraq, a study produced by an independent US thinktank said yesterday. Up to 4,300 of the dead were civilian noncombatants.

The report, by Project on Defence Alternatives, a research institute from Cambridge, Massachussets, offers the most comprehensive account so far of how many Iraqis died.

The toll of Iraq's war dead covered by the report is limited to the early stages of the war, from March 19 when American tanks crossed the Kuwaiti border, to April 20, when US troops had consolidated their hold on Baghdad.
---------

Granted, this leaves the majority of those killed as "non-combatants," and I'll leave it for you to decide if you accept how those terms were applied, and what might have happened in the ten months since.

At a time when the number of American dead is suspect, do you really believe the numbers of Iraqi dead, far less verifiable, to be accurate?

Here's another report:
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/November/21o/A%20New%20Report%20about%20Iraqis%20killed%20since%20the%20invasion%20Moving%20on%20is%20impossible%20By%20Bill%20Gibson.htm

A New Report about Iraqis killed since the invasion: Moving on is impossible

By Bill Gibson

Al-Jazeerah, 11/21/03 (Medcat.org)



In a new report MEDACT, the London-based affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), has published estimates of the number of Iraqis killed since the invasion in March: between 20,000 and 55,000 people including at least 8,000 civilians with upwards of 20,000 civilian casualties


Yeah, that was Al Jazeeerah.

And I'll point you to http://www.iraqbodycount.net, which lists the civilian dead, on the high end, at over 10,000. With these numbers, ths site also passes along the following quote from mr. tommy franks: “We don’t do body counts.”

Tens of thousands, I believe without a doubt. Those shock and awe MOABs didn't just fall on some isolated Republican Guard sitting in the sands.

[democratreformed]

84. And....

murdered is the correct word. What did they have to die for? NOT because our army had to protect our freedom. You will never make me believe that. Or that they had to protect us from terrorist or whatever. Nope, they died for OIL. Like I said above, that is the administrations responsibility. THEY are the ones that chose to give those orders.

[Eloriel]

82. You couldn't hold a job in Iraq if you weren't a member of the

Baath party.

The war was based on lies. That their leader was evil isn't a justification to kill innocent civilians.

I hope I will never be accused of getting the same perspective as yours.

[democratreformed]

86. And what are the millions of Repubs in our own country guilty of?

Unless they're in the top spots of the party, they are guilty of just being wrong. Even many of the government leaders in Iraq did not deserve to die for Hussein's crimes. That's just my opinion, of course.

[Eloriel]

124. Oh, I agree. I even include the Iraqi military in that.

NO ONE in Iraq deserved to die.

[welshTerrier2]

65. Thank you ...

i'm totally in the ABB corner ...

i think you're right that most of us don't have the same focus on the invasion that we had at one time ... perhaps that's just a function of time ... perhaps it's because it's become more of an occupation that an invasion now ... these aren't excuses ... they're reasons ...

thanks for posting what you said ... it will help me renew my outrage ...

I'm finding myself uncomfortably comfortable with our frontrunner, but I have to wonder - have we now given up our right, our duty, to point to crimes against humanity and express outrage and demand justice?

i don't think we can afford any negative feelings about our frontrunner ... at least not to the extent that they make us a less effective weapon against bush ... if you don't contribute to the campaign in terms of money or effort because of these feelings, then you're contributing to bush ... if you're able to see the shortcomings of our frontrunner, but can still do all you can to help us win, then no problem ...

bush has got to go ... nothing else is a viable alternative ...

[GreenPartyVoter]

66. The outrage is pouring down on Nader's head.

Time to get back in the saddle and convince folks to vote Dem this time around.

It's too serious not to. Heaven only know where $hrub will invade next if we don't get him outta there!

[For PaisAn]

72. I have not forgotten

There are many who are still outraged. I will always be outraged over this. March 20 2004 - The World Still Says No To War
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2136
I'll be there.

[democratreformed]

73. Our cries have been rendered meaningless by our fellow citizens.

Yes, I am still outraged. I will never get over the fact that we actually invaded another country without provocation. But, I have accepted that, apparently, I am in the minority. That doesn't mean I have given up my outrage over this or that I will simply become accepting of any future actions that I disagree with. It just means that not enough of my fellow Americans agree with me to enable me to vote for a president in 2004 who voted against IWR or who is outraged along with me. Maybe next time, huh?

[sandnsea]

90. Edwards is running on jobs

Wait until this is out of the way, Kerry will turn back on Bush and the war again.

[psychopomp]

92. Here's some outrage

"F" you, Dumbya! You, too, Rummy, 'Sleeza, Asscraft and all the idiots who enabled you to come into power!

I hate war, and I hate the fact that innocents died and many still suffer.

Unfortunately, "anger" is being used as a smear on the Left, successfully or not. Middle Americans do not want to hear anger any more than they want to hear the truth.

[anarchy1999]

96. Been wondering the same!

I remember all the threads about never giving the vote to anyone that voted for IWR. I remember the passion, the anger, the angst.

I remember sending flowers to Senator Byrd for standing up for all of us.

And no, it is not okay to forgive Kerry and Edwards. I don't get it. Not at all. They were misled, and we weren't? WTF?

I don't think ABB is going to get us by justification for treason.

If our elected officials do not stand up for what is right and just, how can we possibly support them in their bid for president of this nation, or what is left of it?

What happened?

[WitchWay]

100. What happened....

The ABB mantra took root, people "dittoed" it, and it started to scare people into voting for the most "acceptable" candidate, instead of voting on what they really WANTED -- and this is a real a pity. People voted what the mainstream media told them, instead of who they believed in, or on a platform they truly agreed with. The candidate was chosen as a candidate to appeal to bush voters who MIGHT jump over to the dem party, not a candidate that would appeal to the left, or to a core constitunecy. So, now you have a problem.
A big problem. Cuz, basically, you have a candidate (Kerry) who is not debating Bush on the war, but debating him on what a great war hero he is. That's not a good long term issue. It's like painting yourself into a corner. All the anti-war candidates are gone (and so many people pledged they would not support an anti-war candidate), and we are left with a candidate that was chosen by the mainstream, corporate media (he's "normal", pro-corporate, and same-old).

[rhite5]

102. Hey we are in the Primaries now. The GE comes later!

All the anti-war candidates are gone NO, NOT TRUE.

Dennis Kucinich is still a candidate, and he is the most anti-war candidate of all.

Dean has not withdrawn and endorsed anyone else. Although he is not actively campaigning, he has asked his supporters to continue to vote for him in the Primaries and continue to try to build up his delegate total.

The media would like you to think it is all over. They have got everybody talking about the GE. It is not time for that yet.

The Primary period is the time for the Democratic Party to define itself by the candidate it chooses and the Platform it puts together.

Unless Kerry has enough delegates to win on the first ballot in July, there will be jockeying. Some delegates will change their votes. It could get very interesting. Dean already has enough delegates to carry considerable clout in those negotiations. Let's allow the anti-war voice of these guys to influence the debate and the decisions made. And we need to have that debate.

Time enough after that to debate the ABB issue. We are not fighting Bush in the Primary period. That fight comes after July.

[WitchWay]

103. hope

I keep hoping that something miraculous could happen for Kucinich. It could get interesting.
At least, this is all very interesting -- and I guess that is important in and of itself.
I understand that the media is trying to Pump up Kerry and Edwards, who are more corporate, while marginalizing the candidates who really speak for the people, like Dean and Kucinich.
This is why I'm suspicious of how the candidate is getting chosen -- because it is so controlled by the media.
Well, enough said. Keep fingers crossed.

[CWebster]

105. Best post in weeks.

It matters to me---I'll be on the streets again and no one gets rewarded with my vote out of fear of Bush when alignment with Bush was the standard MO for the opposition party. No way, no how.

[West Coast Democrat]

111. I don't see any DUers suddenly supporting the Iraq Invasion

And I do see it brought up every day in the GD Primary forum; However, there are many other issues playing into this year's election, and I'm not going to make the Iraq Vote a litmus test.

[KoKo]

116. The Iraq Vote was the final straw that broke the back of some of us Dems,

and just as those in politics didn't see what VietNam did to our country and our politics for over 40 years, the Iraq Vote apologists will see their day in Hell, even though they will make it sound like Miami Beach in the Spring. :nuke:

[Carolina]

119. I am still outraged

but sadly the outrage is currently taking a back seat to pragmatism and it sucks.

I was actually for a Kerry-Edwards ticket until October 2002. Then came IWR and their votes, Kerry's being more inexplicable than Edwards' since through his years in the Senate and his knowledge of the Bushes via BCCI and Iran-Contra investigations, he should have had better intelligence in every sense of the word. His was also inexplicable because of the very strong opposition of his MA constituents ... anyway. That doesn't exonerate Edwards, but Kerry's was worse to me.

After that, I went looking for another candidate, hence my avatar. Now, of course, Clark is history too and we're stuck seemingly with a compromised, uninspiring, finger-in-the-wind, career politician.

And yes, nu-duer, the whole thing sucks big time.

[KoKo]

127. Outrage is the "word." If we lose that then who are we? Why were we here?

:shrug:

[Carolina]

128. sadly KoKo, I think we're

lost. And I'm here because I still am outraged and have to go somewhere to vent since my husband can't take much more of my rants. Actually he's worse because he's resigned and thinks: eat, DRINK and be merry; for tomorrow, we die (literally & figuratively).

[bluedog]

122. bush did it

He lied to get us to back him. America will never trust him again and rightly so. Doesn't matter how bad a guy Saddam was because that isn't the issue here with the invasion of Iraq..

The issue is that the president lied to his people. The CIA warned Bush about the reliability of the information but Bush didn't warn us. He used the trauma we felt from 911 to manipulate us into supporting his agenda.

Don't trust Bush or anyone who tells you to trust Bush. Anyone who supports a president that decieves his own people has more loyalty to a politician than they do their fellow countrymen.