As a progressive, I've grown to despise Bush enabler DEMs

time and time again,

some bastard elected Democrat in US Congress sucks up
to this un-elected illegitimate PNAC bastard pResident.

WHY ?



LIEberman's nose is soooo far up Bush's arse he cant see
daylight.

Kerry voted for this Bush illegal Iraq occupation.

Gephdick too has been a real loser by kissing Bush's
ass for the past 3 years, only now that Dean is ahead
does Dick show any real 'problem' with Bush.

WHY ARE and have been THE DEMOCRATIC Party's "leadership"
been such spineless Bush enablers ?


I'm happy that the Democratic Debates have shown they can actually
have a backbone, BUT where were these words just a few months
ago ?

THATS why DEAN leads. He actually FIGHTS AGAINST BUSH.

The voting Democrats WANT someone who is NOT a Bush ass kisser.
The voting Democrats WANT someone who is FIGHTING BUSH, not each other.
The voting Democrats ARE SICK & TIRED of elected Democrats VOTING
with Bush.
The voting Democrats ARE SICK & TIRED of not being able to
expect our elected DEM 'leaders' that tell Bush to go screw himself-
HE STOLE THE ELECTION - HE WILL NEVER BE OUR LEGITIMATE
PRESIDENT !

The voting Democrats WANT our elected Democrats in Congress to
be SCREAMING, NAD SCREAMING OVER & OVER -

THAT THIS IRAQ WAR WAS PLANNED BY THE PNAC YEARS AGO !

SCREAMING THAT PERLE CHENEY WOLFOWITZ RUMSFELD ALL
WANTED THIS WAR YEARS AGO !

WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS NOT WALKING OUT OF CONGRESS
TO PROTEST THIS FASCIST REGIME ?
WHY DO THE DEMOCRATS NOT DO WHAT THE DEMs IN TEXAS DID ?

Why has NOT one elected so-called Congressional Democratic
'leaders' publically called for Bush's IMPEACHMENT.

Only Sen Graham and Sen Byrd have.

WHY NO OTHERS ?



WHY IS THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP NOT HAD A PRESS CONFERENCE
TO EXPOSE PNAC ?

Our soldiers are dying by the 100s in Iraq.
Our soldiers are coming back wounded & maimed,
armless & legless by the 100s. About 1500 so far.

WHY ?

Saddam had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11.
Saddam was contained foe 10 years.

WHY ?

The United Nations inspections were working.
Yes Bush's placement of 10s of 1000s of troops made that
work for United Nations inspections - BUT how many American
mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters
WISH the UNITED NATIONS CONTINUED THEIR INSPECTIONS,
THEIR LOVED ONES WOULD STILL BE ALIVE. Those 300+
soldiers would still be alive.

WHY WAR ?

WHY DID THE DEMs LET BUSH WAGE A PNAC WAR ?

The DEMs who voted for this PNAC war need to ask any
family member of the dead soldiers IF United Nations
Inspection would have been a 'good idea' instead of
thier dead soldiers.

JUST ASK !!



--------------

Clinton also had the problem of back stabbing Democrats
in Congress.

JUST what is it with some so-called elected DEMs ?
Are they just corporate whores ?

Applause! :toast:

and I like Gephardt and Kerry, and Dean's appeal hasn't hit me yet, though I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually does.

As a voting democrat, I don't care about all that vague strong-sounding stuff and name calling, it's just noise to me.

too often they have not.


But when they both fawn over Bush sometimes,

why in the HELL are they Democrats for ?


Bush did NOT win the election.
Bush lied to start a war.
100s of our soldiers are dead now because
they voted with Bush.

A war based on lies, yet they both approved anyway.

This is important live & death stuff to just let
an un-elected PNAC cabal wage war where 10s of
thousands of civilians are now dead because they
refused to stand up to this PNAC puppet.

that must have stung as much as the Estrada filibuster.

Right on, PFIBN! :pals:

They have way more in common with Republicans than the do with you and I. Why? They take money from the same source and belong to the same clubs.

It's entirely possible that Dean or somebody else (I'm not picking on Dean so much as the strategy) could win the nomination by being nothing but anti-Bush, 24/7. But that strategy would be a no-hoper in the general election. You can't just run "against" - you have to be "for" something, and the majority of people have to like what you're for.

What the no-compromise crowd can't seem to realize is that compromise is what politics is all about. You can't win politically by pissing into the wind. You can't win by insisting on a degree of ideological purity that will alienate 60% or more of the electorate. And there's no point in being in politics unless you intend to win.

The people who don't get elected don't get to decide anything. They don't get to change anything. They don't get to "move the center". They are irrelevant as far as governing is concerned.

Again, let me point out that I'm not complaining about Dean. I think it's entirely possible, especially given his record as Governor of Vermont, that he can pull off a run to center in the general election. He'll have to, if he wants to have any hope of being elected.

Demanding ideological purity gets us nowhere. Name-calling likewise gets us nowhere. If we don't want to spend the next four years howling in the political wilderness, we'd better learn how to compromise and support the best deal we can get.

perhaps you haven't heard him talk about his health care proposals, bringing broadband to rural communities, repealing the tax cuts, his budget plans, etc?

As I tried to make clear from my post, I was responding mainly to the original poster's insistence that Dean's negativity (or perceived negativity) is his biggest selling point. Being anti-Bush (no matter who does it) may play well in the primaries but will go down in flames in the general election.

IF all the Dem candidate can do or offer come November is praise of Bush (and that IS the opposite of being "anti-Bush") then the message to the electorate is "Bush isn't so bad."

Bush is HORRIBLE. And the Dems have let the country down daily since the installation by failing to note it because they were too damned afraid of Bush's poll numbers AND they bought the Republican lie you're parroting.

That's what it is: A REPUBLICAN LIE. GOP TALKING POINTS FOR DEMS, designed to keep them from pointing out Bush's millions of faults.

I always wonder to myself when I hear this line: just how old ARE these people? Do they not remember any campaigns from years past? Good grief! What do you think political opponents are supposed to say: My opponent, already in office, is a great person, but so am I? So vote for ME?

And I'll say another thing. Dean could say negative things about Bush 24/7 for the next CENTURY and not fully make up for all the weak, timid, milquetoast, pink tutu Dems who have FAILED us by NOT criticizing Bush in the 31 months since he's been in office. Not even close.

Get real, this time it's not just politics, it's LIFE AND DEATH -- including quite possibly the death of our democracy and republic. And if you don't believe that, you either haven't been paying attention or you've got a lot of DU reading to do.

Eloriel

and consider nuance. Consider that the choice isn't between being stridently anti-Bush 24/7 and praising Bush. Bush has been a horrible president - possibly the worst ever. But harping on how bad Bush is won't win us the election. We have to have positive plans and programs of our own, and they have to have broad-based appeal.

Meanwhile, every Democrat in Congress has to consider how his or her vote is going to "play" for their constituencies. Maybe you have a case of 24 month amnesia, but I vividly remember the hysteria level in this country after 9/11. Offering even the mildest criticisms of President Bush got a person accusations of treason and death threats as recently as this April. It's only lately that it's been politically safe to criticize Bush.

"Politically safe!" you sneer. "Who cares what's politically safe?" Well, career politicians need to care what's politically safe. Maybe you had a crystal ball a year ago and knew that Bush's popularity was going to unravel about now, but it would have been bonehead for any prominent Democratic politician to make that assumption on faith. We don't want our friends and allies getting themselves thrown out of office for shooting off their mouths, to no useful purpose, at the wrong time.

You no-compromisers need to learn how politics works. You all remind me of the scene in Life of Brian when the Judean Peoples Front Crack Suicide Squad shows up, ostensibly to save Brian from crucifixion. But then they open panels in their breastplates and stab themselves through the heart in unison (crack suicide squad, y'see), saying with their dying breath, "That'll show 'em."

WORKED with Bush on Sierra Blanca.

And when Kerry and Gore criticized Bush on military strategy in Afghanistan, Dean backed up Bush AGAINST Gore and Kerry.

The Governor of Vermont and Maine struck a deal with Bush to dump nuclear hazardous waste in Texas. Now, it was up to Bush and the texas legislature to pick a site and that was Sierra Blanca, now can you PLEASE site a source or a quote in which Dean supported dumping nuclear waste in Sierra Blanca but also was aware of the dangers too.

And he LOVED to travel as governor and did so extensively. Why did he not think it an important trip to make to Texas to see WHERE he would be sending the waste and how the Vermont taxpayers' 23 million dollars would be spent by the gov. of Texas?

Especially when people like Wellstone warned of the dangers.

but I WANT A DEAN QUOTE, I want to know if he opposed it or supported it, but you can't give me either. I want to know what Dean was doing during that period, he may have or he didn't but who knows and I am waiting for a source. I searched for weeks and couldn't find anything to related.

blm is impervious to evidence and reasoning. :pals:

And SHOULD have known that people would be effected. A DOCTOR/Governor should have shown EXTRA concern than your average governor with NO expertise in health problems.

but we will never know unless we find out what he was doing that period. He may have shown concern, he may have urged Bush to move the sight, or he may have demanded they go with the nuclear waste dumping when they were stalling, he may have said "yes I support dumping nuclear waste 10 miles south of a hispanic community." but we will never know unless someone finds a source, quote, or something. It seems to me that you are jumping to conclusions with no official knowledge of Dean's position.

Jim Farrell gave for writing his piece "Dean is no Wellstone" if you recall. I lost that link with the lightning strike, but you should be able to locate it easily. The piece was discussed here alot at the time it came out.

Dean advocated sending nuclear waste from his state to the poor, mostly Hispanic town of Sierra Blanca, Texas. Wellstone called the proposal "blatant environmental injustice" and fought to delay the measure in the Senate. It ultimately passed but was later determined unsafe.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0523-03.htm

Well if he advocated it howcome I can't find any Dean quotes regarding the issue?

I worked for the Wellstone campaign, and support Dean...I'm sure Paul would vote for the Dem that get's the nod, whomever that may be. Let's keep that in mind when we talk about Paul Wellstone.

http://deandefense.org/archives/000017.html

don't live.

Sheesh.

Eloriel

Just to make sure ?

HAHAHAHA....yeah right.

I didnt realize that,

but I agree with attacking the terrorists.
And Afghanistan was were the terrorists were (and are).

I do believe Kerry & Gore agreed that attacking Afghanistan
was the right thing to do, as to the specifics war tactics-
I had problems too.

THE MAIN POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE -

Is way too many times the Democrats in Congress,
especially the so-called DEN leadership, sucks up
to Bush.

WHY ?

Bush was never elected.
Bush was appointed by a right-wing coup of
Conservative Supreme Court InJustices.
Bush planned this PNAC war YEARS AGO.

WHY ? JUST WHY IS NO DEMOCRAT LEADER UP SCREAMING,
AND SCREAMING OVER AND OVER ABOUT PNAC ?

escaped. This was a MAJOR failure, and Dean backed up Bush and I believe did so because he didn't want either Gore or Kerry to get traction from their criticism of Bush. THAT was political cravenness, imo. Dean was running from the center back then.

Dems backing Bush like that had EVERYTHING to do with the sky-high public opinion at that time of Bush's leadership.

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT SCREAMING OVER AND OVER IS GOING TO DO ANYBODY ANY GOOD??!! DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT SCREAMING WINS ELECTIONS OR POLITICAL DEBATES??!! DO YOU THINK THAT MOST VOTERS WILL WANT A PRESIDENT WHO SCREAMS ALL THE TIME??!!

Urk. Hurt my throat. Sorry about that, those of you who aren't fans of screaming.

article in an environmental publication in which the interviewer asked Dean why he supported Yucca Mountain when he was governor of Vermont . Dean said it made good sense when he was governor of Vermont but now that he was running for president, he'd have to re-think his position.

In other words, Dean didn't give a shit about what happened anywhere else when he was governor of Vermont. NIMBY to the max. Nice view for a DOCTOR to take.

And he told the same interviewer that AS A DOCTOR he thought GMOs were OK for people to eat. Newsflash: being an M.D. does not mean you know everything about science. M.D.s typically know very little about nutrition and even less about ecology.

Since then, of course, the DOCTOR has told us medical marijuana should be studied before he decides it's acceptable to give to the terminally ill or people suffering with chronic pain. The DOCTOR wants to know how it works, as if that mattered one whit, as if doctors didn't regularly prescribe medications whose precise mode of action is unknown.

Interestingly, I posted about that article here at DU and what people really attacked me for was that the article revealed that Dean drives an SUV. There were even more ardent Dean supporters here then (many of them have been banned since due to a penchant for personal attacks) and they hated having it revealed that their hero drives an SUV, excusing it because he has two kids who play hockey. They claimed Kerry drives one, too. That's when I realized that no one was allowed to post anything except positive press about DOCTOR Dean.

Amazing, and we have at least two current threads by Dean supporters complaining that DUers "bash" Dean too much, because we criticize his policies.

defeated the overtime bill. I feel your pain.

Kucinich is the last candiate you would call a Bush enabler.

on edit, never mind :D

and it aint Gep. Its Kucinich I am pretty sure. If anyone calls him(Kucinich) a bushite or enabler, watch out I am gonna squint my eyes lol.

...and that is: some Dems are actually working WITH the Bushies to hide the truth.

you r correct.

Some DEMs are indeed part of the coverup.

They do not want PNAC long planned war to be known
by the American public.



Lieberman is in on it. Why do you thin khe 'sat'
on the ENRON 'investigation'.

Lieberman had the power to subpoena, but he did not use it.

Lieberman 'covered' for Bush in ENRON,
and his own arse too.

Well said!

do.

their candidate doesn't get the nomination. Now those are the real Chimy enablers. Instead the same dead-ender, one-percenter my-way-or-the-losingway, self-absorbed, holier-than-thou BS.

edit: as a progressive, how is Clinton any better? It seems he's right up there on all those things, epecially Iraq.

Puzzles me as much as the other angry purist here who supports Al Gore, of all people.

Dean called for impeachment? When Bush ordered the troops to attack Iraq, why did Dean immediately make a statement about how he SUPPORTED the "commander in chief" now that troops were in the field?


Dennis Kucinich made a statement the day war began (March 19, 2003), but it's very different from Howard Dean's.

Edit: Added URLs.

Dennis Kucinich's website:
http://www.kucinich.us

Dennis Kucinich's Statements:
http://www.kucinich.us/statements.htm#031903

Congressman Kucinich issued the following statement upon the American attack against Iraq:

"This is a sad day for America, the world community, and the people of Iraq. Tonight, I hope and pray for the safe return of our troops and the end to this unjustified war."

"President Bush has launched an unprovoked attack against another country. Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the United States or any of its neighboring nations. Iraq was not responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. Tonight, President Bush has commanded U.S. forces to go to war in violation of American traditions of defensive war that have lasted since George Washington. This war is wrong; it violates the Constitution and international law."


It's too bad our media rarely covers Kucinich's statements, don't you think?
Too bad, and revealing.