Think carefully, NH Democrats

Long ago I made the decision that I would not vote for a member of Congress who had supported the war in Iraq or he Patriot Act. I've been surprised at how easily people are forgiving the andidates who did that.

But I must ask you to think. Dring any debate with Mr,. Bush, all he has to say is "why did you vote for it then?" No matter what Mr Kerry says in response, all Bush must do is keep repeating that question a thousnd times and it WIKK stick. It will give the appearance that he cannot stan up for what he believes in.

I'm only asking that you give careful consideratioon of th electabiliy of the candidate ou choose. Thanks

I don't remember it exactly, but it was along the lines of deciding to place trust and respect in the office of the Presidency, only to later be betrayed by the actions of Bush. I believe that was one of the "Miserable Failures" that Gephardt liked to talk about. :-)

Anyway, whether you agree with the sentiment or not, find it naive or not, I think it is one that will appeal to a lot of Americans who likewise wanted to trust Bush, but later found they were betrayed.

--Peter

Decorum and respect for the President required that trust. No matter what simian happened to be occupying the chair at the time.

For chrissakes, he's a Republican with a bunch of Stormtroopers for a Cabinet. TRUST HIM????

What happened to his "decorum and respect for the President" then?

I voted for the process. I was going to rely on proof of WDM. A real proof, not a miserable excuse from Africa. I am certainly glad that the Saddem regime is over and what's done is done. But this is not our land, it is not even in our neighborhood. I know that the neighbors are glad that we removed the bully, but now it is time for that neighborhood to regroup. We can offer our advice, but it is their game now. And the Iraqis should determine the government that best fits their culture, their beliefs, their life style, even if it is one of ayatollahs.

You can turn it around. Where Bush says: Since two thirds of Americans do support the war in Iraq - they do - doesn't your objection suggest that you do not represent the majority of Americans? Do you really think that we would have been better off with Saddam and his two psychopath sons still in power?

Its not a matter o whethr we're better of with or without Saddam. My only point is tht Kerry's nquestioning vote for the war and for the Patriot Act, which of course, he must miniimalize to get acceptance from hisbase who mostly did not accept the war, can only make him look wishy-washy. I think Sentorial representatives of the PEOPLE need to base their votes on more than "respect for the office o president". That answe just does not wash. How could they have been betrayed? Senate leaders like Kerry didn't have access to the most secret information? I'm pretty sure they did; the judgement was their own and they must live with it.

http://www.wewantwes.com/wesismore.htm

he's also a Washington outsider with a strong, national grassroots movement!

Here's hoping we (or they I should say) really do select the best one to stand toe to toe with Bush in November, rather than listen to all this media spin, it's digusting....hmmm, who'd the media gives it's money to anyway?

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

He's opposed to the patriot act.

Americans are voting on myriad issues. Don't get stuck on the war resolution vote. Think carefully about who will make the best candidate in the GE, and who will be the best President?

Who can win? Think long and hard.

www.johnedwards2004.com

Sorry, I'm just a little funny that way, what with civilians dying needlessly and the UN Charter in shreds.

Call it a quirk.

In the real America, as opposed to the democratic nuts like us who haunt these pages, Clark has the easiest win - Americans love their Generals. But I think Edwards has a heck of a good chance, doo.

and that answer will resonate with a lot of Americans who believed that Saddam had WMDs because of SOTU etc etc

They may not use the 'lie' word, but they will go thru the whole sordid mess. It will not be pretty for GWB

Oh, and so you just vote the way someone else tells you to? You don't bothe to check the information for yourself?

You have the CIA, G2, the entire U.S. military and I have my staff. So which of us is supposed to have the correct and up-to-date information on Iraq, you or me? I don't think it's unreasonable for a United States Senator to take the word of a United States President on matters of national security. And if I'm wrong about that, which one of us is more to blame - you for putting out false and misleading information, or me and seventy-six other senators for accepting it?

Then He Doesn't Deserve to Be President"

(Why in the world, and how in the world, would they be expected to double-check intelligence reports? Create the Senate Information Agency and put spies in place in Iraq? . . . sorry Bush won't say that.)

Edit punctuation

He insists he wasn't mislead and stands by his vote.

-------------------
MATTHEWS: Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3131295&p1=0

and why he could never be my #1.

If he had stood up against the war, I could be a supporter. But I don't want another four years of military adventurism under a Democratic president.

I'm not singling Edwards out. Half of Congress is in the same boat. But I really, really want an alternative to bipartisan jingosim.

You can't turn this arguement around! You voted, and that is it!

And yes, they should say that word in describing bush, EVERY TIME THEY GET THE CHANCE. Twice per sentence, maybe. 10 times per minute. It not only has to be said, it has to be repeated. MULTIPLE TIMES.

And in debate, whoever it is needs to look bush straight in the face and say "because YOU lied to me. You LIED to all of America."

Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Iraq War. He did not vote against the Medicare reform legislation or the omnibus spending bill which eliminated overtime pay for some workers. Kerry has even opposed increasing the minimum wage.

When the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, Kerry said that he was "delighted with seeing an institutional shake-up because I think we need one."

Kerry has utterly failed to show leadership in opposing the right-wing agenda. We need someone with integrity, brains, determination and guts to lead the Democratic party. The last thing we need is someone with a record of abjectly appeasing the Republicans.

There are many voters who are opposed to the policies of the Bush Administration - if we nominate Kerry, they will have no genuine alternative to vote for .

I am certain that the vast majority of people currently supporting Kerry have no idea of his terrible record against the Republicans.

ditto, ditto

Or for that matter the simplistic arguments and unsubstantiated attacks, from both of you.

Help me here because if I am incorrect in remembering that Mr. Kerry voed for the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq, I would rally like to know. I have no interest in spreading false stories about anyone. But I do THINK I remember that he has mostly grabbed his ankles for Bush and company for the last three years. Do inform me.

Kerry is exactly who the WH wants to run against, because he's agreed with the 54% of the time. Go figure, huh. A Dem that agrees with our current Neo-Con President? He won't ever get my vote or any of my money. If we start having "compromise candidates" like Kerry running, it's no wonder that Bush will get re-elected.

He has lots of ammo re foreign policy, natl security, economy, etc.

%100

I'd much prefer that dilemma than facing the charge of being a loose cannon who lacks the psychological stability to be president. That is one charge that will be heck to answer.

Kerry's voting record may be a challenge; I don't know. One thing for certain--his stability, constancy, and character won't be. And that's the key factor for me.

But blissfully, we don't have that problem because I think both Clark and Edwards can do better on both fronts.

Dunno about you, but I want a smart president.

On the way there, GLW, Kerry will make mincemeat of Shrub, too.

:shrug: :puffpiece: :nuke: