I voted for Bush in 2000; now I'm a Democrat... Here's why

I write this as the tide is once again turning against the party in power. It's a predictable event in American politics. The party in power rapes and abuses the American people and is brought down by a sea of indignant voters who are tired of the status quo. I've always tried to go against that red tide: I voted for Perot in '92 and '96. I honestly didn't like Bill Clinton because I didn't consider him a fiscal conservative. I voted for GwB in 2000 because I liked his rhetoric about "cleaning up Washington" and "stopping the partisanship". I didn't like the scene in Washington, DC in the late 90's. Unfortunately, that scene was created mostly by hysterics echoing from the conservative side of the aisle. I didn't really give a shit about Clinton's BJ; I mostly cared about the bullshit I listened to on the radio. A radio, I might add, that was bought, owned, and controlled by conservative interests.

Well, I'm here to admit that I was wrong, and that I will probably vote with the giant wash of voters turning out to turn aside this corrupt House of Representatives, Senate, and White House. I will actually welcome a Democratic majority. The last six years have been a tiring, burdensome time filled with fear, loathing, and incredulity for the current administration. "A nightmare" is how one of my best conservative friends explains it. And yet I still fear for what will happen if the Democrats take power:

-- Will we try to seize power by impeaching Bush?
-- Can we stop the corruption in Washington, even if it means indicting some of our own?
-- Will Kerry's plea to "stay the course until Iraq is stable" be heard? (Gawd, I hope not)
-- Rove: should he be indicted or deported? I'm deadly serious on this one.
-- Leak control: will we find out exactly how Valerie Plame was outed? Will we punish the perpetrators?
-- An open government: should our new, democratically elected Congress pass laws to require open meetings in the Executive branch of our gov't?
-- Can we create a Foreign Policy that is strong but diplomatic? (I'm the most hopeful with this one)

What the last 6 years have shown me is a corrupt, money-hungry party who will stop at nothing to stay in power. And I won't be a part of it. Should the Democrats morph into the same monster, I will have the same opposition to their tyranny.

I am a registered Democrat - for now. I'm waiting to see if the last six years taught us anything. If not, then I'll probably be swinging back across the aisle (at least for a short time).


Signed,
Joe in Idaho.

But I will still say........Welcome to DU!

We need voices like yours...

People like yourself who have crossed the aisle and are now telling us what motivated you in the past, to vote for Bush .......

You can really provide needed illumination as to where the country has gone wrong.

Thank you for this beautifully stated thread!

And again........Welcome!

:patriot:

:hi:

And hopefully, I can be an example of how things can turn around. It's been a long strange trip (to quote a man far more wise than I).

:hi:

Do you have any feel at all for how things are shaping up in Idaho?

It is normally such a red state.......

:hi:

and has a VERY VERY good chance of beating the far-right wing anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-flag burning conservative.

We could have the first Idaho Democrat at the national level in 12 years. Even the Republicans I know love Grant.

http://www.grantforcongress.com/

He's gotten some help, I think, from Dean's 50 state initiative, but the race is ignored by most serious pols. If think if things are close nationally, this race could make a huge difference.

Thanks for the link.......

Do you have a family that is mostly conservative? And at family meetings, did you all gang up on the sole non-Republican relative in the family? And if you did, could you do me a favor and call that person up and tell her that you're really, really sorry for causing her such emotional upset and turmoil in her marriage?

Thanks.

Although he considers himself a christian conservative, the environment trumps all in his mind. He considers his religion personal, and the environment the government's job to clean up.

I would guess my family is split 50/50 Dem/Rep, with most of us squarely in the middle. Political debates get pretty heated at the dinner table, but it's a good kind of heated. At least every one in my family is passionate about it, and do their part by voting.

You have decided it is in your interest to learn the truth of the matter by paying closer attention. You would never have voted for Bush* if you had tried even a little to learn of his past and how he governed Texas and operated his businesses. He was a failure at everything he ever ventured into. He was and is a mean vindictive man and a showpiece for Republicanism. We have no qualms about bringing down any Democrat if they have been found to be corrupt and operating against the people. I don't consider getting a blowjob an example of corruption. I am very glad you are waking up to some important realities and hope you become and stay informed as best you can. It is after all your civic duty. Every American has a duty to safeguard their country by keeping informed and holding their representatives accountable. That duty has been sadly lacking in america for many many years and what we currently have is an example of it. Glad to have you on board just hope it is not too late...

Especially fiscal conservatives whether Democrats or Republicans.

To me fiscal conservatives would still advocate dismantling the social safety net if needed

and the poor, disabled, elderly, unemployed get adversely affected by this dismantling. People such as you enabled the Bush regime. Now that they have gone too far you come here.

Welcome to DU. Even Pharoah's wife got welcomed by Moses as they left Egypt.

If you go back to the Republican party then you had made a temporary exit out of the Republican party to avoid the association with a party of social criminals and sociopaths.

I still see your motivation as wanting your own personal monetary gain but the stench in the Republican party just got too strong. Yes, we have fiscal conservatives in our party too and they would throw the poor under the bus with the best of the Republicans.

Bill Clinton signed that meanspirited welfare bill into law hectored by a mean spirited Republican congress. Other than that, he apeared a very good President. As for you I don't know what secific views you had on that welfare law or the Republicans staunch opposition to raise the minimum wage for 10 years and their support for companies to hire cheap labor.

As I said I have mixed views.

The poor, disabled, unemployed, etc. should be the first ones the government spends it's money on. As a business owner, I understand about good investments and bad investments. Even though it has helped my own pocketbook, I think that taxes need to be raised for the upper classes so that we can pay for all the bad fiscal decisions made over the last 26 years. I also think that the minimum wage should be raised to at least 10$/hr (or even 12$ per hour). The amount of money spent on the lowest ends of the wage scale is miniscule compared to the amount spent on middle, upper, and top-tier management (especially the ridiculous CEO salaries, benefits, golden parachutes, etc.)

I had mixed feelings about the welfare bill - if I'd had a vote, I probably would have voted against it, simply because of the number of people in extreme poverty that needed it. The welfare system was bloated, but it would have been better to provide some real education or alternative remedies rather than just killing the system. Unfortunately, a lot of the people who got screwed the most by the bill are voting Republican because of meaningless wedge issues.

Just so you know, by "going back to the other side of the aisle" means that I would vote for a Republican if I thought they were the best, most honest candidate. I'm tired of sheisters running my country. I will never again be a Republican. I've admitted my mistake, and have atoned. I put my money and time where my mouth is; I strongly and vocally supported Kerry (in a state where it didn't really matter), even though I didn't think he was the best Democratic candidate.

My huge issue is actually fixing the wretched state of the health care system in the U.S. The first candidate for President that has a reasonable and attainable Universal Health Care plan is going to get my full support in the 2008 elections.

The goal of many of us is to move the Democratic party in this direction. Some may call it "left" but I think it is in the direction of a politics that is responsive to the needs of the working people of this country. I think that you can feel very comfortable among us. :toast:

That's a fine example of how to turn people away from the party. Why would you accuse the OP of having greedy motivations? What in the world is your goal?? Here's my opinion on that kind of attitude: Who needs people in the party who push others away???? If people start to see the Democrats as their party of choice by all means BRING EM ON and for Pete's sake, don't act snobby and self-righteous.

Nobody needs to pass yours or anyone else's ideological smell test in order to vote for a Democrat. It's not a clique or a club. We all get out of it what we get out of it. My reasons for voting Democratic may be different from yours and too bad for you if you don't like my reasons.

The bottom line is: do you want people to vote Dem or not? If yes, it's probably best not to admonish and/or act holier than those who want to switch parties. It will turn people off. Hell, it turns me off to see that kind of attitude from Dems and I've voted 100% Democratic candidates my entire life.

That kind of attitude absolutely maddens me.

I'm a fiscal conservative, and I advocate for a strong social safety net.

Wanna know how my math adds up?

Cut defense contracting severely.

Defense contractors are a self-perpetuating cancer in our body politic. A total waste of money that do nothing but make other countries angry at us and rightfully give the impression that we are interested solely in military domination of any potential foreign opposition.

We have amassed so much firepower that it will take a decade for any nation to keep up, and that's if we stop dead in our tracks (fat chance).

So keep up R&D for worthwhile defense measures, but no more crusaders, no more mini-nukes, no more missile defense, no more money wasting unusable bullshit.

That's exactly what fiscal conservatives are for! The amount of money we spend on defense (and especially the war in Iraq) could save a lot of people's lives. A Universal Health Care plan would be a good start.

A lot of people brought into Bush's message and have realized that he is a terrible President. As for Bush 2004 voters...I'm willing to forgive them, but not with the same enthusiasm as for those who only voted for him in 2000. The worst Bush 2004 voters are those who voted for GORE in 2000 and switched.

Even though I'm in Idaho (where a vote one way or the other doesn't really matter all that much), I did vote for Bush in 2000, which lays at least a bit of the responsibility for his reign on my head.

The story about 655,000 dead Iraqi's really brings home the monster I helped to create...

:) & thanks for your story, it's really interesting and heartening.

STILL were the Party of Greed.

It's amazing how much we have in common:

Defending the Constitution
Right to privacy
Deficits
Oversight of war expenditures
Honest elections
Separation of church and state

We are in synch on all of these and more.

Which surprisingly seems to fit more with Democrats than it does with sleazy lower-taxes-raise-the-budget Republicans.

Fiscal responsibility is a huge problem facing both parties, but ESPECIALLY the Republicans.

them most. The budget deficit (which BTW now does not include war costs) is a huge issue for us. Welcome. You belong here.

people while giving humongous tax breaks to companies whose addresses are PO boxes in the Cayman Islands and/or that ship jobs overseas.

Lower taxes — yes, but do it responsibly
Sticking it to the little guy — NO!
Free ride for multibillion $ corporations — HELL NO!

liberal but fiscally conservative. I believe that government has a strong role to play in leveling the playing field and protecting the most vulnerable, but the fact is that msot of our deficits are run up shoveling goodies to those who already have more than their share. The tax burden has been shifted downward, toward those less able to pay. ALso, when government services are cut, we end up paying for them in other ways--and usually at higher cost, with even more waste and corruption.

Think about how Halliburton and its subsidiary KB&R have engaged in war profiteering, making billions off Iraq by taking no-bid contracts to supply our troops, but then either not supplying them, or supplying them with inedible food and contaminated water. We did not save money by privatizing such government responsibilities as supplying our troops.

We also saved nothing by contracting security out to companies like Blackwater. Their employees make a bundle each day, but are not subejct to military control or legal repurcussions when they commit crimes. We also end up risking troops to protect them.

Even here at the local level, families are paying in fees far more than they save in taxes when subsidized government services, like buses for schoolchildren, are cut.

The people benefiting most from booshit's tax cuts most likely made their money on the backs of the poor. Health care for all benefits all of us, education for all benefits all of us, a clean environment benefits all of us - the list goes on....

Glad you are with us now!

"Common sense Government". The repugs talk about "fiscal conservatism", but all they really mean is cutting all funding for small programs they dislike (education, healthcare, PBS, etc.) and pumping billions into programs that they PERSONALLY profit from (Halliburtan, KB&R). They lower THEIR taxes while spending like drunken sailors on crack with a million limitless credit cards. It's all just another GOP sham based entirely on rhetoric; there's not an ounce of truth behind it.

At least you are enlightened, and for that we are both grateful. And what the hell kind of radio were you listening to, Rush?
I am now a registered Dem because I voted in the primary but prior to that I was an independent.
I live in TX so I knew the blivet was going to be bad news. My 78-year old dad had many more fears at the time; he was talking poor houses which certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility.
We have to and will do better when we get the majority. I've seen the votes for years. Have faith, and thanks for being here.

But locally there were at least two radio hosts who fed my conservatism, while at the same time ignoring the blatant hypocrisy of the "party of Lincoln". It took 9/11 and Iraq to make me realize what a greedy bunch of bastards the Republicans really are. The scandals involving prominent conservatives since then has only solidifed my belief that switching to the Democratic party was the right thing to do.

I wouldn't call myself enlightened; more like educated and involved.

I think in some places there is no where to turn but r/w stations, so that's what people get, thus influencing their opinions. I'm glad you 'escaped'!
Great post, thanks, and I hope you aren't a stranger to this board!

:thumbsup:

:toast:

:hi:

:yourock:


This is a world-class testimonial! I'm DELIGHTED you're here with us!!! In one relatively brief post you've proved yourself to be a far bigger man than little junior will EVER be. He'll never, ever admit he did anything wrong. I appreciate your perspective, as one who never could figure out what anybody ever saw in that schmuck.

I hope we do take back the House, and that John Conyers, installed as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, starts IMPEACHMENT proceedings, because you're either FOR accountability or you're not. I'd like to see a woman as Speaker of the House. The men have had their shot at it long enough. As for rove, I wouldn't mind seeing him deported. I'd send him to Baghdad, far outside the Green Zone, or directly to Abu Ghraib. Unless, of course, you consider one of those delightful "extraordinary rendition" vacation spots... NOTHING but the best for ol' kkkarl.

Your post has been one of the highlights of my evening, along with savoring another great Olbermann, and - as I'm writing this, Messers Stewart and Colbert. Thank you for your thoughts, your ideas, and your candor, and CERTAINLY thank you for your enlightenment! I just hope we deserve it. Mighty glad you're here!

I agree: Abu Ghraib for Rove, Democrats in '06 and '08, and Olbermann rules! I watch only three news shows. Countdown, the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report.

:toast:

see my post #67.

BTW..

I love Keith as much as you do. I plan my night around him. I give him my time because he reachies our standards. Noone else is seriously worth our time except for maybe a little peak into the twilight zone of the MSM. Keith will benefit for doing such a damn good job, as he should. I'll give the orignial poster this, dem or repug, that's American!

sweet post, yourself, Calimary!

:yourock:

Yeah, the Dem party has its issues, but what on earth good have you seen come out of the Republican party lately? It's a toxic group which dupes conservative people, evangelical Christians and everyone else into voting for them, and they give them nothing but "wedge issues" and grief in return. How bad does it have to get before you say you'll never sign on with that crap again? No offense intended, but I just don't get that type of thinking.

Right now, there is NOTHING that could make me switch back. But... if the Democratic party were to become entrenched in their power, and abusive of the American people, I would switch sides in a second. Wouldn't you?

I don't give a shit about wedge issues. I care about which party is most responsible, cares the most about the citizenry, and can get along with it's foreign policy. There is NO DOUBT in my mind right now which party would be best at that.

And you are right: Republican Party = Toxic.

name on the ballot! And I would never register as a republican! EVER!. But that's just me. :shrug:

Absolutists and fundamentalists go hand in hand.

Answer me this: if an honest moderate Republican that matched a lot of your beliefs were running against a corrupt Democratic candidate who matched all your beliefs, you'd vote for the Dem?

I guess you didn't get it...

If the Dems became as corrupted as the current administration, going back to the repukes would be jumping out of frying pan into the fire. Are you saying that you are basically a republican in every respect except you are very dismayed at what Bush is doing to our country/true conservatism? Because if that's the case, stick with your people and use your energies to dispel corruption. If on the other hand you truly care about freedom, equality, support for the poor and disenfranchised; if you don't wish to control who marries who and aren't interested in pejoratively labeling people based on their sexual orientation, religion or other beliefs; if you care about the world community and its people, and not just about Americans and whether they can afford to take their Disneyland vacation next year or not... well, then, stick with us and help us keep our party clean. You really can't be both a dem and a repuke. Our values differ, vastly.

is that I'm a Democrat. Pejoratives aside, people like myself can and will control the next election. I will stick with the Dems forever... unless they become corrupt and abusive like the R's...

I still don't understand why you'd fly from one corrupt party to another, unless you're assuming the next generation of republicans (happier?) will somehow be different from the bunch currently in office. We can only hope so, whether they're in power or not. Anyhow, don't take offense. I just don't get, quite, what you're saying.

one party can take for granted our votes anymore

Guess what? "Payback's a bitch" (as my old gramps used to say). This is the most irresponsible bunch of politicians I've ever seen. My 9 year old son could run the government more efficiently than these oafs - and I'm not kidding.

I've been studying the costs of moving all American households over to solar/wind/renewable energy resources, and I'll be posting on it soon. What's scary is that the cost of all these goddamn wars would almost cover price of the switchover!

renewable energy resources...now there's a positive topic...

-- Will Kerry's plea to "stay the course until Iraq is stable" be heard? (Gawd, I hope not)

"We need to finish what we started"
"Let's keep the troops there until the situation stabilizes"
etc., etc., etc.

It's only recently that he's grown some cajones and has called for a time table for troop withdrawal. Even then, he seems to want to keep our boys there. We need to fight that viewpoint with every voice we have. I'm not sure he even understands that the job will never be finished, and I fear that if Dems take control, that his viewpoint will be heard and legitimized by other Dems. We need to get the fuck out - the sooner the better.

Don't get me wrong. I voted for Kerry. I think that Kerry would have been a 5000% better president than GwB. But his view that we should stick around until "things are under control" is very wrong.

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

Keep defending him.

Kerry decided that being against the war was politically safe, and sponsored a bill to pull the troops, knowing that it had a snowball's chance in hell. Where was his opposition in 2004 when it mattered?

in September 2004. Remember that this was a year and 5 months into the war. Even then he was NOT backing staying on Bush's course. He was speaking then that there would be some withdrawals in 2005. The first thing he said he would do was a regional summit, which could leverage the desire of neighboring countries to have a stable Iraq. He wanted elections and formation of a government that respected the rights of the minority people.

In 2004, there was still a chance to stabalize Iraq and reduce long term chaos - there was no one for abruptly leaving.

His October 2005 plan (which was conceptly similar to the July 06 plan) was an exit plan well before the majority of people were for exiting. You say both that Kerry and Feingold had a plan that didn't have a snowballs chance in Hell AND that it was done because it was politicly safe. Explain why only 13 Senators were brave enough to vote for this politically safe plan. You can't make both claims because they are logically inconsistent.

Oh, and as to Snow Balls chance in Hell - it led to a discussion which has moved the concensus. Did you know the summit piece from Kerry's amendment is now included BY VOICE VOTE in the defense bill. (This was in Kerry's plans in 2004, 2005 and 2006) Kerry put out a comprehensive, well thought out plan - as even Senator Warner, Chairman of the Armed Services committee said.

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

listening about 2 years ago or more. Except for Feingold (which who he agrees and who co-sponsored with him quite a few bill these last few months on international issues), he is one of the most starch supporters in the Senate of a deadline in Iraq.

Actually Kerry agrees with you on many of the points you make. You definitively have the wrong impression.

If that's what you think you're hearing from Kerry, either you haven't been listening for OVER A YEAR - or there's something seriously wrong with the wiring between your ears and your brain.

You can't watch that documentary and not wonder what the hell was going through his little mind.

I still wonder what the hell is going through his head - he is a pea-brained idiot...

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

"g'foolma kengeh fooageen"

:spray:

For all of the reasons stated before me.
But I have one question about this item in your list:

-- Will we try to seize power by impeaching Bush?

We can only impeach after gaining power. Impeachment is not a coup, it is a legal remedy guaranteed to the people by the Constitution. The republicans abused it badly with Clinton. Bush and his cronies are begging for it.

Why not keep him around and show people how he DOESN'T work in a non-partisan matter? If we impeach him, we only put Cheney into power, and how can that be better?

They may be begging for it, but once we have control of the legislative branch of gov't, there isn't a damn thing he can do. We impeach Bush next year, and the chickenshit Republicans will find any reason to impeach the next Democratic president.

Do I think Bush is a criminal? YES
Do I think that the Bush White House harbors other criminals? YES
Do I think we should wait until he is out of power to put him in jail? YES

We'll have plenty of time to clean house once we win back the presidency in '08. That will begin a time of healing for the country. God knows we need it...

First, impeachment is "about us," not them or where the chips may fall. If we fail to accuse, remedy, and punish when warranted, we are complicit with the perpetrators and/or derelict in our patriotic duty.

Second, there is no reason not to impeach both the bushkid and cheney in the exact same articles. Frankly, I don't see how you could separate their culpability anyway.

Ideally, the Dems would have been demanding impeachment long before now (as many of us have been begging them to do), then "seizing power by non-electoral means" would not be an issue as Hastert would have been elevated (and still could be I suppose).

But impeachment will still be necessary if the Dems take the congress. No one I know has proposed a "magic potion" to circumvent "rule by signing statement."

And that is the simple reality; that any law or court ruling is just "words on a page" to this never-elected, never-legitimate neofascist regime. They've made no secret that they see might as right, violence as a panacea, and no limit to what is rationalizable under Urinary Authoritarian Executive theory**.

I would also take issue with having "plenty of time" to do the right thing. Lives are being lost continuously.

Even now we have talk of needed change from Gen. Pace ("informal review") to John Warner (not working - but 2 or 3 months, we'll see) to James Baker (commission findings after election) and we're left to speculate on how many must die to preserve the maximum Republican power in DC.

Everybody knows there are impeachable offenses, war crimes, and policy failures. I see no moral justification to delay whatever opposing action, short of physical violence, that is available to us.

I wish I could offer you some hope that the Dems among the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy will finally wise up to reality and begin to do what they know is right. I really can't because I only harbor enough to keep myself going.

All I can say is that many of us are working to this end, and I know of no better, more effective use of our efforts.

But in any case, welcome aboard.

----
**Based on the newly-discovered, "inherent" (i.e., faith-based) Constitutional Authority for an appointed ruler (as opposed to elected leader) to piss down the back of the American People and tell them it's raining.

--

will be impeached - preferably sooner than later. They have committed crimes and need to be removed from office. The rule of law needs to be reestablished to stabilize not only our country but assist in stabilizing our credibility in the rest of the world.

Its not a choice IMO.

...for reasons I cited in post #48 downthread.

"The rule of law needs to be reestablished to stabilize not only our country but assist in stabilizing our credibility in the rest of the world."

Impeachment has to be attempted, even if we know it will fail, as a gesture to the rest of the world. This isn't just about internal politics, it's about our standing in the world community.

And then, following the line of succession, can you say President Pelosi? The speaker of the house is third in line.

by me. Or Speaker Conyers.

what I was going to say...so ditto :thumbsup:

Impeachment is a legal remedy for criminal acts. We need to know What Happened Here. Dems would be too passive not to go for impeachment.

It's about moral and civic rule of law, accountability, responsibility, truth, and justice. No power play, just instant karma.

...a lot of people will see it that way. I don't think ignoring the political reality serves any purpose. Does the motherfucker deserve to be impeached? Hell yes. But I simply don't see a groundswell of support for impeachment. And I really don't see a groundswell of support for the phrase "President Richard Cheney" either, which is what we will have if Bush goes, for whatever reason, before 2009.

They're mighty pissed for a myriad of reasons. Cheney isn't blameless and if we can impeach them both then Pelosi steps up to the plate. Stranger things have happened in the world of politics.

...and where it is directed, and why.

We're getting a lot of support from across the asile right now for several reasons. The first is the terrible reality that the war in Iraq is going very badly. The second is the Republicans on Capitol Hill have fouled their own nest to an almost unprecedented extent on everything from Abramoff to DeLay to Foley. The third is a general feeling, mainly from fiscal conservatives, that the unbalance of power in Washington is extremely damaging to fiscal restraint.

But one thing that a lot of these people aren't angry about is Bush's abuse of power. That is why things like the torture bill are still passing with vaguely bipartisan support. It is why nothing is really being done about Bush's abuse of signing statements. It is why things like the Downing Street memo don't generate outrage consumate with their actual outrageousness.

The wrath many of these people are feeling is directed at failure of policy from the President, and failure of ethics from Congress. On the first point, which is the important one when discussing impeachment, I think the simplest way to explain it is this: People are not mad at the president because the war was conducted illegally. They are made because we are losing. And that is a very important difference when you're talking about impeachment. Unless there is broadly founded bipartisan wrath regarding Bush's illegal activities then there is no political foundation for impeachment. And regardless of whether or not he deserves to be impeached, if that political foundation doesn't exist, then he isn't going to be impeached. No majority Democratic congress is going to do something so risky, and potentially damaging, without a broad base of public support. Unless that wrath translates into a desire for impeachment, then he won't be impeached. That's the fundamental reality of the situation as I see it.

that this is where the legislators are now, today. But were the DEMs to get into power and the actual documentation were to hit the MSM about the Downing Street Memo and *co illegal power grabs for the executive branch - I think the groundswell would carry both sides of Congress towards impeachment.

The sheeples have been left in the dark and my hope is that a DEM majority would begin to open some to the awful truth that our beloved Constitution has been severely damaged by the work of this administration.

We will just need to wait and watch how it plays out. I don't see how we can set a precedent for ignoring these crimes. My fear is that if we do, it will happen again.

Fundamentally, I think most people don't understand the constitution well enough to understand why what Bush has done is so damaging. And I also think a lot of them don't care. And many buy his Nixonian the-president-can't-break-the-law bullshit. There's hope for the first group, but little for the other two.

in your pessimism if we don't get the majority we need in November. Getting people to understand can only come if the election mandate is there for the MSM to sit up and take notice... that and legislation limiting the number of war profiteers comprising the board of directors of MSM. :)

With 1/3 of the population suspecting the pRresident was involved in 911 LIHOP/MIHOP, more than 1/2 believing we were lied into a war of choice, and the world acting as witness to the apathy exhibited before, during and after Katrina, a moral outrage is palpably simmering under the surface.

With Democratic control of Congress and subpoena power to conduct the investigations the Pugs have consistently blocked, the dam will break, the public will be brought up to speed very quickly regarding the DSM, wiretapping, torturing, signing statements, abuse of power, etc. and the moral outrage will grow exponentially not only for the failed policies but also the lack of ethics of the entire GOP.

When the time comes, public support will be there.

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

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

of reporting on what the public actually thinks and feels in the MSM, the support may already be there. The polling right now paints one picture but the journalists are behind on reporting on the story behind the polls.

60+ think the Iraq War is failing. Where are the stories to back that up? How are the troops' families responding to this news? Who is the Iraq War effecting adversely - what business sectors? What do veterans think about it esp the Gulf War 1 vets?

In the old days, these stories would have been constant or at least weekly. I haven't seen one per month. With the boards of every major news/media outlet saturated with war profiteers - this news is shied away from. My point being - we have no idea what WE the People is thinking as its not being reported... yet.

For Immediate Release: October 11, 2005

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org. The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, a non-partisan polling company.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-1

And that was a YEAR ago! How many more people would “Agree” since Woodward’s State of Denial hit the stands and rose to #1 at Amazon in no time flat? The “political reality” clearly points to support of impeachment whether you want to believe it or not.

First rule of being informed is not to believe anything you see on TV (except John Stewart!)

Peace

what should be tens of millions of Republicans who have seen the very foundation of Democracy be crapped on in the name of power and secrecy and personal advancement and lies. For what? It's just not American to be a Republican. The thing that saddens me most is that it will take so many years to fix the problems caused by Republicans. They have even abused people of true faith, let alone the tens of thousands of wounded military who will live out their lives fighting for disability benefits. My dad has been a Republican all his life, but has always hated the lies of the Bush family (the first one too). He was still considering voting Republican until the McCain statement on North Korea.

Republicans will lie about anything, allow the exploitation and abuse of children, shuffle tens of billions of dollars to their cronies, and blame anyone besides themselves. A true American take responsibility for their actions and their country. They don't steal votes or throw obstacles in the way of people trying to participate in our Democracy. I'm ashamed to live in a country where I am forced to question the allegiance of Republicans to the USA and its' Democracy and all that that means, but it's a Patriot's responsibility to speak out and dissent and they are NOT dragging my country into a deeper hole of greed, corruption, lies, and disdain and abuse of the people of this country.

The future of this country depends on voting Democrat, for foreign policy, defense and security reasons alone. I may think that holding impeachment hearings or prosecuting the dozens of criminals at this time because we really need to fix our foreign policy and defense tragedies right away, while throwing a lifeline to the millions who suffer needlessly in this country, but that gaping debt IS going to be fixed just a little by getting back that money that was given away to those people who make millions of dollars yet make smaller contributions to keeping this country alive than those who make 1/1000 of that money through hard work.

Welcome, Joe. Bring Mr. Smith with you to the voting booth.

-- Will we try to seize power by impeaching Bush?

Doubtful. Sure, our boys and girls will gladly run all his lesser minions and mercenaries out of Washington.

The Big Three will probably fall individually, by resignation. Rumsfeld is not going to survive the decision to withdraw from Iraq. Cheney can't handle Congressional scrutiny and full public revelation of what he really does or why.

Bush's fate has more to do with his constant rate of decline in solid support than any one particular effort against him, failure, or marginal crime. Sometime next spring that decline will cut into his last political bloc of support, the 24% hardcore conservatives (mostly Christian Right). Nixon resigned when his support fell to 23%- his last bloc of supporters were starting to give up their support of him, and that is simply fatal in national politics.

I think Bush will stay in office to the end, but he may have to bargain away his veto power to do so and be embarressed in the media just about daily. Power will go where it goes in the absence of a functional Presidency- to Congress, ironically.

-- Can we stop the corruption in Washington, even if it means indicting some of our own?

Well..there are plenty of Old Democrats we've lost out of the rear view mirror already. But Republicans brutally defunded Democrats during the past few years, and a lot of the people who do/did what they could as Democratic elected officials will want to make up for the relative poverty and deprivation they endured, unfortunately. That may sound namby pamby, but it's a class issue. Your average Congressman makes less than a half decent lawyer does for the time and work, but has to run multimillion dollar campaigns and offices and campaign teams, controls budgets averaging $500 million per House member- s/he's a CEO in all but name.

-- Will Kerry's plea to "stay the course until Iraq is stable" be heard? (Gawd, I hope not)

That's not going to happen, so it doesn't matter.

-- Rove: should he be indicted or deported? I'm deadly serious on this one.

He gets stupid people to act against their best interests. A public stoning seems the kind of thing that would be artistically appropriate, imho.

-- Leak control: will we find out exactly how Valerie Plame was outed? Will we punish the perpetrators?

I think it was as stupid as Richard Armitage says the whole thing was.

-- An open government: should our new, democratically elected Congress pass laws to require open meetings in the Executive branch of our gov't?

I'm in favor of some executive privilege. They'll always do stuff they're ashamed of secretly anyway.

-- Can we create a Foreign Policy that is strong but diplomatic? (I'm the most hopeful with this one)

The Republican political meaning of "strong" versus "weak" on foreign affairs, the military, and crime just concerns whether we do kill people we don't like or whether we don't kill them. This kind of "strong" is generally very cowardly- afraid and unwilling to sacrifice, without inner fortitude, without ability to endure strong adversity for long. It likes unfair fights and superior technology, e.g. bombing, and avoids capable or strong enemies. Courageous people let their opponents live and find virtue to a fair fight.

If you're using "strong" in the uncorrupted sense...well, we first have to reestablish the rule of law and meaningful citizenship in this country before we can demand good behavior by other countries. We've swung the pendulum of power very far toward Government/authoritarianism and away from Citizenship/real democracy. We look like a well armed banana republic to the rest of the world.

Yes, it's possible. But in a world that is increasingly 'flat' in an economic and social sense, being a respectible or superior entity within it has a lot to do with ability to (re)establish moral authority and being a society that is worth admiration and effort to imitate it. That doesn't mean that there won't be more warlets in the middle or near future- we still have to clean up a few remaining residues of the Cold War. We have to help beat down and topple a few more surviving Stalinisms that exist in the remains of the Soviet side- in Cuba, North Korea, Belarus, the Caucasus and Central Asia. And we have to protect progress toward democracy in the postcolonial world- in Afghanistan, subSaharan Africa, I/P, the Far East, Central America, Taiwan- which are the direct or indirect residues of the American/European side in the Cold War.

We need some REAL diplomacy from men and women who can make reasoned judgements and come to compromise. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld are not it.

IMO, what is most important for our foreign affairs is understanding and education. Once you remove GwB's puffed up chest from the equation, things become a bit easier.

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

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

Apparently, she has a better judgement.

This fuck-everyone-but-the-purists attitude doesn't help the party.

Happy he saw the light, but I am not going to fawn and say everything he says is right because of that.

I'm saying we need to be gentle with the newbies. :)

not with their personal attacks on others. especially when confronted with facts.

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

Tracking Kerry's position on the war is getting tiresome.

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

Did I make a mistake in 2000? Yes. Have a tried to remedy it? Yes. Will I be voting Republican anytime soon? No. Are you saying that my vote for Bush in 2000 taints me forever? If so, does that mean I'm not welcome in your eyes?

I should have moved to planet "FUCKING REALITY" before 2000. That was my entire point; I understand my mistakes and try to remedy them. If that makes you angry, well that's your problem and not mine. I hope to focus on positivity on '06 and '08. Thank god for the Ignore function.

the Democrats for a non-existing circumstance:



As you said in a previous thread:



Frankly, I'm glad you're going to vote for Democrats, more votes will increase the likelihood that the Repubs reign ends Nov. 7. Having said that, I don't get the impression that you believe there is any virtue in being a Democrat.

of being a Democrat. If I'm wrong, please let me know. If I'm not welcome, please let me know that also. It's important for the assholes to not take control from the assholes. Or for the assholes to take control from the assholes. Or...

Or am I being redundant.. or am I being redundant..

G'head, dig up all the "dirt" you want. I've been pretty consistent in my position, and VERY forthcoming about who I'm going to vote for in the next election.

live on "planet FUCKING REALITY" to justify criticizing the Democrats with a BS strawman argument 26 days before the election is not exactly redemptive!

exactly, and I'm sorry if I mischaracterized you.

Here's my take: haven't you ever criticised our leadership? Thought they weren't altogether hooked into reality? If not, great, but there aren't a lot of people in that boat. Personally, I'm not interested in individual purity or redemption. I know what I believe and if someone votes with me to oust these creeps, that's enough for me.

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

Kerry spoke out against the war before it started. The vote was in Oct 2002 - the war strated in March 2003. In between the inspectors were all over Iraq, found nothing and even got Saddam to destroy some missiles. Bush said in the weeks before the vote that the vote was not a vote for war, but a vote to show that the country was united behind Bush as he went to the UN.

Bush lied, Kerry admits he was wrong to trust Bush. The fact is Bush would have attacked with or without the IWR and the IWR would have passed without John Kerry's vote. At worse, Kerry made a judgement error trusting that the President would act as he promised. He did not EVER support going to war when Bush did - it did not meet his view of a just war.

He has worked as hard as anyone to push resolving the war.

It is, truly, the single most overriding cause of why the rich are also the powerful. The corporation being treated as a person, with all the inherent rights therein (excepting, thank every God ever worshipped, the right to vote) being bestowed upon them as if they were living, breating citizens has brough ruin to our country and the rest of the world as well.

IIRC, the SCOTUS even revisited the issue sometime in the seventies but actually refused to rule (again, IIRC) due to the potential economic impact a correct ruling would have. You'd have to know the history of the original ruling and its headnotes to understand that sentiment.

Learn the origins here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=corporate+personhood&btnG=Google+Search

Google of 'corporate personhood' without the quote.

and outright lies and find your way here. We`re not perfect, but we`re far from the wussy, terrorist-loving, freedom-hating tax-and-spenders you`ve heard so much about. Democrats prefer substance over icons, progress over phony backdrops.

A shining example of the image-maker`s foolishness is Bush`s "booming economy" crap. Someone should ask him how much American`s owe on their credit cards and how much our interest is on the national debt. Another example is the invasion of Iraq. Anyone who can look at that horrific mess and cheer about "staying the course" is just plain nuts.

Because regardless of what else happens, the War on Drugs will still be going forward.

As for Kerry, he is one of the few in the Senate who pushes to get out of Iraq,so your perception is at best a little bit outdated. Keeping up with info is necessary to make good decisions, so your lack of knowledge may explain your poor decision process.

... with you except I didn't feel that Clinton was a profligate spender, and you have to admit his Federal budget was the best of any recent president.

I share the undercurrent of worry that I see in your post. Fact is, the Republicans have created this mess but the Dems have done precious little to stop them.

Americans have traditionally voted to keep the Congress in the hands of the party that doesn't have the executive. They gave it all to the Republicans, and this is what happens. I suspect we'll be going back to the "split party" government now, and I'm not so sure that is a bad thing.

Right now, today (qualified because it could change before Nov) I think we'll take the house at the worst case, and maybe even the senate. Then we'll see just what Dems can do, because they won't be able to fall on that "we have no power" bullshit I've been hearing for 5 years now.

As for impeachment, I'm not even sure it would be worth it. With a Dem house, Bush will be a true lame duck and might simply implode from having to live in the real world for 2 years. I'd much rather see war crimes indictments (fully warranted) than impeachment.

Kerry. Isn't it obvious why?

we'll throw those bums out, too. But I'll worry about that after November.

"I'm waiting to see if the last six years taught us anything. If not, then I'll probably be swinging back across the aisle (at least for a short time)."

you're stuck in the two party paradigm. you haven't learned anything.

the lesson is: go with what's right. the republicans will never be right and the dems are, for the most part, only slightly better.

color me unimpressed with your conversion.

p.s.: anyone who could ever think bush was a better choice than gore is a really poor judge of character.

`all be primed for a new, Independent party LANDSLIDE.

The sole benefit of the Butch Presidency is that it's caused MILLIONS of Americans to pay attention to--if not get active in--US politics.

might have happened a couple years ago but not now. nobody who voted for this fuckwad is deserving of praise even if/when they 'see the light'

i could care less.

...people who voted for him in 2004, but I suspect that a lot of people were so used to peace & prosperity under Clinton that they didn't actually believe anybody could fuck that up. Definitely not to the extent W has. I have little sympathy for people who voted for him in 2004, knowing the shit that he was capable of.

education and abortion? How about civil rights and women's rights? Poverty? Mental institutions? 'Illegal' (repug term) immigrants? The environment?

"I honestly didn't like Bill Clinton because I didn't consider him a fiscal conservative."

Is it really mostly about money for all of you mainstream republicans? I'm just asking?

I say stay if you are a true dem in the social justice sort of way. That's great, stick around...otherwise...


don't let the door...

Sorry for being so harsh I have been a little stressed for a FEW years!!

I'm pro-choice, I believe that the War on Drugs is a useless waste of money, and that decriminilization and support systems for drug addicts would be far superior to this bullshit incarceration policy. A welfare system based on education is the best investment this country could make. I'm also very very very pro Universal Health Care. As a small business owner, I take a smaller salary so that my employees can have full coverage insurance (medical, dental, eyes, etc.) for themselves and their families.

Whatever you do, don't call me a mainstream Republican - I haven't been one in years, and never will be again. I may vote for a Republican candidate if the Democratic candidate is truly bad. It's not about money for me - it's about responsibility. If I cared only about money, I'd cut my employees salaries, kill their benefits, and start raking that extra cash off the top. But I don't. Does that make me a saint? No. Is it the responsible thing to do? Yes.

If you'll stay and if not, sorry, but who needs you. :hide:

I know this seems harsh but we need loyality. Sounds to me as if you are a true blue dem and shouldn't abandon the party when it needs you most. If a dem runs that is a nightmare, which I am facing in Nov, you have to make yourself be heard. My state senator candidate is pro life and pro gun, a real nightmare for me. I will vote for her but you better believe that I will hound her and remind her that I am who she represents. We can and ought to shape the democratic party and make ourselves be heard. WE ARE the democratic party, me and hopefully, you.

Maybe this seems small minded to you and maybe it is but I couldn't vote for a republican under any circumstance because I don't agree with anything that the party stands for as a whole and couldn't trust anyone who would want to be identified as one.

http://www.evilgopbastards.com/

snip

Since the New Deal, Republicans have been on the wrong side of every issue of concern to ordinary Americans; Social Security, the war in Vietnam, equal rights, civil liberties, church- state separation, consumer issues, public education, reproductive freedom, national health care, labor issues, gun policy, campaign-finance reform, the environment
and tax fairness. No political party could remain so consistently wrong by accident.
The only rational conclusion is that, despite their cynical "family values" propaganda, the Republican Party is a criminal conspiracy to betray the interests of the American people
in favor of plutocratic and corporate interests, and absolutist religious groups.



Why? Because they're evil GOP bastards!

snip

BTW, how in God's name and all that is holy could you not love Bill Clinton? :shrug: How?



:dem:

Would you mind forwarding that to me?

What a power trip. What in the world makes you think that you can tell someone else they can only join the Democratic Party if they STAY FOREVER.

Are we 10 years old? Do we have to pinky swear to stay in the party in order to be a member?

If this attitude is what you think is acceptable to the Democrats, I suggest you read the platform. I have never heard such outrageous B.S. from any other Democrats elected or otherwise as I am seeing on this thread from people who think they're the Democratic team captains. The party does not demand or require loyalty or exclusivity in order to vote for it. What is wrong with you? Are you trying to HURT our party by making it seem like an exclusive snobby clique? If people want to vote Democrat, why not just say GREAT!

For fucks sake. Unbelievable.

It really is unbelieveable that some don't want me because I'm somehow liberally "impure" or "idealogically wrong".

At least the realists see the cold, hard reality of compromise. (and, surpisingly, I'm far more liberal than even I thought I was). This thread has been a double-edged sword for me. I see how many in the Democratic "big tent" want to include me, but I see how many want to exclude me because I changed my tack in mid-stream. I guess its impossible for some to admit that anyone could ever be wrong...

But I did: freely, openly, and with a lot of shame and humility. I hate that people mock me, but I do understand how I can deserve it.

With Maureen O'Hara and John Wayne?

Great movie. Especially on St. Patrick's Day.

I am thinking of the scene when John Wayne is trying to give Maureen O'hara back to her brother because he never gave the newly married couple her dowry.

She turns to wayne and says, "You do this to me, your wife? After, After.." They had finally consummated the marriage and she felt betrayed.

Anyway, I think that many people here feel betrayed when you threaten to cross back over the aisle.

"You do this to me, you DU friend, after what we have been through the last 6 years."

We are a little sensitive these days, we have been through hell. All of us.

Anyway, just trying to get you to understand why people took your post so personally.

We want you and more importantly we don't want you to leave.

A little presumptious but...
:pals: ???

the brother gives waynes the money, wayne throws it in the fire, o'hara beams at him and says, "I'll be home and your supper will be waiting."

Wayne goes on to beat the shit out of his brother-in-law for about 20 minutes with the whole irish village following along and cheering them on.

One of the best movie scenes ever.

Do not ever, ever mistake the posters on DU at large for the Democratic Party. The posters here do not represent the party at large. Some of them do, but so many of them don't that it's best to just see this place as entertaining political discussion/debate with anonymous people who may or may not be democrats and who may or may not be rational or reasonable.

No decent American would think you deserve to be mocked or humiliated for participating in the political process and voting for Bush in 2000 and then regretting it. That's retarded. And you don't need to apologize to anyone for that. I'm sorry if people make you feel that way. I really am because it embarrasses me and it angers me that a bunch of anonymous snotty posters could potentially be turning off people who want to vote for Democrats. I don't know who some of these people think they are, but in reality they're just voters (maybe) like you and me. The bottom line is they don't represent the party and that's a fact. They represent nobody but their own sorry selves. Please just read the Democratic platform and look at the Democratic Party positions on issues if you are ever seriously wanting to know what the party is about.

I know quite a few life long conservatives who voted for Bush in 2000 and then voted for Kerry in 2004. These conservatives are to be commended because they put the country ahead of some blind-loyalty to their party. I would hope that if the tables are ever turned, the lifelong Democrats would do the same thing.

Just saying...

What I am saying is to call yourself a dem you don't start threads that try to put yourself on a pedestal because you are going to give us your vote. Thanks so much, what a guy. I am a dem and I am not fickle. Seriously, looking back at clinton, what was so wrong with him that you couldn't vote for him. I agree with Chris Rock when he says it's not the candidates that are the problem it is the voters. You want to talk about a power trip? For some people every candidate has to agree with ever thing that they agree with. I heard many people talking about Clinton, Gore and Kerry and saying, Oh, he is too slick, he is too stiff or he has too much money. Go back and look at what clinton stood for and explain to me, if you care to, how he wasn't fiscally responsible enough for you. Perot, really? What was wrong with Gore? I think that you liked Perot and Bushes tough talk and their demeanor. My concern is policy, education, environment, etc. I would take a total dork over a stupid cowboy any day.

I don't get to decide who is a dem, never said that I did. You said that you might be swinging back to the other side of the aisle and I just said go ahead. Don't let the door hit you in the ass. I am not running for office I can say whatever the hell I want and you can vote for whoever the hell you want. It is still America.

The tide is turning and I for one have never been for pandering for votes. I toughed it out when we were down and I will bask in the glory if we can get by voter fraud. I never crossed the aisle and I never would. You did and then you voted for Kerry I presume and that's great. But does that make you a dem? I don't know, especially when you say that you may go back to the other side. How could you ever trust the repugs again?

I am in MI. Grew up in CT and didn't appreciate the blueness of it until I came here. Some politicians play both sides of the aisle. Wisdom says they have to in order to win. I say hogwash! When you start pandering to voters such as Stabenow did voting for torture, the bankruptcy bill and the stupid fence along the mexican border you lose dignity. I will vote for her and it will be painful just as I will vote for Reiner even though she is pro concealed weapon! (Are you kidding me??!!! Who the hell is pro concealed weapon!) But as I said in my last post, I will hound them both and they will know what I think and what I expect from them. And if I was in CT I would vote for Lamont. I am a dem.


You call it our party and I just called you on loyalty, that's it. If it is our party then help us make it what you want it to be but don't threaten to swing back to the other side of the aisle because they are evil GOP bastards and certainly don't deserve your vote.

The bottom line for me is that I am sick of having to defend myself as a dem and a liberal and hope and pray that people will see that philosophically the democratic party is the only choice in our system for everyday people.

Now, can we call a truce because for right now at least we are on the same side? :shrug:

I hope it stays that way. Seriously.


edited to add: that I am an idiot and didn't realize who I was talking to but I think you guys can figure it out. Hopefully, this post will explain where I am coming from. One can only hope. Seriously wish we could sit and talk in person because I believe that we are not as far apart as it seems.

That is biggest bunch of BULLSHIT EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't think of an instance. Why does everyone perpetuate that myth?

So, if we are still living back 80 years ago, it might be accurate. Unfortunately, that was then, this is now, and for the last 50+ years, it has been untrue, with the exception of a few like Paul, Goldwater, and N. Rockefeller.
The Professor

btw, didn't the stock market crash happen in the 20's? Forgive me for calling bullshit on that one.

I wasn't saying it like it was something good. Just a fact. Yes, one has to go back 80+ years to get to a point where the Repubs actually stood for fiscal conservatism.

Yeah, the market crashed then, but it wasn't because of their fiscal conservative POV. That was caused by their laissez faire philosophy. Still their fault! Just a different cause.
The Professor

what a myth that Republican "fiscal responsibility" (and small government) jive is.

Somebody needs to write a book detailing how it has never been true, but how they manage to keep selling the myth over & over again.

That myth is finally blown, but how did it persist so long?

was to rework the departmental HR structure, reducing costs, waste and increasing efficiency in the many govt offices in DC. From what I remember, there was some hoopla about it because we had never had a smaller or more efficient govt workforce. I would imagine that Homeland Security bloat has reversed that claim exponentially!

Can you imagine VP Cheney taking the time or even caring about such a thing?

I want to see a definitive (but readable) book on this subject, and it should include a comparison of fiscal efficiency during Clinton and B*sh. It would be enlightening for those who think that fiscal responsibility and govt efficiency was EVER a serious concern of the Repuglicans.

Maybe such a book has been written, but I haven't run across it. If not, somebody should do it.

I certainly hope there are others like you who can admit mistakes and move on to helping us all clean up this mess, regardless of party. I give people like you some benefit of the doubt, as I think the Bush machine & it's ally the lapdog media was absolutely masterful in mind control and persuasion --until it all started blowing up in their faces. So I don't blame you for being taken in once (twice would be different). And I admire anyone with enough flexibility to drop their pride and go with what's more positive when the illusions are revealed.

You underscore my basic question--

WHAT DO the Repiglicans have to offer the average American taxpayer at this point? Can anyone tell me?

They're even failing the loyal narrow-minded, fear-based voters in their constituency. I can't see ANYBODY they are pleasing...except the rich and rich corporations.

Repiglican Party = the party of greed and corruption.

Fear, fear, and more fear. Their endless quest for oil will kill America if people don't put a stop to it now.

The GOP congress cock-blocked Clinton for 6 of his 8 years in office. I can only imagine what might have been if the Dems controlled congress and the white house during the roaring 90's.

Nice post. I think there are a lot like you out there now. And hopefully the progressive talk stations popping up around the country are helping by giving others a differentive perspective.

They will not listen to a noisy minority no matter what we do. We have to change the people's minds because the politicians will only do what their constituents want (the ones who vote and give them money).

:patriot: and respect you for it .

You didn't catch the total bald-faced LIE about Kerry's position on the Iraq war in the o.p.?

(please read the o.p. again, and consider this: Kerry has NEVER EVER EVER said "stay the course" in Iraq, and he has been very VOCAL about GETTING OUT for OVER A year.)

C'mon now, how could anyone who pays the slightest attention to politics not know that, and why embed such a lie in a post like this?

:think:

I'm really a Rove operative sent here to create dissension < /sarcasm>

Kerry has been all over the board on this issue, and the perception was out there for years that he supported the war simply because we needed to finish the job. Like I mentioned in a previous post, Kerry started actively calling for a pull-out when it became politically convenient for him to do so.

You seem awfully defensive - I VOTED FOR KERRY. He wasn't a perfect candidate, but he was far better than the alternative.

or being totally oblivious to the facts, one or the other.

As to your purpose, only YOU know.

Unless you know what's in my mind, and what my perceptions of Kerry were and are.

Am I not pure enough for you?

So, you admit being oblivious to the facts?

It's not a matter of purity. The issue is why would you post disinformation about Democrats, in a post that is ostensibly about finally realizing how disastrous it is to support Republicans?

Who is or was feeding you the crap that Kerry's policy on Iraq is "stay the course"? It never, ever was. Pardon me for not being incredulous enough to think that you could possibly not know that.

Please don't pay for a Nexus/Lexus search to prove you wrong.

Attacking me by accusing me of spreading disinformation about Democrats is specious, at best. I was being honest and open. Be as "incredulous" as you'd like, but if you can't accept me, the Democratic party in your area is pretty fucked...

if it means taking out one of our own. This is so important. Republicans have not learned this lesson and has been biting them in the ass for decades. You gotta throw people under the bus if they dont obey the rules. The cover up is worse than the crime.

I agree that the last few years have been a nightmare. And I only hope the Democratic Party will learn from this. I *do not* want the Democrats to start a dictatorship just because Bush did it. We need to closely watch them, too. You made some good points.

and the majority of Americans want this oversight, Bush will be impeached!


http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm


http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq2.htm

And treason.

I agree with Perot's opposition to NAFTA, but didn't take that issue seriously until I couldn't find a job! I agreed with Perot's positions on deficit reduction and the need for raising taxes, but was satisfied when Clinton balanced the budget and made the spending cuts necessary for bringing in a budget surplus. I almost voted for Perot in 92, but ultimately backed Clinton because of his passionate fight on healthcare reform. But the Republican's refusal to even work with him on that issue has made it impossible for me to take that party seriously on the issues.

Then the Republicans took control of Congress. Although I wasn't too worried in the 90's, because Clinton was around to veto insane legislation, I became an active worker for my first Congressional candidate. I agreed with this Democrat on almost every issue, and always admired him for speaking out against certain state party leaders in favor of campaign finance reform. He lost that election, but Clinton won by a landslide!

In 2000 I was frustrated with Gore's weak positions on the issues, and supported Bill Bradley in the primary. I voted for Gore in November, but only because I knew a Republican Congress and President was a formula for disaster. The last six years has only turned my fear into reality, as a result I became more active than before in my local party. Until recently there were only Republicans on the ballot for local office, but now the Democratic Party in my area has become stronger than when Clinton was President!

Regarding impeachment, I view it as a necessary means of investigating the actions or abuse of power within the executive branch. It is not a means of seizing power, but of stopping such power from being abused!

starting in 1997. I never would have believed that they (R's) would only get exponentially worse from there. Hrm... nm... actually, I did. That's why I decided not to vote Republican.

I cannot foresee EVER voting for a Republican. Merely running (or registering) as a Repub is, to me, the most striking sign of an egregious lack of judgment.

only such ignorant asses would spew bs claiming KErry wants to "stay the course".

i have always been a Democrat. and i don't care for your agenda. many of the things you list are not at the top of the agenda.


if you fear what might happen if Dems get into office then find another party.

Are you putting words into my mouth? Are you scared that I might have an "agenda" that differs from yours?

if you fear what might happen if Dems get into office then find another party.
Are you telling me that I'm not good enough for you, and that I should not try to taint the purity of the Democratic party? If so, you could have your wish. Meet me IRL and threaten me against voting Dem. Bet ya' can't...

I'd like to see you (or anyone) call me an "ignorant ass" in real life, and be able to back it up with more than rhetorical bullshit and fear. Bet ya' can't...

You say you don't care for "my agenda". Care to listen to "my agenda" and decide whether or not you really care for it? Bet ya' can't... (again)

I'm sorry to have tainted the purity of your party, but I just couldn't help myself. < /sarcasm>

a voter who liked what he heard. I have family in Texas. They said he bankrupted Texas. So much for fiscal responsibility.

I guess it is nice to see that the easily-brainwashed are not totally hopeless

says he will vote for the Democrats this go-'round.

How about we applaud that and try to encourage him to influence others?

(Belated) Welcome to DU!

would vote Democratic this time, but that he would "probably" vote with the group of people turning out the Republicans.

inkling of interpretation from my fellow humans.

The fact that he is only in the "probably" category is even more reason to not jump on him. And read the next sentence. He would welcome a Democratic majority. Again, I apologize for expecting any amount of interpretation...I know better and know that I must speak with the precision of a lawyer or else the "exceptionists" will descend upon me.

Here you go:

I'm voting 100% Democratic in this election. There are good Dems in every possible categories, and some atrocious Republicans. It won't be a hard thing to do.

I was about to bang my head against the wall from utter fucking disbelief and frustration.

The self-righteous, holier than thou, indignant attitude throughout this thread is embarassing and shameful.

And that attitude is NOT representative of the people in the Democratic party. Anyone who wants to vote for Democratic candidates is more than welcome. It is not the Democratic position to try and shame people who want to join us or reprimand them for not joining us before. That's absolutely unacceptable and hurtful to the party.

I'll take a reformed former Bush voter over the told-you-so snotty jerks anyday because those people are bound to turn people off from the party when they act like that.

I have a headache from being so infuriated. Thank you for providing some relief.

Although you believe they should be dismissed, people have posted valid criticisms, including me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2384593&mesg_id=2396359

Watching people pushing others away who want to vote for the Democrats is giving me an ulcer.

You may think you have valid criticisms (I happen to disagree, I think your criticisms are off the mark) but how is that the point? Is your goal to get people to vote Dem? If yes, then KNOCK IT OFF with pushing potential Dem voters away. I don't care if you have the best, juiciest, most valid criticisms in the history of planet earth. If the OP wants to vote for Democrats, and our goal is to get people to vote for Democrats, then don't thwart the goal by turning him/her off by acting like a snot and shoving your oh-so-righteous criticisms in his face.

You think my position is being self righteous holier than thou, etc. But to me, it's elementary school basic COMMON SENSE. I can't believe I am even explaining this.

I am absolutely appauled beyond words at the people who are undermining what the Democratic party stands for. This attitude is SO beneath the party. We're better than this. WE, being the people who actually WANT DEMOCRATS TO WIN.

More votes, yay! That doesn't mean I have to agree with them! That's the Democratic Party!

Ha ha. Ok, I see we're on the same page then.

I don't think it's in our best interest to do anything that could sabatage the goal of getting Dems elected. I strongly feel that telling newcomers things such as 'you better stay loyal or don't let the door hit you in the ass' is hurtful to the party. And I take it very seriously when someone does something I perceive to be hurting our party. That being the case, reading this thread has been like watching a horror movie for me.

Having said that, I don't actually think what you said to the OP was on the same level of the posts I was taking issue with. I hope you can see the distinction between your response to the OP and some of the brass, indignant, and downright cringe-inducing responses.

Dissent and bullshit are not the same thing! Speaking of elementary school: the word is "appalled."

What I mean is, you posts didn't really fall into the category I was criticizing in the first place. I responded directly to you before without making that distinction because I was on a rampage and I was simply using the opportunity to prolong my rant.

But in actuality, I can't really argue with you. The dissent in your response is not going to turn off a potential Dem voter, so my argument doesn't apply to you. I was talking more about people who are criticizing the OP because he voted for Bush and making him feel ashamed for it, punishing him about it. I don't see how that's helpful in any way shape or form.

made you change your mind about voting for and supporting the Republicans?

It's self evident to pretty much everyone on this board the various reasons why the Bush administration and its rubber stamp Republican congress is so bad for America.

But for someone who came over from that camp, many of us are very very interested in what, if anything, was the "last straw" that made you decide that these people did not merit your support, or should be opposed, whether it was invading Iraq, the Schiavo mess, total lack of budget restraint or whatever.

My interest in this is to know if there are particular "hot button" issues that have the most significance to people who are accustomed to voting Republican that have turned them away from the Republicans more than other issues, because knowing this might help us in approaching and talking to Republican voters.

The issue is not the very real, very corrupt Republican Party, but the corrupt party the Democrats could become if they "seize" power!

and Bush's cowardice in the face of turmoil that turned me around. He showed what a pathetic, weak little man he really is. I was REALLY pissed off about the closed door energy meetings (that's probably what started the first pebble in the landslide that changed my beliefs). This was one of the most important issues facing the nation, and Cheney and his oil-cohort assholes made decisions that affected the American people behind closed doors in secret. (Thus my point about requiring more openness from the Executive branch). Unless it's a matter of national security (and a non-partisan panel should make that decision), all meetings should be open. Although I suspect that Cheney was already planning Iraq, even way back then, so maybe they could have actually made a case for it being a matter of national security.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

I swung to the DEMs with Clarence Thomas' appointment to the Supreme Court. I agree that many of the reasons I was Republican then were for the reasons you cited and DEMS are now carrying the torch for fiscal responsibility, responsible foreign policy and I would add States Rights which seems to be completely lost to general concern in the Republican camp these days... among other reasons.

I hope you find a home here with us at DU - and I for one am going to maintain this personal level of scrutiny on the WH and Congress no matter who is in power. I think the two party system is important and we need diversity of opinions to maintain our democracy. My concern is that there is always that possibility that swinging total power over to the DEMs may result in similar corruption. Power corrupts and we must now be aware that maintaining the balance of power among parties and branches is imperative to the health of our country.

"power corrupts" thing (if it doesn't change "by itself" when Democratic candidates regain power).

I say (and I am not the only one): let's use this "new" channel of communication - namely, the "Internet" - in order to kind of "add" a much needed "layer" of "Checks & Balances" that, for the first time, really, will provide an unprecedented opportunity for a majority of We The People to "have a real voice" in the democratic process.

I'm talking about some sort of "Committee Of The Bloggers" or else, that will have a regular (weekly?) "check" - with some voting process? - on those who will transmit the "voices of the bloggers" to the Democratic representatives.

With all the research powers of the Web at our disposal, I think that, making good use of this new media, by putting it at work for the benefit of every citizen in the country (and the world), is more than overdue in 2006-2007.

A "Committee Of The Bloggers" (or another "name") to "give" a "voice" to the taxpayers (and all citizens), accessible from everywhere (and from homes) could be a great "plus" to the Democratic process.

In My Humble Opinion. :thumbsup:
(I Have A Dream.) :)

connected our country in a way not anticipated by the RWingers bent on taking our country down this dark path. Though reaching consensus through committee is usually a good thing and makes everyone feel more in control if they have had some input, I think having one committee to maybe(?) replace DU or other liberal blogs would not have the desired effect you speak of.

I do like DU's somewhat anarchical nature. The kaleidoscope of opinions found here is refreshing to me - there are answers more right than others but there can be (and surprising is) many shades of gray that need to be considered before action could be taken. Having a potential of 96,000 people weigh in on what the govt is doing or not doing is a great thing I think our founding fathers would be very excited about... (or those that thought the non-landowners should have a say in govt!)

as he has, at least for me, been like looking through a dirty window the whole time

jingoism. Have you learned to dig any deeper? If not, you will be swinging back and forth and going nowhere. Turn off your teevee. Forget words like "partisanship" forever and read.

I HAVE learned to dig deeper. I HAVE learned to think more. I HAVE seen the other side. I DO read and study the issues.

The point of my post was that "I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION"; I changed. Weren't you paying attention, or are you just looking for someone to attack?

and you admit to being "fiscally conservative".

Sorry, but I find your "conversion" a little too pat and a little too self serving. Sounds like you found the powers that be right now are not good for YOUR business and you will continue to vote for what's in it for YOU-not what's good for EVERYONE in this country, which is what REAL democrats do.

Or is a little diversity too much for you?

A little hypocritical, don't you think?

Seems like you posted this thread to feel good about yourself and prove how noble your intentions are "now".

But shouldn't all of us ALWAYS have good and nobel intentions towards each other and this country? I think so.

Sure we all make mistakes, but when you post that you are voting dem now after voting rethug in the past and may just vote rethug again in the future if it "works" for you; well that is just self serving. The hypocrisy lies in YOU not me. Look in the mirror.

I would hope that you are on DU for the right reasons, not because it works for the "moment".

being on "DU for the right reasons" reconciles with your sense of purity and error-free past. I can tell that you've never made a mistake, and that everyone around you is absolutely perfect. If not, why trouble me with your subtle, innuendoed accusations?

I'm entirely atheist, but I would love to see what your Jesus would say about the stones you're casting at me. I'm sorry again that I don't fit into your "purist" ideal of a Democrat.

In fact, I'm agnostic and have spent plenty of time posting on DU in protest of how the fundie nutjobs have screwed up this country. I also don't like Bill or Hillary because I don't think they are real dems but DINOs or Dems in Name Only.

Obviously, I am much further left on the scale than you and what I don't like is how the dem party has been dragged further and further to the right in recent years. What I'm seeing in your recent conversion is that what you really want to do is straddle the middle between left and right. That's your prerogative, but don't expect everyone on DU to welcome you with open arms especially when you put fiscal matters at the top of your list in importance. How about people first?

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

and I hope the new Democratic majority in Congress earns your trust. We're all counting on them.

:hi:

though that was a long time ago...WELCOME to our side! :thumbsup:

You just have to be aware that some candidates have claques that will tolerate no criticism of their chosen standard bearer. Just ignore them.