Skip to main content

View Diary: 2008 Dems and Iraq (215 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What about before? (none)
    Does anyone have the positions of people BEFORE the war? (ie before the polling took a shit?)

    I know these people voted for it:

    These people openly opposed it:
    Clark (I think?)

    But I have no idea what these people said before:

    I care a lot more about the foresight of someone who wants to be preisdent than their reaction to polling data. Be right in the first instance.

    That leaves me supporting Gore if he runs (please!!!) or Clark (unless I'm wrong above)... then, all I have left is Feingold...

    Sail on, sail on, o mighty Ship of State!
    To the Shores of Need
    Past the Reefs of Greed
    Through the Squalls of Hate.

    by Attorney at Arms on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:05:28 AM PST

    •  "Be right in the first instance" (4.00)
      is commendable, but being able to correct the course instead of "stay the course" is good too.  Who responds to polls?  That's trickier to discern.  I always like Edwards because he touched the third rail of politics by emphasizing poverty and prison reform, issues that don't have constituents and who are never polled.
      Real progressive politics is challenging the power of capital.  I was disappointed with his vote on Iraq, but felt that with more info he would eventually change his mind.  Not because of polls, but because of conviction and not without a plan.  John Edwards had a realistic plan for each one of his issues.  That's why my conservative independent rancher husband liked him.  Read his speeches.  That's how this Yankee learned about him.  I liked his "tax wealth, not work" as the core of his campaign.  And he was way out in front on being anti-NAFTA.  

      "Life is a zoo in a jungle." Peter De Vries

      by MontanaMaven on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:22:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Feingold (none)
        Look, Feingold was vocally anti-NAFTA as well. And he was smart enough to see through the bullshit ahead of time in his opposition to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.

        20 years of Bush-Clinton is 20 years too many.

        by mildewmaximilian on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 12:14:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Edwards (none)
          But Edwards was out against Roberts and is against Alito.

          No candidate is perfect, they each have pluses and minuses, you just have to weigh them, but we could go back and forth on the relative progressivity of Feingold and Edwards for days and probably come out about even.

          Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

          by philgoblue on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 01:22:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Right on.... (none)
          Feingold is an independent Democrat who can bring the populists and independents on board. Not only did he fight NAFTA, bombing Serbia, invading Kuwait, and Iraq, he supported invading and rebuilding Afghanistan. And I strongly support his rationale for voting for Roberts.

          The party hacks also despise Russ for his fiscal responsibility. He gives all raises afforded to him by the senate toward paying down the national debt. That will resonate more with Americans than his Robert's vote.

          Man is the only animal of which I am thoroughly afraid.There is no harm in a well-fed lion. It has no ideals, no sect, no party... - George Bernard Shaw

          by libertarian socialist on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 01:30:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  one CANNOT be libertarian and a socialist (none)
            in addition, one cannot be for so-called "fiscal responsibility" and be a socialist.

            Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

            by philgoblue on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 04:58:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  you seem to have a stereo-typical definition.. (none)
              The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: management of the common good (socialism) in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism).

              And I would state that I am a business owner of a company with less than 20 employeess; who has a profitable company that runs lean and mean; has an egalitarian wage-scale for our staff (no one can make more than 3X the lowest paid employee) as well as providing all employees with heath-care, retirement. Not pure socialism, but economic egalitarianism is what I believe in.

              In terms of libertarian, I am against laws that attempt to govern my personal life. For example, I am pro-choice, for drug decriminalization, anti-war except in the most unusual cases (read here support taking out Taliban oppose bombing Serbia, Iraq, Sudan, Cambodia, Nicaragua, etc.) I do not need a law to tell me to recycle, its common sense, nor a law to tell me to conserve energy, I run biodiesel in my personal and in our company vehicles. I am an individual who has a mind and does not need a government to instruct me on how to live.

              And your use of a Clinton quote as an example of an endorsement only turns me away from Edwards. Reasons are stated above, NAFTA supporter that turned his back on the workers that voted for him (reminds me of the unions that "pretend" to represent worker interest), oh yeah, what was the name of the rich-son-of-a-bith criminal he pardoned at the end of his term?

              If Feingold gets the nomination, I will work extremely hard for his campaign; as a volunteer. But for now, he is the ONLY Democrat I could support.

              Man is the only animal of which I am thoroughly afraid.There is no harm in a well-fed lion. It has no ideals, no sect, no party... - George Bernard Shaw

              by libertarian socialist on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:20:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ugh (none)
                The democratic people organized in governments cannot regulate economic enterprises to insure they are working for the public good without trampling on some of their supposed liberties.  How can we possibly regulate labor and the environment if we don't need governments "to instruct me (or any person or business) on how to live."

                But I see that your anti-union, so what you're really for his paternalism, just as long as you're the business owner.

                What an idiotic reason to oppose Edwards.  Because I (not Edwards, never paid by Edwards) have a sig?  Are you for real?  Plus, Edwards opposed NAFTA and CAFTA, so your point is misplaced.
                It's a quote from the Democratic National COnvention.  Now, are you going to hate all Democrats because of one Clinton policy?  But,  you are for guilt by association, so I suppose so.  There goes your Finegold.

                You're an absolute dumbfuck.

                Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

                by philgoblue on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 05:47:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  hate Democrats.... (none)
                  I wonder what the local county Dems think about me being on the platform comittee and going door to door for local officals who I support?

                  Against unions? I WAS a member of the UAW for over 10 years; a shop steward; then a member of the UFCW, both in Detroit. My arguement is rooted in my observation that union leadship is self-serving and does not give a rat's ass about the rank and file. And if the Dems are so pro-labor why did Carter invoke the Taft-Hartley Act against coal miners in the 70s. That showed that many Dems (not all) are not in support of the rank and file but of the Union leadership.

                  Sorry you lack the intellectual capacity to understand the concept of libertarian socialist. Better stick with the Democratic leadership; they couldn't understand it either.

                  Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. ~Thomas Jefferson

                  by libertarian socialist on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 07:32:37 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  If Kerry was supposedly for it (none)
      before the war began, then why did he keep speaking out against the rush to war all the way from fall of 2002 to spring of 2003?

      Simple answer: he wasn't for it. And since the IWR was not a vote on whether or not to go to war, he voted for the IWR without favoring going to war.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site