Skip to main content

View Diary: Revise your f*cking questionnaire, Kos! - Updated w/Markos response (209 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'd like to insist on it. (44+ / 0-)

    As I touched on in the FP diary, Orange to Blue asks for our money.  I'm not willing to give money to any candidate who hasn't at least made it clear where they stand on basic progressive issues.  Some of these issues for me are litmus tests. On energy and climate policies for example, I don't think its too much to insist that a candidate's views and policies be based on science and long term benefit, not short term corporate greed or religion.   That may not be litmus tests for all of us, but how would it hurt to know exactly what we're being asked to fund?

     My current monetary situation is extremely tight.  I believe in helping fund truly progressive political candidates because I want to leave the country and the world on a better road than it is right now -- posterity deserves it.  I will donate, but I will not donate without a clear assurance that whoever I'm being asked to support has clearly delineated their positions on progressive issues.

    Let me know exactly where a candidate stands on all progressive issues, and then let me decide whether I should give what meager amount I've got to give to that orange to blue candidate or save it for one more closely aligned with the progressive values I hold most dear.  

    I guess I'm saying I want us to have the tools to make as informed a decision as possible about where we send our dollars. Leaving out climate/energy issues, reproductive issues, GLBT issues unnecessarily limits the info (tools) available.  Obviously there won't be perfect candidates (unless someone clones Bernie Sanders), but I want to know what the candidate's imperfections are.  It isn't too much to ask.

    "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

    by middleagedhousewife on Sun May 22, 2011 at 10:44:30 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  This. (22+ / 0-)
      I guess I'm saying I want us to have the tools to make as informed a decision as possible about where we send our dollars. Leaving out climate/energy issues, reproductive issues, GLBT issues unnecessarily limits the info (tools) available.  Obviously there won't be perfect candidates (unless someone clones Bernie Sanders), but I want to know what the candidate's imperfections are.  It isn't too much to ask.

      We all have our deal-breaker issues -- if someone responded perfectly to, say, 90% of the items on the O2B questionnaire, and then turned out to be a Stupak clone when it came to choice issues, I'd be seriously pissed if I gave that person my money. I didn't send Bob Casey money in 2006 because of his stance on choice; as it turned out, he didn't need my money anyway. There are people we supported in 2006 who have disappointed me greatly (Webb, Tester); while I understand in some cases we have to go to battle with the Democrats we have, not the Democrats we wish we had (Rumsfeld lives!), contributing money to someone who is diametrically opposed to key Democratic principles doesn't sit right with me.

      Now to try to end the wars we ask our gay and straight soldiers to fight. -- Chris Hayes

      by Cali Scribe on Sun May 22, 2011 at 01:54:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site