Democratic Candidates for '08 - Disqualified for Nomination

Any Democratic Senator who is running from Russ Feingold's call to censure President Bush should be disqualified from running for the nomination for President in 2008.

If they sound like war hawks when 70% of this country is sounding the drum loudly, that this Iraqi war is unwinnable, is another disqualifying factor.

If they left Jack Murtha hanging out to dry on his call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, they should be disqualified.

Calling for a filibuster of Supreme Court Nominee Sam Alito from Davos, Switzerland, when you're not here to lead said filibuster, should disqualify you from the nomination.

And finally, if you said you would order a recount of the votes in Ohio, but take off for a ski vacation after you conceded the election over the objections of your own running mate, you shouldn't even think about running for President, and insulting the American People with your candidacy.

Of course, that's part of my take on this; you can read the rest of Stephen Crockett's piece here: http://www.buzzflash.com/....

Until the Democratic Senators aspiring to become the next President of the United States become real, oppositioned, principaled, fighting Democrats that we can admire and respect, they don't qualify to run for the Democratic Nomination, period.

•  Murtha's Still Leaving Feingold Out

  Asked about the censure yesterday I think, he said maybe after some investigation.

  by Gooserock on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:03:05 AM PDT

  •  which is

    basically the line that virtually every other democrat is taking at the moment...

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:16:48 AM PDT

  •  That's OK w.Me

    We desperately need for some real truth about this insidious "Domestic Political Spying and Dissent Suppression Progam" (my term) to come out so people can see it for what it really is, not just their faux talking points cover story--let the truth be told!!!

    by serrano on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:28:35 AM PDT

•  I'm recommending your diary

  because I think you've expressed what I truly think.  You've expressed yourself very directly and have lain out the actions that disqualify a candidate and I agree with them.

  And I'm recommending your diary because I am curious to find out how many other kossacks agree or disagree with you and why.

  On a deeper level, the disqualifiers you mention, when looked at as a whole, make a good platform for a candidate as long as that candidate can balance it with good, solid solutions.

  by nolalily on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:09:24 AM PDT

•  Also leave out...

  All who voted for the war and/or the (Un)Patriot Act.

  And while we're at it....no Congresscritters! When is the last time a Senator or Congressman won the WH? I'll tell you.....Jack Kennedy, and he squeaked out a small victory because had a Dad who could buy off WV.

  The General populous is so disgusted with Washington right now, I think it'll have to be an outsider....or we can kiss the WH good bye for another 4 years.

  Lets be smart for once....lets choose a nominee that can actually win the GE. What a concept, huh?

  by pelican on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:12:01 AM PDT

  •  Who do we have in the wings from the

    pool of Governors?  That seems to be the best springboard to the WH.

    by EeDan on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:23:00 AM PDT

    •  well

      Warner.  Bredesen maybe, though I don't think he's interested (he'd rather run against Alexander for Senate i 2008 methinks).  People like touting Schweitzer, but I highly dubt he'll run.  Isn't 2004 when he'll be needing to run for re-election for governor?   Then, of course, there is Clark, who isn't a governor, but he isn't in Congress either (or Gore).

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:25:57 AM PDT

      •  Clark is one exception to a lot of rules.

        I could get behind his candidacy if he decided to run again.  Gore is looking better now as well, and has the benefit of having been inoculated by his prior run.  The crap Rove threw at him last time will make people yawn if used again.

        by EeDan on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:56:05 AM PDT

        •  Gore keeps saying that...

          he is not running and I think that we have to stop ignoring him. I don't think he is being coy. He's a good man, but it might take someone more heroic to follow W. That's why General Clark is my choice.

          by jayatRI on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 09:19:22 AM PDT

    •  Has to be someone...

      ...with Foreign Policy experience, cuz the poor people want to be made feel safe. BooHoo.

      Seriously, the war will still be going on and the Reps will be playing the heavy GWOT card...which leaves only one sure thing for the Dems....nominate Wes Clark.

      by pelican on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:33:09 AM PDT

    •  Edwards also running

      from outside DC.

      by philgoblue on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:33:25 AM PDT

      •  Get serious!

        If you think for a minute that a single term Senator with virtually NO foreign policy experience can get elected after the mess BushCo has gotten this country into, think again.  Just because he's making the rounds talking like he's a foreign policy expert doesn't mean he has a clue to what's truly going on.  Oh, wait a minute.....he also voted FOR the war!

        by reggiesmom on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:39:41 AM PDT

        •  I am seriouis

          He didn't vote for the war.  

          by philgoblue on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:41:47 AM PDT

          •  Funny.....

            I thought I heard him apologizing for that vote just the other day.  Hmm.....?

            by reggiesmom on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:50:11 AM PDT

          •  Bush has set the bar low

            Anyone who can actually read and understand world history will be way ahead of the Bushite scum administration for foreign policy.

            So all this talk about "not having foreign policy experience" is just hot air.  Does the slimy McCain have "experience"?  Why yes, and he would continue to follow the idiotic Bushite scum policies, except he wouldn't torture quite so much.  Big deal.

            by MD patriot on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:54:42 AM PDT

    •  Why oh why can't the Dems think outside the box?

      Can we only ever nominate a person that is an elected official?  I can think of an excellent candidate (General Wesley Clark) who's got more foreign policy experience in his little finger then any of the elected officials you can name.  He's also got a tremendous wealth of knowledge when it comes to domestic affairs, if anyone would ever care to do a little research.  The only thing he doesn't have is the taint of being an elected official.  Gee does that disqualify him?  

      by reggiesmom on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:47:37 AM PDT

      •  Wes Clark- never elected to anything

        And of course Wes is a big military man, so he'll support the continuing ravaging of our country to feed the military-industrial complex.

        True "outside the box" thinking would be to get away from the Washington DC insiders, and this doesn't mean some slimy governor from a family of crooks like the idiot from Texas.

        Someone truly independent like Schweitzer would be refreshing, but of course the DC beltway media types would tear him to shreds, he might threaten their fat-cat life of ease.

        by MD patriot on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:58:15 AM PDT

        •  If you ever stopped to pay attention

          to anything Wes Clark said, you'd see that he was against our going into Iraq in the first place!  He views military intervention as a last, last, last resort.  So I'm not really sure where you got the facts to back up that statement.  

          by reggiesmom on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 09:10:06 AM PDT

          •  Wes is a military man

            Yes, Wes and many other reality based military men were against Bush's Iraq debacle, but why do you have such great faith in "military" leaders?  I don't see any historical record of them being particularly good leaders.

            Wes seems like a good guy, but why not have him run for some lesser office first, then at least have some governing experience?  How many people are ready to go from no elected office to president of the USA?

            I've paid attention to Wes quite a bit, he could be an excellent SEc. of Defense who would be much better than the Rum-idiot.

            by MD patriot on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 01:49:47 PM PDT

  •  By your logic, the late Sen. Eugene

    McCarthy should have been DQ'd from challenging Johnson in the '68 primaries because he,McCarthy, had voted FOR the Tonkin Gulf resolution authoring the use of force in Vietnam.

    by Sam I Am on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 09:01:50 AM PDT

•  Yep

  because, you know, all this bussiness with hackett and Cegelis have been about having the right to run in a primary.

  apparently only for those candidates you agree with, however.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:15:16 AM PDT

•  Small problem here,....

  Until the Democratic Senators aspiring to become the next President of the United States become real, oppositioned, principaled, fighting Democrats that we can admire and respect, they don't qualify to run for the Democratic Nomination, period.

  There's nothing left.

  by 0hio on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:15:42 AM PDT

•  I agree....

  I agree that in choosing a nominee,  I will look first for their position on the Iraq war and disquality any of those who are still supporting the continuing occupation.   I will then look at their actual record of leadership and voting record on major recent issues including the Alito Fillibuster, Bankruptcy bill,  Patriot Act, NSA spying.   To me it is absolutely clear already that the two strongest candidates by my values and standards are Russ Feingold and Al Gore with John Edwards slightly behind by virtue of him having been dead wrong about the Iraq war invasion (although he at least has the courage to admit he was wrong).  

  I strongly disagree however with what I think was Crocket's position that all the other Democrats are disqualified from the presidency even if they should happen to get the nomination.   Fortunately I don't think that will be our problem.   With more then 70 percent of the Democrats polling their opposition to the war, opposition to the illegal spying etc.  I simply don't see how the other candidates expect to win the nomination.   It will end up being Hillary against either Gore or Feingold and the progressive with our support will be the next Democratic nominee and next President.

  by AlanR on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:16:14 AM PDT

  •  Edwards..

    He was co-sponsor of the (un)Patriot Act!

    I'm afraid I'm not crazy about Senators who wait to see how the wind is blowing before changing their minds .....smacks of political opportunism to me.

    My choice is Clark. He is principled, a liberal and, most of all, can WIN in November.

    If he doesn't run, I'll back Feingold even though it'll be a losing cause. Twice divorced, no fist lady...and fodder for the the far RW religious loony bigots who turn out in droves

    by pelican on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:26:03 AM PDT

    •  Problem with that is

      Edwards also wrote in the sunset provision into the Patriot Act.

      Should note that it passed 99-1.

      Are we really interested in being a permanent minority?

      by philgoblue on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:30:20 AM PDT

    •  which makes edwards

      about 95% ok, because thats about how much of the patriot act is harmless to everyday americans (unless they're breaking the law or something)

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:32:39 AM PDT

      •  I guess you call

        ...entering your home without a warrant, harmless?

        You sound like all these people who say we shouldn't have a problem with ManChild spying on us if we have nothing to hide.

        by pelican on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:37:25 AM PDT

        •  To my knowledge

          there is no provision in the PATRIOT ACT to allow for warrantless searches.  Now, there is a provision that, during a terrorism investigation, a suspect can't be notified that their house or whatever has been searched, but the PATRIOT ACT doesn't eliminate the need for a warrant.

          Now, is this a perfect part of the act? No.  Is it needed in some cases, however. Yes, probably.

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:44:05 AM PDT

          •  Laws mean nothing to Bushite scum

            All the debate about the Patriot Act is kind of quaint, and it is so "pre- 9/11" to actually think that the Unitary Dictator is bound by laws, even laws that were written by his toady cronies.

            Bush has admitted breaking the FISA law, so why would anyone think he would be bound by any provisions of the Patriot act?

            Russ had it right, Bush has a pre-1776 mentality where he is king, ruling by decree, and that will be by secret decrees if he wants to!

            by MD patriot on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 09:02:50 AM PDT

•  And beyond this:

  And finally, if you said you would order a recount of the votes in Ohio, but take off for a ski vacation after you conceded the election over the objections of your own running mate, you shouldn't even think about running for President, and insulting the American People with your candidacy.

  I think it's time the good people of Massachusetts start looking for a more steadfast representitive.

  by EeDan on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:27:20 AM PDT

  •  i so wish

    2 ratings still existed...

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:33:44 AM PDT

    •  Excuse?

      by EeDan on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:57:45 AM PDT

      •  Did you even verify if the diarist

        wasn't taliking out of his ass about the ski-vacation comment?

        Don't give advice about something you are clearly ignorant about.

        Schmuck.

        by bam bam on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:59:56 AM PDT

        •  Oh. Well, then since you are the expert,

          why don't you enlighten me about how steadfast and reliable Senator Kerry has been?  Please.

          by EeDan on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 09:06:04 AM PDT

          •  Why would I waste my time?

            I have been in enough futile debates with both wingnuts (both left and right) to know the signs.

            I am just going to let my prior statement stand for itself.

            by bam bam on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 09:32:17 AM PDT

            •  Well here - let me help you out

              Was it not Kerry who said 'I will not rest until every American has their vote counted' (or until the powerbrokers who whisper in my year tell me that it is politically better for me to concede the election, whichever comes first.)

              And wasn’t it our dear Senator Kerry who telephoned in his support for a Alito filibuster from the Alps?  A tactic that exposed our side in the battle for public opinion, and I quote the New Republic here:

              In fact, many Democrats cringe at the way Kerry briefly waged his fight by phone from Davos--which perfectly reinforces his culturally effete image. That several prominent Republicans, including John McCain, were also in Davos last week didn't stop the GOP from ridiculing Kerry with jokes about "yodeling" in his filibuster while skiing the Swiss Alps. "It was unfair, but perception is 99 percent of the battle," says one aide to a potential 2008 Kerry rival.

              And last but not least, may we discuss the recent motion for censure?  To tell the truth, my attention span isn’t what it might be - did Kerry finally decide he was for censure, against censure, for it before he was against it, or did he simply announce that he would wait to see which way the political winds were blowing before deciding whether to censure the President?

              I supported Kerry in the last election cycle, but will not do so again.  Just as with Lieberman we need to find a candidate who is not beholden to the status quo and is willing to take up the progressive fight.

              by EeDan on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 10:22:07 AM PDT

•  Progressive Caucus - Candidates to pick from

  Here is a list you might want to peruse -

  Congressional Progrssive Caucus

  Some of the members:
  -Charlie Rangel
  -George Miller
  -Bernie Sanders
  -Dennis Kucinich
  -John Conyers
  -Barney Frank
  -Marcy Kaptur
  -Louise Slaughter
  -Sherrod Brown
  -Maxine Waters
  -Henry Waxman

  How many of these would actually RUN for president?
  I dunno. Dennis tried and didn't relinquish his delegates until the very last minute. Some are running for US Senate, like Sherrod Brown (OH) and Bernie Sanders (VT). This may be a nice "farm team" to support as we move forward.

  Of course, I could go off the board, Alex, for $100
  and support a new DraftClark2008 movement, too. If you don't think Clark is progressive enough, take a look at his Families First Tax Plan and his Government Openness Policy.

  by BillORightsMan on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 09:56:17 AM PDT