Kerry, Dean and Kucinich Supporters Must Stand Together

[DrFunkenstein]

I want to talk to Democrats, Greens, progressives and independents. Anyone not afraid to be labeled as a "liberal" or "progressive." It is time to get serious and to start planning.

Why? Because George Bush is in meltdown.

I think it is safe to say he is now or soon will be the underdog in 2004. Everyone who is reading the newspapers knows that he lied about Iraq in the State of the Union address. They know that he lied about the economy in order to pave the way for his tax break for the wealthy.

Six months ago it seemed like a cakewalk in 2004 for the Bush team, but now he has exposed himself as a man who has trouble dealing with the truth. That is fatal in a political figure.

If we work like hell between now and next January, we will have nominated Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean or John Kerry. (Let's face it: Joe Lieberman has no charisma and talks like a Republican. While Dick Gephardt is a good, solid, liberal congressman, there is no fire in the gut, or if there is, he has an internal sprinkler system to put it out more effectively than Tums.)

Now each of the three has faults, because we all do. Believe me, those faults will be exploited by right-wing talk show hosts and people who would like to see those of us on the left divide in three different directions.

My plea to those of us who believe that stopping the Bush-Cheney march to disaster is imperative: Get ready to win. Translated, if Kerry is the nominee, let's not start bashing him as if he were an enemy of progress. If Dean wins, let's suppress the negatives that someone will dredge up. If Kucinich wins, let's get behind him.

In the meantime, support one of the three but don't dump on Kucinich, Dean or Kerry in the process. It won't affect the outcome in any event. And once the process is over, we must work together if we want to win.

And I want to win.

This is an appeal to avoid defeating ourselves. We cannot get trapped in the right-wing plot to win in 2004 by getting us to fight one another. Remember, they haven't won a presidential election in 12 years. Let's make it 16.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0723-01.htm

<>

<>

<>

[JohnKleeb]

1. i dont mind that at all doc funk after all these are my top 3

[tedoll78]

2. I'm a Dean man, but..

.. all three of these men are excellent, and I would be proud to vote for any of them. Their policies are light years ahead of the Chimp's, and I trust their judgement in naming Supreme Court nominees.

[ClintonTyree]

3. I'm on record...............

as saying I'd support whomever gets the nomination. All three have a remarkable vision for this country, and I'll work and contribute like never before to make sure the Democratic nominee beats Bush like a bad habit. Living in Florida, I'll do anything in my power to assure that Bush (both of them) don't pull this state out of their hats again.

[msanger]

4. put yourself on record

for supporting anybody but bush in 2004. just sign the pledge at the anybody but bush site in my sig.

all power to the people!

[LWolf]

34. The problem with this,

as I've mentioned before, is that the site you refer to does not support any body but bush. It lists only some of the 9 declared opponents, not all. How can you claim to support anybody but bush without supporting any candidate but bush on your site?

[MercutioATC]

5. Funny that you post this an hour after starting the "flip flop" thread...

I'm not in disagreement about pulling together to beat Bush, but you lose some credibility when you suggest such a thing an hour after a thread which ends,

"Now let us pause while the Dean supporters totally blow a gasket."

[Le Taz Hot]

6. I was thinking exactly the same thing.

N/T

[Teacher4dean04]

12. Me too

Is Dr. F waffling?

I don't mind pointing out and discussing the *actual* views of the candidates, but the baiting of Dean supporters is getting silly. Then to come up with this is even sillier, given the Flip Flop thread.

[DrFunkenstein]

14. Waffling Between Division and Unity?

As I have said, my intention there was not to bash Dean, but to try to bring an end to unjust claims of Kerry wanting to be both pro-war and anti-war. I think it is obvious that this is a classic false dilemma, along the lines of "America: love it or leave it" and "You are with us or with the terrorists."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

[DrFunkenstein]

7. Did You Read The Whole Post?

The point of my post was not to bash Dean. It was countering repeated charges by the Dean camp that Kerry was trying to have it both ways, when I felt he was forthright from the start. On the other hand, I felt the charges were somewhat hypocritical considering Dean was "fine" with popular misperceptions about his anti-war stand. It was all "part of the game."

However, I also made it very clear that I didn't consider this to be a major issue, nor an impediment to supporting Dean enthusiastically. He remains my second choice (and Kucinich my ideal choice).

Obviously, putting together the "flip flop" post took me some time to put together. If nothing else, I had to research the history leading up to the resolution. I remembered the administration's claims at the time that the Gulf War resolutions were sufficient to invade without Congressional or UN consent - they went to Congress as damage control after Cheney had overplayed his hand at a VFW speech. I remembered that the Pentagon hawks intended to "reshape" the entire Middle East. And I remembered that Gephardt undercut the Biden-Lugar effort that Kerry and Dean publicly supported. But I had to go through months of articles trying to find and link the stories.

I found this call for unity while I was doing my research at Common Dreams, and I didn't feel it was in any way inconsistent with the "flip flop" post or my long-held beliefs and statements. Just as many Dean supporters regret Kerry's vote, but at least support his personal position; I regret Dean's early underplaying of that same position, but in fact support that position in the first place.

On most of the central issues - health care, foreign policy, renewable energy, reproductive rights, and so forth - Dean and Kerry, following in Kucinich's trailblazing path, are startlingly similar. Beyond style and their various experiences, they are more similar than different. Although some here argue that Dean is a true conservative, I think he is obviously center-left - and passionate about an important progressive cause dear to my heart (opposing Bush's very, very wrong rush to war).

After Dean's article in Common Dreams, I found it much easier to like him. Obviously, he's not my first choice, and I regret some (unfair, I believe) claims he has made about my first choice. But that shouldn't get us off track from the real objective - getting that dangerous son of a bitch out of the White House. By any means necessary (note to FBI monitoring this: I am a non-violent person. Don't round me up please).

[MercutioATC]

9. I did. I'm sure it took time...it was the tone I take issue with

I think the info in the post took time to accumulate. That last line didn't seem to convey a desire on your part to nurture good feelings betwen the camps, however. To start a thread slightly over an hour later suggesting we all get along semed strange.

Don't get me wrong. You're one of the few very vocal Kerry supporters here who generally post support for your candidate and try to keep a low profile with criticisms of other candidates. I respect that. I'm not doubting your motives, I just think your timing on these two threads was contradictory.

And, yes, regardles of what happens in the primaries, I'm supporting whomever our nominee is.

[DrFunkenstein]

13. My Intentions And That Last Line

I admit in hindsight it had the opposite effect of what I expected. I was hoping it would quiet down the debate by indirectly asking Dean supporters not to blow a gasket. After "Beating A Dead Horse" and "Kerry Calls To End Occupation" both topped 100 posts, I didn't think it sounded too far-fetched.

The "Flip Flop" post was an outgrowth of those debates that I felt deserved a sense of clarity away from the other 200 posts. I had wanted to get my feelings across as clearly as possible on the issue. There was much more I could have included, but I wanted to keep it as simple as possible.

I wanted to say: 1) Kerry was making lemonade out of Gephardt's lemons. He would have been much more comfortable with Biden-Lugar, but that wasn't happening. 2) Dean's claims that Kerry wants it "both ways" were unfair and wrong. Only later did it occur to me that there was a slight hypocrisy in those claims, for reasons stated. Not a major hypocrisy and certainly not an outright lie, just a convenient omission that he later made more and more clear to people.

[Teacher4dean04]

15. Thanks for clarifying

It's always a tricky thing having Internet conversations, because tone often gets lost.

Cheers! :toast:

[MercutioATC]

18. Now THAT sounds like the Dr. I know...

sorry for the misunderstanding. I was serious about respecting your approach to things and I do enjoy your posts.

[ProfessorPlum]

38. Hey Doc,

Love this thread.

You know I hope that the "beating the dead horse" thread had two purposes: one was to call out Nicholas_J in the hopes of getting him to defend his stupid thesis about Kerry's motives, which it sort of did in that he appeared there, said nothing coherent, and then disappeared when I asked him if that was what he actually thought Kerry's motives were. (More on that from the man himself below). (Which is why I called it a dead horse I was beating). The minor purpose was to get more understanding about the situation with Kerry itself. The (in my opinion) shameful motives I outlined there were not those of Kerry or my idea of Kerry's motives, but something others had projected on to him. They were unfair in that they were harmful to Kerry (this kind of professed motivation pissed me off about him, until I realized they weren't Kerry's views, just some of his supporters), and also in that they were being used in false arguments against other candidates.

I agree with your sentiments above. Thanks for all your hard work.

[LWolf]

8. I would say that this is true for all dems,

regardless of what candidate you are supporting.

The road here is simplicity itself. Address the issues and leave the rest out of it. No attacking supporters of other candidates; no attacking other candidates outside of the issues. Stick to the issues, and keep debate civil.

[poskonig]

10. This Dean supporter will be there.

No matter who the candidate is, or how nasty we get in the primaries.

[valniel]

16. We'll all be there

but the point is not to destroy the eventual nominee during the nomination process.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

11. Agreed

This is obvious to me, but then I amazed when I come on here and see all the bickering.

Or increasingly bizarre claims about what Dean stands for, including that he is actually to BLAME for the war because he opposed it.

The goal is to defeat Bush. Period.

[blm]

17. My record's clear....Support the Dem nominee.

Period.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

40. Yay!!!!!!!!!

Good to have you on board. I've got some literature for ya.

[MODemocrat]

19. I think you are absolutely right

Those three candidates are top notch, and we have to hang together so we can unify our support.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

20. I think we will be tested...

...if the nom is someone other than one of these 3, but I will happily work for any of them, knowing that success means avoiding another 4 years of BushCo.

If you think Bush and his gang are scary now, imagine them in 2005, smug from winning an election and not concerned about the next one...

[JeniB]

21. Glad to hear that someone here is acknowledging

that there are other people in this race besides those 3. As I live in NH I will not only be supporting whoever wins the nomination but campaigning for them also. I hate the bad feelings I get after reading some of these posts.

[DrFunkenstein]

25. I Understand Some Of The Dean People's Reaction To Kerry's Vote

When I think about Gephardt's early negotiations with Bush over the Iraq resolution. One major difference is that while Kerry's vote ultimately did not affect the course of history, Gephardt's negotiations may have seriously damaged the process.

I will vote for him if he receives the nomination, but I'm afraid I can't honestly put him with Dean, Kerry and Kucinich - even though he may be further to the Left than Dean on many issues.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-01.htm

I have generally kept silent about Gepardt because I don't want to attack him, especially as it will seem as if I am passing Kerry's buck.

But even Daschle, not generally known for his spine around the 2002 elections, was going to press hard for the Biden-Lugar vote (supported by Kerry and Dean). And the thing is, the Bush administration seemed likely to negotiate after Cheney overplayed his hand and the media promptly began - in Rumsfeld's defensive phrase - "a frenzy."

Gephardt - along with Lieberman - ended what might have ultimately stopped the Bush rush to war at the Security Council. We'll never know.

I don't want to be divisive, but this is my main reservation about Gephardt. Not only was he hawkish, perhaps not even out of personal conviction, but he undercut the rest of the Party at the negotiating table.

[JeniB]

26. I appreciate your not wanting to attack Gephardt, however,

having your candidate totally ignored is worse. I was and am against the war. I am willing to forgive him this mistake. Gep, while I wouldn't call him hawkish, did feel that there was a threat. He had seen intelligence over many years to help him with his decision. However, he had weekly meetings with Bush trying to keep him in line on this thing and I think Gep never really thought Bush would do it without UN help. He bashes him for that at every speech. If this thing had been done with allies I think a lot of people would have felt different about it. He says he stands by his decision but wouldn't have done it without the UN.

[DrFunkenstein]

41. There Are Some Serious Inconsistencies, But I Won't Pursue Them

Beyond the reasons I have already stated (and linked to), I see no reason to curb your enthusiasm. Although some Dean supporters occasionally provoke me, Gephardt fans have been fairly gentile up to this point. And I don't think I have ever heard a negative word from a Kucinich supporter. They might just be the most polite supporters here.

[dsc]

22. ABB

I will vote for, work for, put signs up in my yard for, and contribute to whomever our nominee is. As well as Dean is doing I still think this is Kerry's race to lose. I will gladly do all of the above for Kerry if he does win.

[Nicholas_J]

23. Actually true

But my stance on Dean, and Deans stance on the OCtober Resolution, presented the Democrats with a great problem in trying to keep the president from attacking Iraq.

Deans statements on the October Resolution, createdan overwhelming problem fro the democrats, who wrote the act in odder to force the president to have to go to the U.N. and accept the U.N.'s decision on addressing the Iraq problem.

The very farce is, that the only time that Congress has ever presented the president with such resolutions or acts, are to attempt to limit the president from acting, and to direct the presidents behavior in order to get their support.

The way Congress shows its support of military actions taken by a president, short of a declaration of war, by constitutional law, is to do NOTHING:

The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important--in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

A short, quick description of war powers. If Congress wishes to try to "EFFECTIVELY LIMIT" a president who is set on use of force, they must write specific legislation to suggest that the president must do certain things before they will support him.

If they do not object, or plan to oppose the president, all they need to do is to do nothing.

The attempt to describe this act as a vote for war, created a divide in public opinion against the war. In the month prior to the war, 68 percent of the public would only support use of force in Iraq with U.N. support. Which was the position of all of the congressional candidates, and the position strongly stated in the act. But without public opinion and public firm public backing of the act, the democratic minority was hamstrung by those who stated the act already gave the president support.

Even a number of congressional democrats who did not sign the act, used te act as a basis for a case in federal district court to try to get an injunction to prevent Bush using force without U.N. support. The act was allowed to be submitted as the reason the case was being brought and the injunction requested, meaning that the court accepted the premise that the act required the president to get U.N. support before Congress would support him in use of force, but the case was dismissed as non justiceable (as every such case has been ruled since 1972) as the Judge states that netther the courts or congress have the power to stop the president from using force, which is constitutionally given to him, and cannot be taken away by legislation or decision of a court.

Even now, this and other a cases are on appeal, but it Democrats must be clearly undivided in their opinion that the Act required the president to utilize all diplomatic means, required U.N. support, and did not interfere with the presidents power to use force ONLY when an imminent threat to the U.S. existed.

Without such an clear support of the democratic party's stance on Bush's actions. The war with Iraq was completely legal. And judges have already riuled that Bush had complete constitutional authority to act, even absent imminent threat, and that he was in complete compliance with the 1972 War Powers Resolution, as he consulted with congress prior to acting, and has reported regularyl with Congress on status, which is all the War Powers resolution requires.

[ProfessorPlum]

37. Yes, it was clearly

immoral for Dean to suggest we not go to war.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

42. What the hell was he thinking?

[ProfessorPlum]

46. It's almost like he thought the war would be bad for our country

or something.

[ProfessorPlum]

45. Please don't start this up again

I think we've pretty clearly established that Kerry didn't have inscrutable, nefarious purposes for his war resolution vote. And if he did, it was an immoral position which clearly calls his ability to command into question. Didn't you read my brilliant "beating a dead horse" post? That was meant to make you look like a horse's ass, you know. ;) (wink added for the irony-impaired wrt "brilliant")

[DrFunkenstein]

47. Jeez, what was that before the edit?

You are a cold and calculating son of a bitch. Now drink.

[ProfessorPlum]

49. Just added the wink

This new game could add a whole new dimension to my enjoyment of this board!

[Fleshdancer]

24. I agree

As long as the name doesn't start with a 'Bu' and end with a 'sh', I'm in.

In fact, Dean, Kucinich, and Kerry are my top 3 favorites (in that order) and I have no interest in bashing one to promote the other. They all have a lot to offer to this country and while you may agree or disagree with an issue or two, I think we can all agree that all three of them are better than bush.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Bottom line

Bottom line, we wouldn't be occupying Iraq right now if any of these men were President.

And WE will win in 2004 if we don't destroy ourselves.

[valniel]

28. I agree, but

we need to think about how to win a general election. I'm not saying that the DLC has a lock Democratic dogma, but it would certainly be better to get somebody like Clinton than to loose to Bush!

Democratic Party Must Strongly Reposition Itself to Regain White Male Voters' Support.

Poll Finds Democrats Lack Crucial Support to Beat Bush

By Dan Balz, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, July 29, 2003; Page A03

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58774-2003Jul28?language=printer

PHILADELPHIA, July 28 -- Dramatic erosion in support among white men has left the Democrats in a highly vulnerable position and unless the party strongly repositions itself, President Bush will be virtually impossible to beat in 2004, according to a new poll commissioned for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

[SGrande]

29. I disagree, everyone should sign up for the "STOP DEAN" campaign

j\k :)

[genius]

36. What is this Stop Dean campaign?

I don't know anything about it. It's the sort of thing I would expect Dean to be behind to increase his popularity.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

30. Kucinich is closer to Gephardt than to the pro-NAFTA Dean and Kerry

no matter how much they try to obscure the difference

[genius]

35. Yeh. I was noticing that Gephardt had some good positions

I know why he voted for the Iraq resolution and I don't believe he intended it to result in a war. He also voted against Homeland Security. Kucinich's voting record has been better so I'm supporting him. But Gephardt would be my second choice.

[DrFunkenstein]

43. Kerry Tried To Bring Real Reform To NAFTA

Kerry supported NAFTA, but realized there were major flaws in the enormous proposal. He wrote a significant amendment to NAFTA that drew praise from groups like Public Citizen and Sierra Club.

"The amendment was a modest reform that guaranteed much-needed changes in the NAFTA Chapter 11 investment model in future trade agreements.

Under the model, foreign investors may file a claim in secret NAFTA tribunals to seek compensation when government public interest regulations in any way diminish the value of their investment.

In doing so, the amendment would have instructed U.S. trade negotiators to ensure that future investor provisions do not grant foreign investors rights beyond what the U.S. Constitution provides."

http://action.citizen.org/pc/issues/votes/?votenum=121&chamber=S&congress=1072

"WASHINGTON - May 21 - Friends of the Earth expressed disappointment in the loss of an amendment to trade legislation that would have protected environmental standards from foreign investor lawsuits. The amendment, offered by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), sought to address concerns with investment rules like NAFTA's Chapter 11 that allow foreign corporations to bring suits against environmental laws and regulations."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0521-13.htm

Despite his support of Free Trade, Kerry continues to get sparkling scores from labor unions, environmental groups and corporate watchdogs. Kerry realizes that good can come from globalization, once you weed out all the vested interests.

[genius]

31. Kucinich, Kerry and Gephardt supporters should stand together

Dean's campaign is too dirty and too right wing.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

32. Dr. Funk, where are you? :)

Major ugliness in this forum today. Not sure what happened, but I see a bunch of "Dean is evil" threads today; maybe it was preceded by some anti-Kerry threads, but what the hell does anyone think this proves? Is anyone really causing anyone else to change their opinions? I think they are just pissing each other off. (I even jumped in for a second, but then realized that there was some major mudslinging and playground posturing going on. Stupid.)

I may prefer Dean, but I don't hate Kerry or any other Democrat. Did any of you actually WATCH Bush this morning? C'mon. Stay focused.

[DrFunkenstein]

44. Jesus Christ!

I help my sister move, and I come back and all hell has broken loose! Quick - I need a picture!

<>

Jeez, even that seems a little tense...

They do look healthy, though.

<>

Gotta love him!

[DrFunkenstein]

48. Better Rallying Picture!!! Everyone Can Agree On This!!!

<>

[ProfessorPlum]

50. man, she looks P-O'd

Somebody get that lady a megaphone!

[RevolutionStartsNow]

51. Thanks Doc!

Inspiring photos. But damn that Kerry is a big fellow. Or is Dean just small? Okay, here's something they have in common: good tans!

[The Sushi Bandit]

33. Kucinich is the man!

Kucinich wants Single Payer Health Iinsurance...Dean is a doctor and wont support that!
Kucinich will kill NAFTA, would Kerry?
Kucinich wants a Department of Peace... Dean is a hawk!

Kucinich has Willie Nelson's and my vote too!

[bread_and_roses]

39. I want a REAL Democrat

My political activism is focused on getting people who've essentially disenfranchised themselves back into the process and voting again. Unless there is a Democrat running who addresses poverty, low wages, the third world conditions in our inner cities, real universal health care, I have nothing to offer them to get them back to the polls. Most of them know little about this war. They know about not enough to eat, rotten housing, rotten schools, rotten jails, discrimination. The "it will be worse under Bush" arguement won't work for them; they can't see how it COULD get any worse, because it is so bad now. Which candidates are speaking a language that will mean anything to them?