Monday, September 22, 2003

Taking the pledge

Chris over at Interesting Times has also become turned off at the waste of energy lately, and pledged to keep his eyes on the prize:




No more will I be:


  • A tool of those who want to disrupt the Anybody-But-Bush movement.

  • A partisan who would rather bring down the other guy’s candidate then find reason to elevate my own.

  • A dupe who will automatically assume that anything negative about the other guy’s candidate is more likely to be true than the negative things said about my guy.



  • A fool who loses sight of the ultimate goal: the removal of George W. Bush.




Well said.

10 comments:

  1. Heck, I took this pledge a long time ago. I don't spend my time on other candidates blogs or on their threads at DU trashing them. I don't know why anyone of good sense would do such a thing anyway. In the end it's counterproductive in the sense that it will make "coming together" behind the eventual nominee much harder to do as people will have to find a way to put petty squabbles and hurt feelings in the past.

    Of course none of this applies to professional journalists or bloggers who wish they were pundits. The message there is "trash my candidate if you like but be ready to defend your words."

    Clark supporters, Dean supporters, Kerry supporters and all the rest should stay off of the blogs and message board threads of rival campigns unless they can be polite in looking for or responding to information about other campaigns. But hey, this is the net isn't it? No matter what the "right" thing to do is, on the net I don't expect it to happen unless all of the campaigns turn to strictly moderated forums. Look at Usenet and you'll see what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shelley of WestchesterSeptember 23, 2003 at 4:20 PM

    The more I read about these apparent maniac Deaniacs trashing the opposition, the more I believe that these are actually trojan horses. Are Republicans and Bush supporters hijacking the blogs and filling them with vicious invective? The role of all real Dean supporters is to debunk this type of trash, and then promptly dismiss it. Lets not let these people take over the movement. They certainly don't speak for the vast majority of Dean supporters and democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have a question out there for Dean Supporters. Exactly what does Dean believe in? Where are his values? When Dean supporters on forums are now admitting that Dean flip-flops on issues. When they are agreeing that this is the case.

    On the Lessig Blog where Howard Dean posts messages (paraphrasing) he is saying to eliminate parts of the patriot act rather than all of it. But one of the parts of the patriot act is for removing doesn't seem to make any sense. That part is the ability of the FBI to request records from a video store when pursuing an investigation of a terrorist.

    Why would Howard Dean want to undermine the FBI's ability to track down leads on an investigation of a terrorist? How is this going to make life more secure for America?

    And when we see that Howard Dean now thinks that the Bush Tax Cuts should be kept except for some parts of it. (when before he said let's get rid of of it all). I mean what does he believe in exactly?

    Every single month we learn of new changes of philosophy coming from Howard Dean and doesn't that strike anyone as a little strange?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "* A fool who loses sight of the ultimate goal: the removal of George W. Bush."

    Why is that the 'ultimate goal?' Why isn't the ultimate goal to get a candidate as president that you support?

    Why is it out of a sudden ok now to slap together any candidate you wish (as long as he's a Democratic Liberal) and toss him into the Oval Office? Regardless of who he/she is? Why don't you even care?

    It's like saying that you don't care whether or not the Boy Scott Ranger taking your kids to camp is a psychopath or a civilized American.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jeff -

    For starters, here's what Dean believes in:

    * fiscal conservatism. Irresponsibility with the nation's budget condemns future generations to stifled growth, unfunded social programs and constraints on business that are unnecessary and avoidable.

    * social equality. The Constitution should apply to all Americans regardless of race, gender, sexual preference. Whether it's the lock-up of American citizens without charges or access to counsel, the failure to grant hospital visitation or insurance benefits to same sex couples, or the divisive use of "quotas" when referring to minority hiring/admissions policies, the premise is the same: the Constitution, its freedoms and its protections should apply to all.

    * A foreign policy based on strong alliances and restraint, not unilateralism and arrogance.

    Have Dean's positions evolved? Sure. Show me a politician who hasn't and I'll show you a relic who doesn't deserve to lead. (For example, Bush said we could handle Iraq on our own, that the UN was irrelevant. So why was he in Manhattan yesterday?)

    Why is it so important to remove President Bush from office? Because he and his administration are a threat to our liberty, to our economy and to the world's stability. I believe Dean is the man who can replace him with a direction and a vision worthy of the office. But if it proves that another Democrat wins the nomination, he'll get my vote.

    --Rick

    ReplyDelete
  6. "or the divisive use of "quotas" when referring to minority hiring/admissions policies, the premise is the same: the Constitution, its freedoms and its protections should apply to all."

    I'll tell you right now that there is no way in God's Green Earth that Howard Dean supports getting rid of Affirmative Action. In order to get rid of divisive quota systems, Affirmative Action across the board must be ended.

    Otherwise it's inherently divisive and it inherently forces people to produce a quota system.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "(For example, Bush said we could handle Iraq on our own, that the UN was irrelevant. So why was he in Manhattan yesterday?)"

    President Bush never falterd or changed his mind on the United Nations what so ever. He doesn't want the UN running things over there. He never did and he still doesn't. He is in Manhattan yesterday to try and get foreign troops to replace our troops.

    But in terms of who controls what in Iraq, that's the United States of America.

    I for one would never vote for a politician that 'evolves.' President Bush stuck to his values and principles from Governor to President. He has never 'evolved' and remains one of the greatest President's of all time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Greatest presidents of all time"?

    Looked at by any objective measure, I'm hard-pressed to see any evidence of this:

    * the first president since Hoover to end a term with fewer jobs than he started with (to date, the Bush administration has seen a net loss of close to 3 million jobs).
    * the largest deficit in U.S. history.
    * the first time in post-WWII history that several industrialized nations have seen leaders elected on an explicitly anti-US platform (South Korea, Germany) with other allies in jeopardy (esp. Tony Blair in the UK) as a result of their support.

    I happen to believe that President Bush is a leader, and believe it or not I find him to be a sincere man with strongly-held beliefs. That said, he has evolved just like every other successful politician on the planet:

    * On the campaign trail in 2000, proclaiming that we should not engage in "nation building", nor should we "tell other countries what to do". We needed a "humbler" foreign policy. Today? We're rebuilding Afghanistan, rebuilding Iraq, and demanding that every other country follow our lead or get out of the way.
    * On the campaign trail in 2000, then-Governor Bush faulted the Clinton administration for spending precious taxpayer dollars on far-away efforts in Kosovo, Somalia, etc. Today? We're going to spend upwards of $350 BILLION in just two countries - exceeding the entire US foreign aid budget for FIFTEEN YEARS.
    * After repeatedly linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11 (go back and look at how long it took the Bush Administration to name Iraq after the WTC collapsed. Answer? HOURS.), President Bush finally acknowledged this week that we have "no evidence" linking Hussein to 9/11.

    Understand that I'm not necessarily faulting President Bush for these evolutions: I'm simply pointing out they exist, as they do with other candidates. Now - you may agree with where President Bush ended up and not agree with where Dean sits today: in which case, your argument isn't with the evolution in opinion but in the position itself.

    --Rick

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well you are a Democrat. Anything negative about President Bush and you pin it on him with glee. Anything positive and you chose to ignore it.

    And the idea that President Bush 'Evolved' from the Campaign Trail is ridiculous. As I recall, I don't think President Bush had September 11th in mind.

    I mean come on? Can you at least try to attack President Bush fairly?

    All of the corporations that emploded such as Enron, Global, World.net, e.t.c. Were going to emplode eventually due to what was happening during the later years of Clinton's time. Bill Clinton was funding Enron and helping these companies along until president Bush saw that it was not moral to do so.

    Then now we blame job loss on President Bush for something that was enevitable? We blame President Bush for job losses even though he's been warning us of a Recession prior to becoming President?

    No I don't believe Bush is 'evolving.' The only thing evolving are the attacks against Bush and his policies. Although now a days democrats have no idea what to do with themselves about Foreign Policy (other than to say Bush is wrong).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Alright Jeff. Let's agree to disagree - this debate isn't going anywhere.

    --Rick

    ReplyDelete