was a political call. It didn't take long to figure out she was dialing for dollars for the Democratic party. She explained how George Bush had taken this country down the wrong road. Money was being spent on the war instead of domestic issues was another example.I said I agreed with everything she said. I'm sure she was hopeful when she asked if she could count on me to support the Democratic party.
My response was this: "I agree with everything you said, but my son was killed in Iraq 3 1/2 years ago and until the Democrats stand up to the President, stop funding the war and continue to apologize when there is no reason, I will not send money to any Democrats.....and you can quote me on that"
Enough said!
8 comments:
I'm not in complete agreement with how the Democrats have handled their opposition to the war, but I'd also say that we may need a Democrat in the White House and majorities in the house and senate to really bring it to a halt.
I certainly do sympathize with your feelings about not giving money, but it's more a question of our they doing enough to resist as opposed to actively enabling the war. It's the Republicans and the independent from Connecticut who are doing that.
Just food for thought, chance lucky, at what point does not resisting enough become collaboration, and how much more time are you willing to give them particularly since 'time' is actually convertible into lives, i.e. real people.
I wish I didn't agree with GSMSO, but I do. Although I am a registared Democrat I will likely be looking for alternatives in 08.
Chance-
I hope you didn't read that I am not voting for a Democrat. I'm just not giving the Democratic party any money. I want to know where my money is going, so I *did* make a contribution to John Edward's campaign.
It remains to be seen who will get the nomination; I fear it will be another hold my nose and hope for the best.
I am sorry for so many reasons that I cannot get behind Clinton, but she is a hawk no matter what she says. Neither Obama, Clinton or Edwards can say with conviction that they will have the troops out by the end of their first term!
I am not naive enough to think that ALL troops will be out of harms way anytime soon, but I am still going to fight to make that happen. Any day sooner the war ends, one, two or three soldiers will come home to their families alive.
I don't know how Lieberman can continue to hide behind his Independent label. If he walks like a Republican, talks like a Repeublican, smells like a Republican and votes like one, let's call it as it is. He's a damned Republican. Who does he think he is fooling?
MM-
Thanks for joining the discussion.
Before we throw the baby out with the bathwater, I'll continue to scrutinize every candidate before they get my vote. (i.e. even though I don't vote in Pelosi's district in SF, I wouldn't support the alternate cadidate just because she *says* she is for peace.)
I cannot imagine voting for any of the Republican candidates. Guiliani scares the hell out of me. Do people really want 4 more years of the same, possibly worse? Romney and his 5 sons who serve the country by helping get their dad nominated makes me sick! He'd be another one to send our young ones off to war while his children sit in their daddy's ivory tower. Thompson is a joke and McCain is a scary joke.
I should be more specific. Ron Paul is the only Republican I would even consider. The only thing I agree with him on is the war issue, the rest of his platform that I have heard to date, I disagree strongly. But...he has been explicit in his positions and not compromised them that I have seen..at least so far. It would be nice to at least know what we were getting.
If the Democrats field anyone that I can have the slightest hope will do even do a half-way adequete job, I would support them. Clinton and Obama do not qualify, in my judgement, at least by what I have seen so far.
I am generalizing here. I am aware of other Democrats who have jumped ship and are attempting to provide some resistance. So I am still looking.
I do not/and will not vote a party ticket again. I have heard the arguments about needing to get the party in before anything can be accomplished, and I just don't agree with them. And I also feel that once the Democrats signed on to the funding for the war, they became equally responsible for that vote, and all of the results that followed from it.
What I don't hear from the Democrat side is any sense of urgency.
I think the biggest thing I am looking for is honest, courageous leadership.
I think what I am trying to say is they should have stopped compromising a long time ago. Maybe right after they figured out there were no WMD's. That would have been a good time.
Or maybe I'm just one of those pesky purists, that like my politicans to at least not lie too much to my face...
As an ancient Democratic activist I gotta say I can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If a handful of the 90,000 Nader purists in Florida in 2000 had voted for Al Gore, we would have been spared so much ghastliness.
The next President will get to choose three Supreme Court judges. Imagine any of the Republican candidates picking these judges.
I don't agree that Hillary is a hawk. I wish people could see her give whole speeches (on CSpan) rather than reading or hearing about her in sound bites. I think you'd agree then that Hillary is a visionary pragmatist. She could restore America in the eyes of a battered world.
Perhaps sadly, choosing an "alternative" really gives the vote to a Republican and all the grotesque consequences we see that go with that choice.
"I can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
I don't know pogblog. Another view of that would be "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I think the deciding factor is likely to be if you believe that the compromises that are made are actually leading to the desired results. I no longer believe that ending the war is the primary motivations of Ms.Clinton, Obama, or the Democratic leadership. I base that on their voting record, and watching over time their positions on each of the critical issues that have come up surrounding the war, such as the torture issue, the new Attorney General appointment, the FISA court scandal, etc.
I see a few Deomocrats trying to lead, most recently Kuncinch with his impeach Cheney efforts, but then watch the Democratic Leadship obstruct those efforts.
I do not see the Democrats leading at this time, but being pushed, kicking and screaming into the direction that the public at large wants to go.
I do not want to resort to emotional arguments, but I have to say that I cannot and will not cast a vote to anyone who I feel is directly involved in keeping this carnage going.
I would have loved to vote for Hillary. The first woman president is something I would like to see, as well as an African/american one. Her stances on issues like heath care, and family issues are things I would get behind. But trying to focus on those domestic concerns while our country is at war is like lecturing someone on healthy eating habits while they are bleeding out of a severed artery.
Post a Comment