Pledging to Vote for Peace

How many Americans would pledge to cast their votes in November only for candidates who want to end the war in Iraq?

According to a poll conducted for the new group Vote for Peace, 46 percent of likely voters agree with the pledge the group will be promoting in advance of the November, 2006, congressional elections: "I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign."

One in every five voters surveyed expressed strong agreement, while 26 percent said they were at least somewhat in agreement with the statement.

Among Democrats, agreement with the pledge rises to 67 percent (33 percent strongly). Fifty-nine percent (25 percent strongly) of Independents agree, while and 26 percent (5.5 percent strongly) of Republicans are on board.

"This poll demonstrates that anti-war voters are significant enough in size to effect the outcome of elections -- if they become organized. Just like pro-gun groups have organized, pro-choice and pro-life groups have organized -- now the anti-war constituency has been identified and the peace movement is ready to organize them. This will ensure that the anti-war movement will no longer be one that can be ignored," argues Kevin Zeese, an organizer of the nonpartisan Voters for Peace initiative that launched Friday.

Starting with grants of $1 million for the 2006 election season, Voters for Peace run a national campaign that will encourage voters to pledge to cast their ballots for anti-war candidates as part of a broader effort to educate the electorate about how to make the war an issue this fall. The pledge, which was inspired by a Nation magazine editorial that committed the publication to endorse only candidates who seek a rapid end to the war, can be found at the new group's website: www.VotersForPeace.US.

Already endorsed by many of the country's largest and most active anti-war organizations, including United for Peace and Justice, Peace Action, Not In Our Name, Democracy Rising, Code Pink, AfterDowningStreet and Peace Majority, the Voters for Peace initiative will reach across partisan and ideological lines.

Zeese says the initiative will seek to organize two million voters in 2006 and five million by 2008. And makes a convincing case that such organization could have a profound impact on both elections by putting more focused pressure on both major political parties.

"Organized anti-war voters who pledge not to vote for pro-war candidates may force the Democrats in particular to develop a stronger position against the war. The Democrats may now realize that if they fail to represent the anti-war community voters will stay home or vote for alternative party and independent candidates," explains Zeese, the president of the national group Common Sense for Drug Policy who is seeking Maryland's open U.S. Senate seat as an "independent unity" candidate in November.

"Republicans are not free to ignore the anti-war constituency either," adds Zeese. "Not only do more that 25 percent of Republican voters oppose candidates who support the war, but the fastest growing group of voters -- independents -- overwhelmingly support the pledge. So, that all important swing voter can cause Republicans to lose elections - and could become a new source of support for Democrats -- or if both parties fail to support voters wishes then candidates running independent of the two parties may find a new foundation on which to build an independent political movement."

Comments (60)

1. What! Vote for PEACE....what kind of Isalmofascist terrorist supporting nut jobs are you talking about? Must be hiding in the basement of Congress with old whats-his-face and Cindy Sheehan plotting the Democrat overthrow of the GOP regime!

   (Sorry all, just figured I'd head off LL, Salty, and Aludra)

   Posted by leftofcenter at 03/17/2006 @ 12:25pm

2. Mr Zeese is talking about "Republicans ignoring the peace vote"....and Mr Nichols in his previous article noted how 117 House DEMOCRATS just voted to continue funding the war?!!??!?!

   Posted by Mask at 03/17/2006 @ 12:42pm

3. Mask: Mr Zeese is talking about "Republicans ignoring the peace vote"....and Mr Nichols in his previous article noted how 117 House DEMOCRATS just voted to continue funding the war?!!??!?!

   * Why do you make up quotes? The phrase "Republicans ignoring the peace vote" does NOT appear in the article; nor is your "quote" an appropriate paraphrase of anything in the article.

   * Why do you seem to believe that parties must act in a monolithic bloc? What does 117 democrats foolishly supporting this idiotic occupation have to do with this article? Are you simply a Stalinist?

   Posted by orwell2005 at 03/17/2006 @ 1:19pm

4. "I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign."

   Then what?

   Posted by woodyee at 03/17/2006 @ 1:20pm

5. What does 117 democrats foolishly supporting this idiotic occupation have to do with this article? Are you simply a Stalinist?

   Posted by ORWELL2005 03/17/2006 @ 1:19pm | ignore this person

   Well, in answer to your two questions...

   1. I believe that Mr Zeese is threatening to withhold support for any Democrat supporting the war, and 117 of them just voted to support the war (See Mr Nichols' article entitled "Three Years of War, No Checks, No Balances").....so I would ASSUME that he means to either drive those 117 to recind their votes somehow (though I'm not sure of any mechanism by which they can now)...or not vote for 117 incumbent Democrats, leaving their Republican (or other) challengers to win.

   Seems fairly relevant to me.

   2. No, I'm not a Stalinist....since that would entail me supporting both the "Socialism in One Country" theory and the theory of aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism.

   Posted by Mask at 03/17/2006 @ 1:35pm

6. Mask: Obviously there are Democrats who vote to support this idiotic occupation. Obviously, signers of the pledge would not vote for these people. That is the point of the pledge. So what is your point?

   And, you did not answer as to why you feel the need to make up quotes?

   Posted by orwell2005 at 03/17/2006 @ 2:10pm

7. John -- Thanks for covering VotersForPeace. The idea of the pledge was in part built on the Nation's pledge not to support canidates who do not work to end the Iraq War. So, I appreciate your continued coverage. People can sign the pledge at www.VotersForPeace.US. Tell your friends. We need to organize a voting block of peace voters to make a difference.

   The anti-war group I direct, www.DemocracyRising.US, is one of a dozen participating members with Voters For Peace which is why I am participating in the announcement of its formation. (You can see the other groups at www.VotersForPeace.org).

   As to whether this will result in the Democrats losing races -- that is up to the Democrats. As voters we can only tell legislators what we want and they decide whether they want to represent us. What the Voters For Peace poll shows is that Democrats, Independents and Republicans will support peace candidates. If the Democrats support the anti-war position they will win elections, not lose elections because they will be snubbing the largest emerging voting block in the United States. If they choose to not support the anti-war issue then you are right -- they will continue to lose elections. And, if the Democrats continue to support war they will give energy to an independent political movement just as the Whigs gave energy to independent politics based on abolition of slavery in the 1840s -- building up to the election of Abraham Lincoln and the destruction of the Whigs. The Democrats should learn from history rather than repeat the mistage of the Whigs! Peace and corporate control of the government are becoming the issues of the day -- especially control by the military industrial complex.

   If voters believe in a peace movement and really want to achieve peace then they must use the power they have -- their vote. And, by promising through the pledge that they will only support anti-war candidates, then they will send a strong message to incumbents and make it more likely the Iraq War will end.

   But, we must realize this is not just about the Iraq occupation -- it is about future wars of aggression as well -- it is about challenging the dominance of the military industrial complex -- it is about citizens getting organized and taking the country back!

   Kevin www.KevinZeese.com

   Posted by Kevin Zeese at 03/17/2006 @ 2:12pm

8. ORWELL

   Let me QUOTE from Mr Zeese's post, right above, so that my paraphrasing won't be un-fair to him....

   "If the Democrats support the anti-war position they will win elections, not lose elections because they will be snubbing the largest emerging voting block in the United States."

   Now...what is the MIRROR image of that statement?

   Would it NOT be "If the Democrats DO NOT support the anti-war position they WILL NOT win elections, BUT lose elections because they will be snubbing the largest emerging voting block in the United States."?

   Okay....so here's how that works. Incumbent Democrats lose their base of support; their opponents (typically Republicans, but throw in MAYBE 5-10 Greens/Independents) will WIN those elections (remember also, primary season rapidly ending)....Sooooooooo....that means numerically WHO controls Congress?

   Posted by Mask at 03/17/2006 @ 2:23pm

9. Mask: You are still not explaining why you feel the need to make up quotes.

   Posted by orwell2005 at 03/17/2006 @ 2:26pm

10. I'm tired of all the liars, corporate whores, warmongers, dirty dealers, blind apologists, equivocators, triangulators, and nutless, focus group-driven panhandlers who are trying to pass for our "leaders".

    I have no more time for politicians who won't take a stand on the issues that affect my family, and the future of this nation.

    Kevin Zeese appears to be none of the above.

    I'm gonna make it a point to learn more about this guy...

    Posted by drhammer at 03/17/2006 @ 2:41pm

11. again...

    what sane individual is pro-war?

    Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2006 @ 2:46pm

12. Mask: You are still not explaining why you feel the need to make up quotes.

    Posted by ORWELL2005 03/17/2006 @ 2:26pm | ignore this person

    Wow, I'm eagerly awaiting the response to this one, too.

    To support, perhaps, his devil's advocate position, that nitpicked the omission of a particular point, on a separate blog entirely, while ignoring in its entirety, the fact that Republicans do and are ignoring the peace vote?

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/17/2006 @ 2:59pm

13. Apparently my PARAPHRASING of Mr Zeese is the PRIMARY problem with my critique of this article by Mr Nichols....so I'll start off by apologizing to Mr Zeese, ORWELL, NEW DAWN, and all who read it.

    With no excuses, I'll merely say that I was not concentrating on his MORE important point, which I tried to rectify in my last post, that.....he's CLAIMING that he and his organization will not support any Democrats who continue to support the war.

    Now, does that mean that Mr Zeese and Voters For Peace will not VOTE for those Democrats in the 2006 midterms, who just recently voted 117-52 (within the Dem House Caucus) to support further funding of the war (as noted in Mr Nichols "Three Years of War, No Checks..." article)....or that they're merely going to "pressure them"?

    If it's "NOT VOTE FOR THEM"...then that means he is organizing " two million voters in 2006 and five million by 2008" (direct quote from Mr Nichols, BTW)...who will cause the Democrats' opponents (99% Republican) to win or atleast come closer to victory.

    If it's "pressure, but still VOTE for"....then he's no different from a hundred other anti-war activist groups that have been around since 2002 (or before) and have had NEGLIGIBLE results on those Democrats.

    And additionally, given that such groups almost NEVER support Republicans (on other issues than war as well), his threat against Republicans would have even LESS impact.

    Mr Zeese (and his devotees here) are making the CLASSIC "progressive" mistake....they think that they can "threaten" Democrats to run more "left" by withholding their "support"....while most Democratic politicians know their constituency pretty well and those that aren't "on-board for peace" NOW....aren't going to be with YET ANOTHER anti-war group "gunning for them".

    Or put it simpler...if "United for Peace and Justice, Peace Action, Not In Our Name, Democracy Rising, Code Pink, AfterDowningStreet and Peace Majority" (again direct C&P from Mr Nichols article...so I won't be accused of mis-quoting)....haven't done anything about those "pro-war Democrats", why should ANOTHER one do better?

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2006 @ 3:45pm

14. To support, perhaps, [Mask's] devil's advocate position, that nitpicked the omission of a particular point, on a separate blog entirely, while ignoring in its entirety, the fact that Republicans do and are ignoring the peace vote?

    Posted by NEW DAWN 03/17/2006 @ 2:59pm | ignore this person

    I re-read this, my last comment, and I get the punchline at the end, I wrote it so clearly, it was tough to miss:

    "...Republicans do and are ignoring the peace vote?"

    So, Mask, I read your whole response and still didn't see this answered.

    Retort, if you'd be so kind?

    Posted by New Dawn at 03/17/2006 @ 3:50pm

15. ZERO:

    You and I have butted heads on this issue since I have been visiting this site, but I must admit I am coming over to your side of thinking, especially in the last several weeks. I am losing faith in the Democratic Party as a whole, and am finding it harder and harder to support the "lesser of two evils - keep Republicans from winning" rationalization. I now tend to agree that no DEMs should be rewarded for their lackluster effort to amount any opposition to this administration's policies (obviously, there ARE exceptions). It is a longer-range plan and it might entail some short-term pain of continued GOP rule, but maybe the DEMs need to feel the continued pain of electoral losses before they wise up and start putting up candidates who do not abandon their base and take their votes for granted, especially when the base is with a majority view on issues like Iraq and domestic spying.

    Lucky for me, I do not have that personal problem with my Congressman, who did not vote for the Iraq war, and has signed on to Rep. Conyer's resolution calling for an investigation into impeachment. As for whomever runs for President, I may have a hard decision to make, but if it were today, I might be with you on that pledge. Since I live in Mass., that probably won't make too much of a dent for the DEMs, but at least I'd be able to live better with my vote.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/17/2006 @ 3:59pm

16. Rio Loco

    Yes....thank the Lord that the peace movement is decaying, cause nothing says America and apple-pie quite like a war and the occupation of a mideastern state!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/17/2006 @ 4:09pm

17. LL:

    The Republicans are not a bastion of togetherness either ... go check out intellectualconservative.com or redstate.org ... but of course you probably do not get paid to visit those sites.

    Yes, if the majority of Democrats continue to bow to the right, you may end up happy in 2006. But we'll see you in 2008. Two more years of watching you guys screw-up won't hurt the cause.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/17/2006 @ 4:29pm

18. I think all that the moonbats are saying is to give peace a chance.

    Posted by woodyee at 03/17/2006 @ 4:32pm

19. Ah, the 1960's...

    Posted by woodyee at 03/17/2006 @ 4:33pm

20. Maybe there will be a Woodstock-like concert this summer. We need more of these Woodstocks, Monteray's(sp?), and other celebration of peace and antiwar.

    Posted by woodyee at 03/17/2006 @ 4:34pm

21. Perhaps some left wing billionaire can commission a duet from Pete Seeger and Joan Baez about this pledge.

    Posted by woodyee at 03/17/2006 @ 4:36pm

22. I'm kidding about all the previous posts. What will this pledge achieve? It'll get play in liberal places in the country and I don't see how it can affect the race. Dems need a better 'plan' than censure, impeachment, or love/dove/peace talk.

    Posted by woodyee at 03/17/2006 @ 4:44pm

23. and i'm done with "lesser evilism". as a core issue of representative democracy, if the democrats want my vote, they are going to have to do something to actually represent me. often.

    Hell yes, me too!

    Posted by LClaire at 03/17/2006 @ 4:45pm

24. and i'm done with "lesser evilism". as a core issue of representative democracy, if the democrats want my vote, they are going to have to do something to actually represent me. often.

    Hell yes, me too!

    Hell yes, me three! Good-bye, Maria (Cantwell.)

    Posted by seattlescribe at 03/17/2006 @ 5:34pm

25. Didn't she do a good job on the ANWR thing? I'm a WA voter, & I keep getting mixed messages on Maria - my parents like her, but people to the left of them (and my parents are QUITE lefty) don't seem to.

    Posted by LClaire at 03/17/2006 @ 5:59pm

26. Oh, c'mon, Woodyee. It's perfectly okay for people to yearn for hte sixties. You right wing fellows don't have too many problems with the idea of doing fascism all over again. And that was sixty years ago. Talk about nostalgia. I guess some forms are more lethal then others, though, huh?

    Posted by rastadude at 03/17/2006 @ 6:17pm

27. I have no doubt the republican reich, ah, right, will continue to pick up seats. Murder go round and group mania are very hard to stop once they kick into gear. That doesn't mean they're right, though, just because they win elections. Most people don't want to be bothered with either party, a fact that you right wing mothahs conveniently ignore. The vast majority of people in this country distrust both parties. That's what's decisive, not elections.

    Posted by rastadude at 03/17/2006 @ 6:22pm

28. Didn't she do a good job on the ANWR thing? I'm a WA voter, & I keep getting mixed messages on Maria - my parents like her, but people to the left of them (and my parents are QUITE lefty) don't seem to. Posted by LCLAIRE 03/17/2006 @ 5:59pm | ignore this person

    I don't consider myself extreme left, although one poster here called me a "radical leftist." I guess it's subjective. But, regarding Maria, we all have to pick our issues. Mine are laws and principles that conflict with the US Constitution. The Constitution is as important to me as the Bible is to some who post here. IMO, the Patriot Act violates our rights under the Fourth Amendment and other parts of the constitution. Maria went with the flow and trampled on those rights by voting for that fascist legislation. I find it difficult to accept a situation where an elected person swears an oath to defend the constitution and then votes for something like the Patriot Act that trashes it. Maria has consistently supported all versions of this heinous law.

    So, if supporting the rights that are guaranteed to all of us in the Constitution makes me a "radical leftist," well then, I guess I am. However, it shows to go ya, just how far the political wheel has turned if a "radical leftist" is defined as one who supports our constitution.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 03/17/2006 @ 6:53pm

29. LCLAIRE

    Your post "Didn't [Cantwell] do a good job on the ANWR thing?

    Thanks for the reminder that there are other slimey, discusting and unsavory things besides wars of aggresion that the Repugnicans are up to. Unfortunately drilling in ANWR just passed in the Senate hours ago. Cantwell and all Dems except the Landrieu creature voted against it but it was a rape whose time has come. Maybe all you defeatests are right and it's time to hand the country over to the rio bravos and the lvliberties. Maybe that way it will burn to the ground and something new and worthwhile fighting for will come from its ashes.

    Posted by Loupgarou at 03/17/2006 @ 7:14pm

30. Mask

    It seems your work here is done.

    Posted by Loupgarou at 03/17/2006 @ 7:32pm

31. Posted by LOUPGAROU 03/17/2006 @ 7:32pm | ignore this person

    Far from it, Monsieur Werewolf...I come to praise the Democratic Party, not to bury it.

    But apparently, since it is losing some portion of it's left flank, it's going to have to move to its right and hope that the EXTREME nuttiness of the GOP at this point works in its favor.

    My fear though is that it WINS BIG in November, and puts that down to either its "steadfastness" on is mainstream Democrat views, or worse, that it's embraced its Far Left base and thinks that has won it for it...when all it's won is...a "default" to Republican idiocy and failure.

    It will then fail AGAIN in 2008, as it has for the past six years since Clinton, and we go through this "Stay the course and hope the Repubs flub up" or "No,no, become PURER progressives" nonsense again.

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2006 @ 10:24pm

32. Seattle----4th Amendment guarantees you freedom from unreasonable searches----Would you agree that the term unreasonable is subjective? Would you agree that unreasonable might be defined differently during a time of peace as compared to war time? No civil liberty is absolute---all have restrictions. Apparently you feel that we have gone too far in restricting civil liberties, I do not. However, the fact that we can have a debate on the reasonableness of Patriot Act or Wiretappin by the NSA is a good sign that our civil liberties are still alive and well.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 03/17/2006 @ 11:22pm

33. we go through this "Stay the course and hope the Repubs flub up" or "No,no, become PURER progressives" nonsense again.

    Posted by MASK 03/17/2006 @ 10:24pm

    Nonsense educating us about nonsense?

    (I almost feel compelled to listen)

    but considering nonsense is not horseshoes and it is certainly not handgrenades...

    almost isn't good enough for a score

    Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2006 @ 11:25pm

34. Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/17/2006 @ 11:22pm

    But we all agree it's reasonable...

    and since we all agree... no debate

    now if the president would only get a warrent, all you guys could go back to advocating gay bashing and forced birth

    Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2006 @ 11:30pm

35. Mr. Len Mosse, these debates happen because the defenders of the Bill of Rights keep pushing the matter. If it was up to you national security ideologues, we wouldn't be talking about our rights at all. What a pity your casual attitude about restricting the rights of other people isn't extended to the war profiteers you esteem so highly. For some reason, everything they do gets a free pass. I wonder why that might be.

    Or why don't you all speak so boldly about restricting second amendment rights? Could it be that, at the end of the day, you and your friends would prefer living in a country that resolves every question with gunfire? It sure looks that way from here.

    Posted by redwingblack at 03/17/2006 @ 11:40pm

36. Go get him, Will C. Mr. Mask talks a lot, but it's the sound and fury that signifies nothing. He thinks he sounds mature and concrete, in reality, he favors a state of affairs where all questions are decided by the most cynical and opportunist, and where dissent, where not chanelled into appropriate vehicles, is repressed via equitably distributed anti-depressants and hypodermic jabs. Soma as a permanent politic. What difference does it make what color a cat is so long as it catches mice, etc. Bring on more of a world that ignores its Coltranes and buries its Mozarts in unmarked lime pits.

    Posted by redwingblack at 03/17/2006 @ 11:46pm

37. Posted by redwingblack at 03/17/2006 @ 11:47pm

38. Seattle----4th Amendment guarantees you freedom from unreasonable searches----Would you agree that the term unreasonable is subjective? Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/17/2006 @ 11:22pm | ignore this person

    Tell me how "subjective" this National Security Letter action is taken by the FBI against a library patron in Connecticut:

    The following is the abridged legal statement of an unnamed representative of a "John Doe" organization that maintains library records. Relying on its expanded powers under the Patriot Act, the FBI used a "national security letter" to demand that Doe turn over sensitive records about library patrons. The ACLU is representing Doe in a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the national security letter power. The demand was never approved by any judge, and included a strict gag order that is still preventing Doe and the ACLU from disclosing Doe's identity and many other details about the case. The Orwellian gag order prevented Doe from speaking out in opposition to the Patriot Act during the debate in Congress. The ACLU won the case in federal court in Connecticut, and it is now on appeal. -- ACLU Web Site. http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/24367res20060303.html Visit the ACLU's web site for more information on this case.

    The absence of meaningful judicial review of NSLs give the government carte blanche fishing expeditions on citizens. They can't be challenged in court for one year, and then the burden is on the citizen to prove the government acted in bad faith. In the interim, the recipient lives under a gag order that prevents him from talking about it even to his congressman. It is a crime to disclose receipt of a NSL. Then the recently passed version extends notification periods of a "sneak & peak" warrant from the Senate proposed seven days to 30 days. These are just a few examples.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 03/18/2006 @ 03:53am

39. Posted by SEATTLESCRIBE 03/18/2006 @ 03:53am

    An attack on free speech?

    Let me guess... by conservatives.

    Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2006 @ 08:26am

40. what else is new

    Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2006 @ 08:26am

41. Redwing, some fine posts. that Mozart thing, though has been discredited. his burial was of the common standard for the Vienna of his time. Trane was venerated by many before his tragically early death. I realize that this does not change your very valid points.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/18/2006 @ 08:32am

42. Will, I like the expression "forced birth", and I like your consistently thoughtful posts, as well admire your stamina in confronting and demolishing the most nutty Tories

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/18/2006 @ 08:36am

43. can we retire the phrase islamofascist? it is a slur against Islam and all peraceloving muslims the wolrd over. we did not call Mussolini a catholicfascist. it also plays into the hands of the grr, kill, kill crowd.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/18/2006 @ 08:42am

44. Johann

    Have tried that same logic train against NaCl....who spouts the phrase as aften as he can...to no avail. But we can always hope they'll get tired of hate-mongering and go play in some other sandbox.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/18/2006 @ 08:47am

45. can we retire the phrase islamofascist? it is a slur against Islam and all peraceloving muslims the world over. we did not call Mussolini a catholicfascist. it also plays into the hands of the grr, kill, kill crowd.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/18/2006 @ 08:53am

46. double post, bah

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/18/2006 @ 08:53am

47. logic, NACL? you crack me up

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/18/2006 @ 09:02am

48. For the serious issue of this thread:

    MASK likes the quotation marks. He has itchy pinkies leading his left to the shift and his right to the quote marks. He likes the quote marks both because it keeps his hands in perfect balance, with each pinkie moving slightly outward--thereby giving his whole being the sense of balance and solidity his soul requires, and because, as an orator, he has itchy index and middle fingers. That latter itchiness leads him regularly to raise his arms slightly and bend both pairs of index and middle fingers in unison to indicate with a slight bit of derision what someone else was saying (more or less). So quote marks for MASK are no more meaningful than they might be for an average NYT reporter.

    For that other issue:

    I'm starting to feel that I'm swirling out of control. Thinking about changing politics for the better means getting rid of Republicans, which means getting rid of the Democrats who are unwilling to fight the fight, which means getting the money out of the system so that politicians from the entire range of political ideas have a fair chance to get elected, which means getting the current Congress to change financing laws, which means getting rid of the Democrats to put someone in to get rid of the Republicans. Up and down and round and round. Yet there is no way to get on the ride. I'm thinking about giving it all up, selling everything, building a shack in the swamp (with DSL of course), and watching it fall apart with only the mosquitos, turtles, gators, and I surviving.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/18/2006 @ 09:09am

49. TJ, stiff upper lip, man

    I share your despair, but think about how we felt three years ago, and then after the last election.haven't we progressed? do you not hear that distant rumbling? it could be a tornado that sweeps away the un-american fascists and their apologists.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/18/2006 @ 10:08am

50. worldwide protests against the war in Iraq, or perhaps more accurate war on Iraq, except, you guessed it, HERE

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/18/2006 @ 10:45am

51. this is a good time for your tears, america

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/18/2006 @ 10:46am

52. An attack on free speech?

    Let me guess... by conservatives.

    Posted by WILL C. 03/18/2006 @ 08:26am | ignore this person

    As opposed to the "speech codes" imposed by LIBERAL universities?

    Posted by Mask at 03/18/2006 @ 1:17pm

53. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 03/18/2006 @ 09:09am | ignore this person

    How about this for a quote...

    "Vote for Peace will either end up getting Republicans elected by not supporting 'pro-war' Democrats...or more likely, be no more effective than the other 5200 anti-war groups 'threatening' Democrats since 2002"-----MASK

    Posted by Mask at 03/18/2006 @ 1:19pm

54. Good call, Johannesrolf. They've got us cornered, they've got us outnumbered. They're in trouble.

    Posted by redwingblack at 03/18/2006 @ 2:09pm

55. I'm not being facetious, by the way.

    Posted by redwingblack at 03/18/2006 @ 2:12pm

56. "Vote for Peace will either end up getting Republicans elected by not supporting 'pro-war' Democrats...or more likely, be no more effective than the other 5200 anti-war groups 'threatening' Democrats since 2002"-----MASK

    Mask: So when you don't make up quotes, you quote yourself? Interesting tactic.

    You assert that by refusing to vote for pro-war candidates, we will help pro-war candidates. Interesting analysis. Sort of like arguing that Dr. Pepper drinkers are helping Coke win its war over Pepsi. Personally, I don't give a rat's rear whether the pro-war candidate is a Democrat or a Republican. I don't want either.

    Given that you love war and blood and death and all that manly stuff, why are you trying to convince people to give up on Vote for Peace? Given your analysis, it is in your interest for Vote for Peace to attract as wide a membership as possible. Think about it, if, as you predict, 5 million Vote for Peace signers means that the Republicans will retain their Congressional majorities, 100 million would probably mean that the Congress would become unanimously Republican. Under your analysis, to further the cause of war, you should become a Vote for Peace recruiter.

    By the way, why are you posting on your day off? Are Bush's plummeting poll numbers forcing the shills to work overtime?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 03/18/2006 @ 3:13pm

57. And notice that MASK's self-quote contained quotes within it. It's a disease, I tells ya.

    Knowing that MASK voted for Kerry, one wonders then what he sees in a politician that earns his vote. Is it stances on social issues like abortion or the Patriot Act in which conservatives leave libertarians behind? Is it the absence of failures or corruption? Is it related to the economy, employment, the market?

    Or is he just part of the I Hate Bush crowd that we hear so much about? Is it a matter of candidate IQ, the way he fills out his suit, or his ability to avoid injury during his hobbies? Is it something harder to define like trustworthiness, likability, directness?

    Just what makes MASK's often itchy fingers move the lever, pencil, or punch to a particular candidate's name? Inquiring lefties want to know.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/18/2006 @ 4:19pm

58. As opposed to the "speech codes" imposed by LIBERAL universities?

    Posted by MASK 03/18/2006 @ 1:17pm

    Please feel free to Cut and paste the verbage of such codes.

    They must exist. You said they exist.

    Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2006 @ 5:20pm

59. Just what makes MASK's often itchy fingers move the lever, pencil, or punch to a particular candidate's name?

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 03/18/2006 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person

    Once one filters out all the waffling, equivocation and rationalizations, it pretty much boils down to "I wanna win!"

    Let's face it. If you voted for Kerry, you'll vote for a lightly retarded weasel.

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 03/20/2006 @ 08:26am

60. Conservatives will never succeed in distancing their failed ideology from Bush. His biography blends all the threads of modern conservatism that is really a marriage of corporate interests and theocracy. He's a mediocre man born into wealth, who never had to prove himself in a meritocracy and found religion. Through the network of his family name Bush became President and launched a war that appealed to corporatists and theocrats alike. How much more conservative can one be? Conservatives like to portray their ideology as a celebration of self-made men with optimism. In reality though, the poster boy for conservatism is not Ronald Reagan. It's George W. Bush – a man with wealth he didn't earn honestly who believes the apocalypse is just around the corner.

    Read, Lancing the Boil, in today's posting of the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

    Posted by trebor007 at 03/22/2006 @ 11:00pm