John Kerry has an inspiring vision for America

[valniel]

Former State Assembly Speaker and Los Angeles Councilmember
Antonio Villaraigosa Endorses John Kerry for President

LOS ANGELES, CA Antonio Villaraigosa, City Councilmember for Los Angeles’ 14th District and former Speaker of the California State Assembly, today endorsed John Kerry for the Democratic nomination for President.

“John Kerry has an inspiring vision for America. He is truly committed to empowering our communities by creating good jobs, improving our public schools, and increasing home ownership,” said Antonio Villaraigosa. “John Kerry has the best combination of character, policy-making experience, and national security credentials to get our neighborhoods and our country back on track.”

City Councilmember Antonio Villaraigosa was elected in March, becoming the first modern candidate to defeat an incumbent in a primary election. He was elected to the California State Assembly in 1994 representing the 45th District in the heart of Los Angeles and then he was elected Speaker of the Assembly in 1998.

As Speaker, Antonio was widely credited with re-establishing the stature of the State Assembly, restoring civility to that body and fostering an unprecedented era of bipartisanship. After serving in the legislature, Antonio ran for mayor of Los Angeles in 2001. He later served on the California Medical Assistance Commission, was the Cesar Chavez Senior Fellow in Public Policy at UCLA and is a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the University of Southern California.

“I am honored to have Antonio’s support. An accomplished coalition-builder, he has served the people of California effectively in the state house,” said John Kerry. “Antonio has led efforts to modernize California’s public schools and provide millions of children access to health care. He will be a key leader in this campaign to make America stronger, safer and more secure.”

John Kerry recently received the endorsements of other prominent California leaders, including state Controller Steve Westly, state Treasurer Phil Angelides, and former Defense Secretary William Perry.

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?pagename=pr_2003_0728

[XanaDUer]

1. Hi and welcome!

Welcome to DU2!

[ThorsteinVeblen]

2. John Kerry's vision obviously includes

manufacturing evidence to justify evil wars and the killing of innocents, the enabling of foreign policy radicals who are destroying this country and the support of legislation that violates the constitution and strips Americans of their 4th amendment rights.

We don't need a man like John Kerry in office. We need a leader.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[valniel]

4. John Kerry's vision obviously includes equal and civil rights for all

"We need to guarantee equal rights and civil rights and say that, here in America, workers have the right to organize -- women have the right to choose - and justice belongs to everyone regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation."

Every American should have the opportunity to succeed and to live the American dream. Discrimination has no place in a nation founded on the principles of freedom from persecution. While America has made great strides toward true equality, much remains to be done and too often the progress we've made comes under attack. John Kerry voted for every major piece of Civil Rights legislation to come before Congress since 1985, including the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. He voted for the Equal Rights Amendment, and supports the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.

Here is some of what John Kerry has done and will do to make America a better place:

- Judicial Nominations That Will Uphold Our Rights

- Preserve Affirmative Action

- Protect and Advance Rights for Women

- Ensure that Every Ballot Counts

- Prosecute Hate Crimes

- Work to End Employment Discrimination

- Eliminate Racial Profiling

We do need a man like John Kerry in office!!! We need a leader!!!

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?JServSessionIdr009=r964ytg9oi.app2a&pagename=civ_main

[ThorsteinVeblen]

5. If Kerry is nominated, I will not vote for him.

A vote for the Democratic Status Quo will ensure a Democratic minority for the next 30 years.

The leaders of the Democratic Party need to be removed and replaced. Their cowardice and inability to lead has destroyed a once great party. No vision, no values, no leaders - welcome to the current Democratic Party.

[Madball02]

7. Actually it was the abandonment by the Green Liberals that

caused all of this.

There is little debate between New Democrats and Green Democrats because the Greens could not handle the debate and left the table.

It shows that their side was on shaky ground.

I would love to see the greens abck within the party, the empty chair is still waiting for them, but we cannot make them come back.

[DrFunkenstein]

8. I Think Your Position Has Already Been Comfortably Noted

And dismissed out of hand. Take your time ship back to 2000. Here in 2003, we have Kerry, Dean, and Kucinich sticking it to the Pubs every day, each with a compelling vision and significant alternative to the devastating path Bush has tread.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

9. My opposition to Kerry started on October 11, 2002

the day that corrupt coward signed the Iraq resolution enabling a corrupt, evil and illegal war.

Kerry voted for this generation's Vietnam War.

On that black day he failed himself, he failed history and he failed America.

[Madball02]

11. thats a little blown out of proportion

It was another vote that mattered very little.

People die each day, you cannot fix everyone's ills in the world ...

[ThorsteinVeblen]

14. "It was another vote that mattered very little."

You are naive and ill informed.

The vote in fact normalized the radical, illegal policy of pre-emptive strikes based on non-existent intelligence and cynical propaganda. A policy perfected by Nazi Germany.

There is nothing now between 2003 America and 1933 Germany except for our leaders.

All of our legal and poltical protections against facism are now gone. It is only our leaders who are the ONLY safeguards.

If there is one lesson from history it is that humans are corruptible and fallible. Our founding fathers understood this and that is why they wrote the Constitution. Our founding fathers did not trust themselves or future leaders. Once you strip away the Constitutional protections against human rights abuses and the declaration of wars it is only a matter of time before America falls.

If Kerry is really concerned about national security he would've voted against the Iraq resolution and demanded that Saudi Arabia be held accountable.

[DrFunkenstein]

17. For Some False Pearl Harbor Analogies, For Others...

I'm not going to bother arguing through this dumbass hijacking of a positive thread. But here is some history for you:

1) It pressured Bush to go to the UN. The administration, namely figures like Lewis Libby and Alberto R. Gonzalez, was speaking openly of circumventing both Congress and the UN. Here's a link to an article indicating this to remind you:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0906-05.htm

The Pentagon hawks were speaking of "reshaping" the entire Middle East. The resolution, however faulty, is exactly why we are not knee-deep in Syria right now. Here's a link to that a reminder:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0910-01.htm

For the Biden-Lugar story:

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

Kerry publicly regretted Gephardt's betrayal (without naming names), but said he wanted to go on record about the need to disarm Iraq.
Here is a link to Kerry's repeated claims about the need to disarm Saddam:

http://www.gop.com/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research061903.htm

I'm not sure why I bother. BTW, Kerry did call for Saudi Arabia to be held accountable - months ago.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

22. Classic Bush Tactic

Ask for way more than you really want and then "comprimise" so that you get exactly what you wanted in the first place.

See judicial nominees.
See tax cuts.
See enivironmental regulations.
See energy "crisis".


Kerry did nothing but give Bush exactly what he wanted. Shame on John Kerry. Shame. Shame.

[DrFunkenstein]

26. What Compromise Are You Referring To?

Which part of my post?

Nominees - threatened filibuster.
Ashcroft - voted against.
Gale Norton - voted against.
ANWR - threatened filibuster.
Tax cuts for rich - voted against, would repeal rich's cut.

Check out Public Citizen's voting records. Type in 02101 for the zip code. Check Kerry's record every year on every vote. Then come back and tell me what you found.

http://www.citizen.org/congress/voting/

But I'm still wondering what compromise you are talking about.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

30. I am referring to Kerry's capitulation on the Iraq resolution

Bush got what he originally wanted - to invade Iraq.

The line about using whatever force necessary in the "region" was the proverbial "tie on the dog".

i.e. - it was included in the oringinal draft as "cover" for cowards like Kerry. So they could take it out and say "see, I didn't support the war."

What a coward.

[SGrande]

41. ahh the privilage of the activist

You should go pick up William Rivers Pitt's new book on the WMD case and how wrong your argument is in regards to John Kerry.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

43. Ah the privledge of the elite

is what Pitt and you are defending. His smarmy little references to his father and appeals to "authority" don't hold water.

If Kerry is nominated he will lose. Period. He is a wishy washy man with no "moral clarity". Americans like Bush not because of the issues, his policies or his actions. They like him because he is simple and straighforward and decisive.

It is not in Kerry's character to be this way. He is a complex, subtle man used to comprimise and intricate arguments. He is exactly what the Democratic Party doesn't need right now.

We need someone straighforward with a vision and the guts to fight for it. Kerry is not that.

[DrFunkenstein]

55. Someone Just Like Bush?

Is that really what you arguing for? Someone that acts like Bush? "Moral clarity" has to be one of the creepiest phrases since the Nazi holocaust. I much prefer people that say Dean is willing to change. Not some nutball ideologue with a smirk and some blue jeans, which is what Bush is.

But considering some of your posts around here, you probably would go in for "moral clarity."

[Nicholas_J]

16. Again

Your opinion only...
As a matter of fact, it is an opinion manufactured by howard dean.

Legal opinion of constitutional law experts is that the Resolution did not give Bush any authorization to go to war, and it restricted its support of Bush going to war ONLY with the support of the United Nation

The democratic candidate who absolutely NEEDED the war was Howard Dean. without the war, Deans candidacy for the nomination wouldv have been dead by now, so Dean desparately needed to weaken the democratic oppposition to Bus by creating a false impression of the other candidates attempts to Box bush in to going the diploamtic route.

Dean simply lied about the nature of the October Resolution, and the his cultlike supporters beleived it, without checking into constitutional law about the issue.

This is an old Dean tactic. When He was running for governor in 2000, gays supportered Anthony Pollina, the progressive candidate, but Dean created such fear that by voting for the progressives, Deans chance would be destroyed, the republican Ruth Dwyer would win, and so gays would lose the Civil Union law. Dean has very frequwntly used fear to create an environment hostile to those who he is running against.

By weakening the Democratic opposition to the war, Dean got the war he needed to stay in the running.

Dean by and large, was the candidate who allowed Bush to do an end run around the Democratic opposition.


Here is Dean, in typical Dean fashion, trying to frighten Vermont gays from voting for the candidate they actually preferred"


Dean: You can forget about that (national office). It certainly isn’t going to help it any unless someone is looking for someone who says what they think and sticks to their word. That’s not as valued in Washington as it is elsewhere.

There are a number of Democrats and a number of Catholics who I have lost the support of, and I need to get that support back. The biggest problem for me (in November) is (Progressive) Anthony (Pollina). Anthony is going to take votes away from me and he’s not going to take any votes away from (Republican) Ruth (Dwyer). So actually the better he does, the more likely it is that Ruth Dwyer is going to be Governor.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jun2000/news06_dean%20.htm

and then a letter to the editor, condemning Dean for using these fear tactics:

Governor Dean has proven that he’ll only support us when he’s trapped or it’s convenient. For example, his recent interview with OITM where he virtually begged the queer community to support him over Anthony Pollina is simple, pathetic fear-mongering. He feels trapped and he comes to us for help. It’s truly depressing to see the privileged elites of the GLBT community and the privileged elites of the Democratic Party falling all over themselves in an effort to suck up to one another. The Governor should be ashamed of himself for attempting to scare queer folk and progressives into voting for him.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jul2000/letters.htm


Dena has been caught lying or misrespresenting other candidates often enough to have had to issue apologies afterwards, to Edwards and Graham. He has lied when representing himself as the only candidate
whio opposed the war, conveniently forgetting Kucinich.

Dean used fear to try to get gays to vote for him, ratther thand the candidates of their choice.

Prior to Bush sending troops into Iraq, the October resolution was used by a group of high powered attorneys as the basis for a request to get an injucntion in Masschusetts Federal District Court to prevent Bush from going to war. The plaintiffs stated that the Resolution required Bush to get full Unutes Nations Support before going to war. THe Judge accepted this argument, but then ruled against the plaintiffs, noit because their argument was invalid, but bacuse he claimed that such a case was non-jusaticable, as the courts do not have the power to remove a constitutionally appointed power from either the president or legislature, and the presient has the full and sole power to wage war.


Those who post their belief that the Iraw Act are proving themselves to be the willing dupes of Dean. I have repeatedly requested that they back up their opinion of the act with valid legal opnion, as that is the ONLY way they can validate this opinion. Find a judge, or court, or legal expert who states the (who is not attached to the Bush Administration)who will state that the resolution gave the president support in going to war. Not that trecherous traitor Dean, who lied and got the war he needed in order to stay. politically viable.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

18. "As a matter of fact, it is an opinion manufactured by howard dean."

Oh, and I thought I was thinking for myself...

"Legal opinion of constitutional law experts "

Oh really, which constiutional law experts were those?

"The democratic candidate who absolutely NEEDED the war was Howard Dean. without the war, Deans candidacy for the nomination wouldv have been dead by now, so Dean desparately needed to weaken the democratic oppposition to Bus by creating a false impression of the other candidates attempts to Box bush in to going the diploamtic route."

Oh now the Iraq War is the work of a single Democratic Government from Vermont who secretly made it happen so he could achieve his presidential ambitions.

That bastard!

[Nicholas_J]

25. Again Veblen...

YOur keyboard speaketh...

Not the law...

You want to know why Dean is no longer attacking the resolution...


On February 24, a federal district court dismissed a lawsuit challenging President Bush's authority to wage war against Iraq without explicit congressional authorization. The court ruled the dispute to be a non-justiciable political question. The case is now on an expedited appeal to the First Circuit...



They further argue that none of the legislation passed by Congress in the wake of September 11, including last October's Iraq resolution, confers sufficient authority for the war the President is threatening. The October Resolution - House Joint Resolution 114 - purports to authorize the President to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."" Plaintiffs' contention, based on the language and legislative history of the resolution, is that unless narrowly construed, this resolution would be tantamount to congressional abdication of its non-delegable trigger power and would impair separation of powers. And, they contend, such a narrower reading of the statute is plausible, as the statute appears to tie the start of hostilities to the progress of international diplomatic efforts, reflected in the resolutions of the United Nations, to bring Iraq into compliance. Thus, Congress's October Resolution can reasonably be read as expressing three ideas: (1) Congressional support for international diplomacy on the part of the executive; (2) Congressional authority for limited use of force to protect American troops; and (3) the inclination of Congress to provide the necessary assent if the Security Council authorizes the use of force.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew99.php

Check the link to the case itself...

In order for this case to be brought before The Federal District Court had to agree that the argument that the plaintiffs offered was valid... that the act DID NOT provide Bush with support for the going to war...

The judge ruledagaint the plaintiffs, because they claim the case NON-JUSTICEABLE.

That conngress had the authority to set conditions for Bush to get their support, but, neither the courts, not congress has the power to STOP a president from excercing his authority to WAGE war.

ThE argument that the act did not give the president support was allowed as a valid argument, but held to be incomsequential, as only the president has that power, and congress cannot remove it, and a judge cannot order an injuction againt the president legitimately using power ceded to him under the constitution.

THe fact that the argument was excepted into evidence means that the interpretation of the plaintiffs was accepted as being valid. THat the act requied the president go to and acept the deisions of the U.N. That the intent of Congress was to require the president to go to the U.N. and take in action before the U.N. had completed its negociations. That COngress didnt have the authority to STOP the president, just set terms for their support.

The author of the Jurist article was one of the plaintiffs in the case: along with:

Jesse Jackson Jr.

Max D. Stern. (Stern, Shapiro, Weissberg and Garin)

Margaret A Burnham.(Burnham,Hines, Dilday)

National Voting Rights Institute

John Bonifaz

Susan Schuman

Charles Richardson

Jeffrey McKenzie

Dennis Kucinich

Sheila Jackson Leigh

Jim Mc Dermott

Jose Serrano

And a whole bunch of other legislators, and democratic party icons and legal experts in constitional law.

Yes, they are wrong about the October Resolution, and DOCTOR Howard Dean, with his Medical Degree and a decade running a dinky state in which he supported republican policies and fought the democratic party platform on virtaully every issue knows better.

Gee, the kind of candidate who has been caught lying, not once, but several times lying about other cnadidates and had to offer public apology. Who has used fear tactic to frighten gays into voting for him...

Yes, this is the man who can be trusted to not mislead the public about the October Resolution and those who suported it. He would never engage in such lies in order to mislead voters into supporting him...

Of course not.

I betcha someone warned Dean to shut his big mouth because his lies would threaten the appeal. And then they might have to see it that the media holds Dean accountable for it.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

29. The President's "authority" to declare war:

"neither the courts, not congress has the power to STOP a president from excercing (sic) his authority to WAGE war."

"as only the president has that power, and congress cannot remove it, and a judge cannot order an injuction againt(sic) the president legitimately using power ceded to him under the constitution."

"That COngress didnt have the authority to STOP the president, just set terms for their support."


I suggest you read the Constitution my friend...



Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America:

The Congress shall have power

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make
rules concerning captures on land and water;


"We have already given... one effectual check to the dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:461, Papers 15:397

"Congress be called is a justifiable cause of war; and as the Executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side by preventing the competent body from deliberating on the question." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1793. (*) ME 9:33

"The question of war being placed by the Constitution with the Legislature alone, respect to that it duty to restrain the operations of our militia to those merely defensive." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft for Presidential Message, 1792. (*)

" opposed the right of the President to declare anything future on the question, Shall there or shall there not be war?" --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:404

"Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force in any degree which could be avoided. I have barely instructed the officers stationed in the neighborhood of the aggressions to protect our citizens from violence, to patrol within the borders actually delivered to us, and not to go out of them but when necessary to repel an inroad or to rescue a citizen or his property." --Thomas Jefferson: Confidential Message on Spanish Spoilations, 1805. ME 3:400

[valniel]

32. Is far from a given

I would not rely on Jefferson and Madison’s late 1700 and early 1800 writings as the absolute authority of the President’s Constitutional power to wage war.

Preeminent constitutional authority Louis Fisher chronicles the dramatic expansion--from George Washington to Bill Clinton--of presidential war power. Executive initiatives, he argues, come at the expense of congressional control and violate the Constitution. Indeed, the post-World War II political climate has promoted extra-constitutional actions by presidents eager to redefine the meanings of "emergency powers" and "defensive war." Flashpoints like Haiti, Bosnia, Panama, and the Persian Gulf, he contends, provide predictable manifestations of an increasingly overreaching presidency.
Constitutionally, Congress was empowered to declare and authorize war. Yet, thanks largely to a docile Congress and negligent judiciary, presidents have virtually confiscated the power to make war. That process has hardly been curbed by the War Powers Resolution (1973) and more recent signs of congressional backbone. As a result, Presidents Bush (in the Persian Gulf) and Clinton (in Haiti and Bosnia) have tried to sidestep congressional approval by asserting United Nations authority for military actions beyond our borders. Fisher is emphatic: Such actions violate the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/fispre.html

[ThorsteinVeblen]

33. Thank you

My point exactly. And don't forget about Vietnam - the largest "police action" in world history.

"docile Congress and negligent judiciary"

He said it, I didn't. Unconstitutional actions are possible because of cowards like Kerry.

[Vis Numar]

46. The only cult I see happening

is the one that Kerry has dropped like a stinkbomb onto the DU forums, probably paid and posting from Boston as well.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

49. just for the record

I support Kerry independently and without pay. :hi:

[valniel]

56. Dean, like Bush

don't like to have motives, statements or actions questioned.
The questioners are mean, unpatriotic or downright traitorous!

Getting into a position of prominence begets scrutiny, that is what the First Amendment is all about. Could the First be one of the parts of the Bill of Rights that Dean would like to amend?

[blm]

28. Well, if Dean thought the war was illegal, why

didn't he join in the legal petition to stop it like Kucinich did?

Why didn't he speak out at ONE antiwar rally?

[ThorsteinVeblen]

31. Because he was too busy plotting with Bush to invade Iraq

in order to further his presidential amibtions. It's obvious.

That Bastard!

[valniel]

36. Does anybody measure up to your standards?

I think I know who you dislike - Everybody!
My question. Are there anybody you think deserves to be President?

[ThorsteinVeblen]

38. Howard Dean 2004

The only guy that has even a remote chance of winning.

[valniel]

44. Reading posts #28 & 31 in order

does not make a Dean fan!

[ThorsteinVeblen]

45. #31 was sacarsm

BLM's attack on Dean was so outlandish and ridiculous, it didn't even deserve a real response.

See #18.

[blm]

51. Asking why Dean didn't speak out at antiwar rallies

is "outlandish"???

Asking if Dean believed the war to be illegal then why didn't he join Kucinich and other lawmakers in their legal petition to stop the war is ridiculous?

hahah...you are SO sensitive.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. It's a fair question.

[Madball02]

10. umm, im an avid Kerry supporter

And the Greens are the most horrible people in the world.

They abandon the party out of spite and wonder why the world is like what it is.

Either get behind the wire, or get out , is my opinion.

[DrFunkenstein]

19. I Disagree

Many Greens felt disatisfied with the corporate sell-out and centrist triangulations that defined the late 90's party. The Green party represented a vision of progressive reform more in line with how they felt the Dems should look.

The decisive nature of Nader's run should lie on the shoulders of a poorly run Gore campaign, and certainly not on the progressives that voted in a truly democratic spirit.

I agree, in 2004, people are feeling much more pragmatic. But many would love to see an electable progressive take the White House. I'm surprised at your hostility. After all, with the exception of Kucinich, Kerry is the most progressive voice in the field.

[blm]

12. That's funny since you LOVE compromising centrists

who stay in the center with GOP allies. Even as Vermont grew more progressive, Dean maintained his staunch centrist mindset. Only the lure of antiwar $$$$$ from liberals shook him off his GOP buttkissing ass.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

13. I do love centrists - centrists with principles

Centrists who are leaders.

Centrists who have vision.

Centrists who aren't cowards.

Centrists who aren't corrupt.

[valniel]

21. Then John Kerry is your man!!!

He has a strong centrist appeal, with progressive policies. Check out his web-site at: http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer
It is a little bland but improving, and it will give you a good insight into John Kerry's positions!

[ThorsteinVeblen]

23. John Kerry has no principles

He has demonstrated that by enabling a second Vietnam War.

John Kerry should resign in shame.

Shame on him. Shame. Shame.

[SGrande]

39. ahh the privilage of the activist

as William Pitt puts it

"Its the privilage of the activist to try and judge John Kerry after you have the Director of the CIA lie to you and tell you that Saadam not only has nukes, but he's ready to point them at Israel.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

42. I have lost imense respect for Mr. Pitt after his endorsement of Kerry

He is dead wrong.

His father nor he is no more of an authority on this stuff than the New York Times or the foreign press, both of which reported huge problems with the "intelligence" claims Kerry is hiding behind at the time they were given to Kerry.

Mr. Pitt uses his elitist unbringing and veiled references to his fathers "sources" to bully and intimidate internet "nobodies" whose sources are much more public and credible than Mr. Pitt's.

Cheers.

[DrFunkenstein]

20. blm, Don't Fall For His Divisive Schtick

If you do, the terrorists win.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

24. No, by ignoring Saudi Arabia and invading Iraq

Kerry is letting the terrorists win.

[Madball02]

6. wow...sources?

I didn't know John Kerry is now manufacturing WMDs?

How amazing!

[XanaDUer]

15. What proof do you have

that Kerry manufactured evidence.

What evidence? Of WMDs? Of what?

[GOPBasher]

34. In defense of the war vote

With the War Powers Act, the President already has the right to send troops into battle at any time. That vote didn't give Bush any power he didn't already have.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

35. Democrats held a majority in the Senate

Chafee (R - RI) voted against the resolution and so did Jeffords(I).

If the resolution hadn't passed, Bush could not have kept the troops there for over 60 days:


http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

The War Powers Act

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

47. .

(on edit: my bad)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. All the divisiveness and attacks won't add up to a hill of beans

All the divisiveness and attacks don't add up to a hill of beans once you actually hear Kerry speak, examine his positions, and compare him to the other candidates.

As someone who has been paying close attention to Kerry for years, since he moved me with a speech on the Senate floor in the early nineties, I'm confident that he'll be able to lead our party to victory in 2004, and get our country back on the right track as President.

If you are undecided, don't waste your time with these DU pissing matches, go to the candidates sites and make up your own mind.

[SGrande]

40. BRAVO!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

53. Instead of checking out his speeches, check his votes.

Many good progressive votes.
And...

2 virtually unforgiveable ones.

[GeronimoSkull]

37. Kerry inspires me

to vote for someone else

[chimpymustgo]

48. Kerry's a very strong, experienced, charismatic candidate.

I'll happily vote for him if he gets the nomination.

[quinnox]

50. Indeed

Kerry will lead this nation back to greatness.

[resist]

54. Must hold nose now, excuse

And he feels so strongly about his positions that he's willing to fold to Mr. Bush and the Patriot Act - how can he defend that vote? 5.000 people detained to actually charge what 14? 16? He's willing to support a war on Iraq knowing full well that its a crock of dung. And he supports the Homeland Defense Dept, the name alone sounds like something out of Hitler's Germany.

I don't know how he paid the political bill for the endorsements he's getting, but he won't get mine.