Hey Democrats, Here’s What a Purity Test for Candidates Looks Like (and Doesn’t)

Corporate Democrats often accuse progressives of being too idealistic, of subjecting potential candidates to a so-called purity test. Most recently that argument has extended to former vice president Joe Biden. His supporters say that he is the best possible candidate to defeat Donald Trump. That’s debatable to say the least. What’s not debatable is that refusing to support a man who voted to invade Iraq is hardly subjecting him to a purity test. Over 1 million people died there for no reason whatsoever. Anyone who had anything to do with it, especially someone who voted to authorize force there, has blood on their hands.

This entry was posted on by .

About Ted Rall

Ted Rall is the political cartoonist at ANewDomain.net, editor-in-chief of SkewedNews.net, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is the author of the biography "Trump," to be published in July 2016.

12 thoughts on “Hey Democrats, Here’s What a Purity Test for Candidates Looks Like (and Doesn’t)

  1. Ted, I’m for the gay, trans, cancer survivor who never even met a CEO. Too bad that I don’t enjoy the franchise in your country – given the unfortunate fact that the policies and actions of its so-called «leadership» affect me to no little degree. But perhaps, like those dastardly Russians, by expressing an opinion I am «interfering» in your elections. Hope your (In)Justice Department doesn’t demand my extradition….


  2. 1) The only discernible value of a “Joe ‘where are going with that foot in your mouth’ Biden”© presidential candidacy would be the decisive contribution it would make in propelling the “Democratic” Party into well-deserved oblivion.

    2) To correct the record on needless Iraqi deaths caused by the “mass-murder for profit” US empire, the project of the destruction of Iraq began in 1991. It was initiated by George HW Bush as distinct from the subsequent invasion/occupation by his son (George “the profoundly impaired”) under executive direction of Dick Cheney – the closest thing to “the anti-Christ” that will ever be witnessed by those who indulge in such fantasies.

    The 1991 combat phase was “distinguished” by the widely reported use of depleted uranium, establishing for the US dramatic and exceptional new lows (quite an achievement!!!) in modern war crimes. The lie-filled campaign to “sell” the upcoming war to US citizens and the final massacre along “the Highway of Death” were strong nominees for this coveted title of “new lows in US perpetual war.”

    Combat was followed by imposition of “economic sanctions,” themselves regarded as war crimes, at least back in the good old days of “genteel war.” These sanctions were faithfully and rigorously maintained by WJ Clinton throughout his tenure as philanderer-in-chief and were in still in effect when the re-invasion began in 2003 .

    These sanctions alone are “credited” with causing a million Iraqi deaths, half of them children, but, were nevertheless deemed “worth it” by then Sec State Albright (the ghoul from whom Cheney, see above, wrested the title of ‘undisputed anti-Christ’ so vigorously, passionately and convincingly contested by a long and distinguished line of criminally psychopathic US government officials.)

    • «… Dick Cheney – the closest thing to “the anti-Christ” that will ever be witnessed by those who indulge in such fantasies.» Not to worry, falco ; the US is capable of producing even more convincing anti-Christs than dear Richard Bruce (or, for that matter, Heinz Alfred) . Follow the demonisation and the buildup of tensions with China – i e, the same process used against Russia – and wait for the Armageddon that Richard Bruce and his gang (including dear John Robert Bolton, who once again has ermerged into the limelight), despite their best efforts, didn’t quite manage to bring about….

      Talk about the Rapture !… 😉


      • Hi Henri,

        Indeed, the US has a virtually endless and quite enthusiastic stableful of exceptional contenders for the title of @C.

      • «Indeed, the US has a virtually endless and quite enthusiastic stableful of exceptional contenders for the title of @C.» It’s not what they say, falco – which is, generally speaking, all of a piece – but what they do. The contender who actually manages to bring about Armageddon gets the brass ring…. 😉


    • Nice synopsis, falco – a few more notes, lest we forget.

      I call the first invasion “Operation Media Storm” – cuz that’s what it was. Daddy Bush had previously praised and supported Saddam. He sold Saddam the weapons he used against the Kurds, while telling the Kurds they could count on US support. He gave him the green light to invade Kuwait, then made a big media presentation out of taking it back.

      Is it any wonder Saddam tried to blow him up?

      Although I don’t approve of the Clinton-era sanctions, Bill did know that Saddam had WMD’s. He still had the receipts from the previous administration.

    • Anyone coming out of the deadly duo of “viable parties” will have blood on their hands.

      I donated to Sanders in 2016 because he campaigned on spending the peoples’ money to benefit the people (who are regularly cheated, by the oligarchy, out of a large share of the wealth they slavelike create for them) instead of the war machine, although he dared not be as true as his words.

      But you simply can’t buy that kind of that kind of socialist messaging in the corporate infotainment media. Even if you come up with the kind of money they want for a super bowl spot, you literally can’t buy it.

      And he did get people to listen to the upside of social democracy and emboldened many to use that language and consider a candidate who uses it.

      But then, I knew he wouldn’t be allowed to win even if he was allowed to become the Democratic Party’s candidate and managed to dodge the sniper bullets of some intelligence agency aficionado or “patsy”.

      So maybe by enacting social programs we may begin to starve the apocalyptic war beast, making it small enough to drown it in a bathtub, contra Grover Norquist.

      That’s a lot to expect from an empire that manages to hide its “empireness” from the gaze of its electorate in the light of day, before the gaping maw of global heating and nuclear war.

      • Yep, I’ve made this point before: the original AUMF was passed virtually unanimously. It specifically stated that the military was to be used “as necessary and appropriate.”

        I’m pretty sure that many of our Erected Officials voted for it believing that it put sufficient limits on Bush’s actions. I’m pretty sure I would have voted for it, like most of my fellow citizens, I was PISSED!

        Bernie is to be commended for voting against the second one. By then it was obvious that Bush had no intention of following it to the letter.

        Many citizens and politicritters did buy his line of BS about Iraq. I can forgive the citizenry, but not people who believe that they are qualified to drive the boat. THEY should have known better, THEY should have done their homework and THEY should have fact-checked Bush.

      • @andreas5


        It would help if you were a little more specific, but I assume you mean that fact that Bernie did not vote for the second AUMF: It was the first one that Bush used as his excuse for invading Iraq. Representative Bernard Sanders voted for that one.

        It allowed Bush to use military force against any country which participated in 9/11. Of course, Bush lied about that little detail, but if we’re going to blame the war on people who voted in good faith for something else entirely, then Sanders is just as much to blame as Biden or Clinton.

        That is, if we compare apples to apples.

    • To be fair there’s only one Representative who had the courage to vote against it, Barbara Lee, and look what happened when some tried to push for her to run for Speaker for the 2018 Congress against Pelosi.

      Reminds one of Jeanette Rankin, pacifist Congresswoman who voted against the declarations of war for World Wars I and II.

Leave a Reply