Alright, who'd vote for an anti-war (R) over a hawkish (D)?

[DerekG]

Although I'm a youngin', I've read several chronicles of campaigns in which anti-war voters opted to punish Great Society liberals and Dixiecrats for their complicity in launching, and defending, Johnson's rape of Indochina. Said voters were perfectly willing to support conservative, but dovish, politicians.

Effective, no?

With this in mind, I ask: In an election on any given level (governorship, congressional, presidential), would you throw your vote to a reactionary who was *stridently* anti-war, rather than settle for a fairly centrist/liberal politician who insisted on "staying the course" or escalating the conflict?

On edit: Grammar

[Autonomy]

1. Forget the generalities

I'll give you a perfect example of an anti-war conservative: would you vote for Pat Buchanan over, say, Hillary Clinton?

[DerekG]

15. Yes

Saving the lives of Iraqi civilians takes precedence over draconian immigration policies and Roe v. Wade.

Sorry.

[Pirate Smile]

25. Wow. There are a lot of long term implications to a vote like that.

[DerekG]

30. 100,000 dead men, women and children warrants a vote like that

I'd pull the lever for anyone who would end this horror.

[Autonomy]

31. Too late to end it. It has a life of its own. Sad truth.

We can only decide whether we want to continue to be a part of it or not.

[Pirate Smile]

33. I understand where you are coming from but Hillary isn't a monster and

she isn't Bush.

I just think the side effects of a Buchanan Presidency would end up being horrifying also.

It seems like a "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" but, of course, you end up getting slammed with something different that may be just as bad.

I've gotten slammed by those before so just call me a little cautious.

[DerekG]

36. Your words are greatly appreciated

I certainly wouldn't vote for a paleo-conservative like Buchanan eagerly, but I have come to the realization that the War Party has two wings, and the Clintons are among those who sit in the cockpit marked "Democratic." Tyros such as these set countries aflame, and they must be defeated.

[Pushed To The Left]

26. No way!

Hillary is still the much more progressive of the two!

[mike_c]

32. yes, and if anyone told me 15 years ago that I'd ever say that...

...my head would have exploded. But just to make sure my meaning is clear, I am WAY to the left the American political spectrum, I'm as Green as the night is long, and I would vote for Pat Buchanan before Hillary Clinton.

on edit: I still can't believe I said that. I hope to never have to face that choice.

[H5N1]

37. I agree. (And I'm glad you said it first.)

[Renew Deal]

42. Hell no.

There has to be something better.

[Inland]

2. Not me.

For one, I don't think there is such a beast as an antiwar repug, although they may lie and say so.

For two, if there was such an animal, they'd still bow to the party.

[Cobalt Violet]

3. I would NEVER vote for a republican under any circumstance.

[stepnw1f]

4. I Will Never Vote Republican

Not as long as the are aligned with Religio-Fascism.

[Vektor]

5. It would depend on where they stood on other issues, as well. n/t

[Arkana]

6. For anything at the governorship or lower, yes, probably.

For President? Not a chance. There are far too many issues besides the Iraq War that I would not be able to reconcile.

[Mass]

9. Even more true for a governor

they have no role in foreign policy, but so much in our daily lives.

[Mass]

7. IMHO, this would be a stupid choice, because there are a lot of other

issues.

If you are ready to renounce your privacy rights, any chance to see a change in the environment, the healthcare, ..., go ahead, but these issues are IMHO as important as Iraq.

This is a choice that everybody has to do in their own soul, but remember that environmental issues, for example, have a potential to kill (and probably already do) more people than the Iraq War, and if you throw the right to healthcare in the balance, you better think twice.

The better choice would be to have somebody who understand how to finish this war and how to do the rest, but if this is not the case, I certainly would evaluate the candidates in more than one option.

[karynnj]

8. The parties weren't as clearly defined

There were liberal or moderate dovish Republicans then. I would have voted for Chuck Percy(IL), Jacob Javitts(NY), Wayne Morse(OR), or Clifford Case(NJ) over a Dixiecrat.

[bemildred]

10. I never vote simply on party affiliation.

That just gets you screwed.

[leftofthedial]

11. i would vote for a flaming pile of shit

before I would EVER vote for a repuke

[LifeDuringWartime]

12. If that were the only basis my vote, yes,

but I would probably be considering other things, like social issues and how friendly with business he/she would be. If the only real difference were the war issue, I would go with whoever opposed it (and hopefully it would be true opposition, not election season bullshit).

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

13. If they publicly renounced the Bush administration, and actually

testified against it, I'd consider it.

Otherwise pretty much a nonstarter. The actions of the Bush administration have pretty much made it so that I consider a Republican officeholder to be a guilty member of that Mafia, which rules out voting for them no matter how good their positions and everything looked.

This doesn't mean that I'd automatically vote for the Dem though depending on their positions.

[Frances]

14. Look at history

Many Americans voted for Nixon (the Republican) over Hubert Humphrey (the Democrat) because (1) they wanted to punish the Dems and (2) Nixon said he had a secret plan to end the war.

In my opinon, the country would have been much better off under Humhrey. (1) The people who got punished were the voters because Nixon rewarded the corporations just like Bush (2) Nixon prolonged the war much longer than necessary. I don't think Humprhey would have had that luxury.

So would I trust a dovish Republican? NO

By the way, I almost voted for someone other than Humphrey because I was so mad at Johnson and Mayor Daley. But I voted for Humprhey because I knew Nixon would be worse and those were my only two real choices.

[DerekG]

24. Eisenhower ran as a peace candidate in '52, and got us out within a year

In light of the utter failure that was the Truman presidency, I probably would have voted for Eisenhower over Stevenson. The Korean War was as unnecessary, and horrific, as Vietnam.

[Frances]

35. I would respectfully disagree

When we left Vietnam, the country was under total communist rule. Now, I would not have wanted to be Vietnamese under French colonial rule, but I would not have wanted to be Vietnamese under communist rule immediately after we left. I have had too many Vietnamese students who explained to me how difficult life was for them at that time.

When we left Korea, half of the country was not under communist rule. I have known at least a dozen people from South Korea who have had very good lives as a result of that war. Life in North Korea is close to unbearable even today.

I am not a totally unbiased person when it comes to the Korean War. My husband and many of his buddies were Navy fighter pilots in that war.

Ike was not as bad as Reagan, but Stevenson would have been better. And I admire Truman.

[DerekG]

41. Perhaps, but the Ho Chi Minh of '45 had a noble vision

He was enamored with American democracy, citing passages of the Declaration of Independence in his own speeches; but Truman rejected his overtures, opting instead to throw Vietnam to the French imperialists. And even if Minh had cast off his cloak of nobility, transmogrifying into a dictator, I can't see how such a devolution would warrant our intervention, which led to the deaths of 3 million human beings, and ecocide.

I do not count myself as an admirer of Harry Truman: I recognize him as the author of the national security apparatus, and see his visage over the mushroom clouds that decimated two civilian populations.

[Frances]

49. I would not have wanted to live under French colonialism

But I don't blame Truman for not intervening in the Vietnamese attempt to throw off French colonial rule. Obviously Ho Chi Minh didn't need our help because he defeated both the French and the U.S. when it intervened against him (I think our intervention against him began with Ike and increased under Kennedy and then of course went full force under Johnson and Nixon.)

I think you almost have to have "been there" to understand Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb. I just wrote another post saying that my 18-year-old cousin was a radio man in the Pacific. My uncle was a Sea Bee there as were my husband's two cousins. I would guess that a fourth of the men from my village were fighting in the Pacific.

Those men who saw combat in the Pacific that I knew were never the same again. The fighting was fierce. I remember one neighbor saying that the hardest part was walking single file through the jungle and seeing a soldier in front of you drop from a sniper bullet and then another one and wondering if you would be next. I remember a woman divorcing her Pacific vet husband because he woke up every night drenched in sweat and screaming and flailing about. I remember a classmate saying how angry his Pacific vet father got whenever he mentioned the war. Those were the ones who came home. So many died. Our experience convinced us the Japanese would defend their country to the last man while we lost loved ones.

But that doesn't mean that I don't feel for the innocent Japanese children who were killed and maimed by the bomb. I don't know what the right answer was. It's just that I understand why Truman made the decision he did.

I hated the McCarthy days (why didn't Ike speak out?) but, if I remember my history right, Truman used the fear of communism to get the U.S. Congress to agree to the Marshall Plan, which was a win-win for both the U.S. and Europe. In essence, as I understand it, we loaned money to European countries so that they could buy equipment and goods from the U.S. That gave our citizens jobs and the Europeans things they really needed after World War II. The plan kept some European countries from going communist. And frankly I would not have wanted to live in a communist European country either.

[TankLV]

46. "utter failure that was the Truman presidency"? Really?

How so?

Not from what I've witnessed and read.

[Raster]

16. To paraphrase Chris Rock: Anyone that votes on a particular issue

without investigating and exploring the issue is a fool.

When I had just turned 18 and was able to vote in my first election, I proclaimed to my Mom and Dad that I was just going to vote a straight Democratic ticket. My Dad told me in no uncertain terms that was stupid and that I should be voting for the candidate that I thought would do the best job. He said if I didn't take the time to find out who I was voting for, then don't vote.

Dem, pub, Green or Libertarian. I would vote for the person I felt was most qualified and would get the job done.

On edit: That said, there is a snowball's chance in hell I would find a puke that I found most qualified. The kool-aid runs too deep, I'm afraid.

[Mythsaje]

17. I'll vote Libertarian

before voting for either.

I might not agree with them on Economic Issues, but at least they're in the right place socially. IMO

I won't vote for a Republican and I don't see a DLCer as being much different...they're still out for themselves and the corporations first and cloak it in populist double-speak.

I'll throw my vote away before I'll let it fall in their corner.

[mmonk]

18. At this point, I don't know

but I do know present foreign policy is bringing our country down, bit by bit and will have an effect on non war related things. I think we're really entering a danger zone because we are becoming really isolated and hated by the populations of countries that didn't hate us before.

[GainesT1958]

19. Ain't no "R" anti-war enough for me to vote for 'em...

Against ANY "D"...not even Chuck Hagel. Pardon me if I did join Joe Scarborough on that sentiment(if on nothing else)!:eyes:

No DLC fan here (at least, not as they've existed for the last five or so years), but I don't want ANYONE within the boundaries of Dub's party, no matter WHO they are!

Don't believe they'd be as "bad" as Hillary? Well, picture an entire Supreme Court with nothing but Scalias, Thomases, and Roberts' populating it. THAT'S the court you'd likely get with another Repub president, folks. Now, I admire Sen. Hagel, and really like his stance firmly opposing this quagmire. BUT...no "R" for president suits me..or ever will!

:kick:

B-)

[Domitan]

20. It's been broadcasted today: Hagel vs Clinton

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/08/24.html#a4607

[Canuckistanian]

21. More like Hagel v. Lieberman

Talk about a Hobson's choice!

[TankLV]

47. How about "none of the above"?

Witholding ones vote is also a means of voting - with your conscience.

I wish there was that choice on the ballots.

We have that here in Nevada on some races.

It would be nice if "none" got more votes, then ALL of the candidates would have to be thrown off the ballot, and NEW candidates would have to run in a NEW election.

That would be my modest suggestion.

[Redstone]

22. I would. In a heartbeat. Nothing is more evil than war.

Nothing.

Redstone

[Pirate Smile]

23. After the past three years of Republican control of all branches of

Government, I don't think we should vote for anyone who votes for Hastert and Delay for the House Leadership OR Frist for Majority Leader.

A perfect example right now is Jim Leach who is going to "co-sponsor her (Barbara Lee) Resolution of Inquiry into Bush Administration communications with the U.K. about Iraq at the time of the Downing Street Memos".

But he votes for Delay and Hastert so no matter how honorable he is as a politician, his leadership vote and who wins determines everything that happens in the House - who controls committees, what comes up for a vote, whether any investigations take place, etc. Congress hasn't been doing its job AT ALL and that is because of who is in control.

That is my view of the Maine Lady Senators and Chafee also. As long as they are a vote for Frist, they need to lose their seats.

Repubs viciously pursue blue seats in red states but frequently I see Dems giving the "moderate" or "liberal" Republicans a pass. NO! We need those seats to take back control.

[mitchtv]

34. They need to have challengers everywhere

no more "Passes". I live in a Moderate red CD. The corporate agenda is championed here, and there is never a credible D candidate, with any more than good looks to run with.Too much of my DNC bucks goes to D'ss I can't stand.Their approach to the war, is critical to me

[Pirate Smile]

38. I agree. Support the candidates you agree with and don't give $$$

to the national committees if they piss you. That is certainly reasonable. The control issue is really huge though and can't be discounted.

I hope you get a good candidate this time. They do seem to be coming up with some unconventional ones that are more appealing - the Iraq War Vets, Collen Rowley. I hope there are a bunch more out there ready to jump in.

[Hamlette]

27. Nixon ran on his secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. . .

I wouldn't believe a republican...not sure I'd believe very many dems either. Damn.

[ThoughtCriminal]

28. With control of the Senate or House at stake?

Still go with the Democrat. Would I even believe the Republican? Seen too many party-line votes in the last 12 years.

[seabeyond]

29. the war is the big reason for this fight, it is also a big reason i

wanted kerry with what he was proposing. to vote for a republican only for the war, though, as much as i want the war over, wont do it for me. christians taking over our country in govt and judiciary, poor getting poorer, health care, education of children, deficit, small business problems. i cannot vote on the war only. just as i wouldnt want someone to vote for bush because of gays, or abortion issue only. too much is at stake.

[liberaliraqvet26]

39. I wouldn't mind seeing an antiwar (R) on the bottom...

of the ticket. I think it would really help bring the country together. Or maybe im just a loon. But Hagel is respectable and I am liking him a lot these days.

[BamaLefty]

40. Not I

Because think about what other things that Republican will do-- attempt to strangle free speech, push anti-choice ideas, cripple labor unions, impose his views on people that necessarily agree with him, push for tort reform that benefits only powerful corporations, and rape the environment.

Voting solely on one issue, be it ending the war or banning same sex marriage, isn't the best course to take in my mind. We ridicule right wingers for voting solely on one or two issues (mainly abortion and gay marriage), so lets not fall into that big pit of hypocrisy that WE have created.

Yes, I am fiercly anti-war but I will (my first vote is in 2006!) focus my attention to a much wider range of issues than just one.

Yeah, I'll be voting straight Democratic.

[DerekG]

44. Is there anything more important than war and peace?

War is not an issue--it is a scourge. And if this needs reinforcement, google "Iraq war victims," and take a gander at shellshocked husbands, grieving widows, scorched children, and deformed babies (courtesy of our depleted uranium).

This is beyond politics. The Clintons, Biden, Lieberman...they're destroyers of worlds. And I want to see them humiliated, and defeated.

[YvonneCa]

43. I'll never vote for a Republican...

...as long as I live! Never..NEVER! EVER!:patriot:

[TankLV]

45. Is that like a choice between an openly gay fundie christian preacher?

It doesn't exist. It's a false and hopeless choice.

There is no such thing as an anti-war repuke.

[lonestarnot]

48. Hawkish D is not going to get elected and will change that position. And

I would NEVER vote for a repuke EVER!

[Libby2]

50. I will never vote for a repuke

ever.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. Why vote for either? Vote issues not party.

[buddysmellgood]

52. Amen. Plenty of democrats are republican and vice versa.