Which would you vote , a Pro-war Democrat or an Anti-war Republican?

[Walt Starr]

Poll question: Which would you vote , a Pro-war Democrat or an Anti-war Republican?

This is just a check on DU purity on the Iraq War issue.

If you had somebody running for Congress in your district as a Democrat who voted in favor of the IWR and continues to support keeping trops in Iraq while the Republican runs (without party money) opposing everything to do with the Iraq War and wants to bring the troops home immediately, how do you vote?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Important as the war is,

I cannot be a one issue voter. Too many other factors, including the candidate's overall position on privacy, government intrusion in lives, the role of corporations, and their accessibility by constituents are very very important factors as well.

Since my district has had a repuke conman since the Nixon was in office, and the current one is totally for Bush, the point is moot anyway.

[Walt Starr]

3. I look to the n umbers in the caucus

Even the most conservative Democrat is better than any Republican because the overall agenda is noting more than a numbers game.

[Walt Starr]

2. Remember 1968. Humphrey was pro-war.

Nixon won.

[Mr_Spock]

4. There was no "uggh, not this again" button

:D

[smoogatz]

5. Bogus question.

Name one anti-war Republican.

[wuushew]

7. Pat Buchanan?

:shrug:

[smoogatz]

16. Okay--that's one.

Let's see--Buchanan or Hillary/Kerry/whoever? Hmmm....

Still thinking...

Buchanan's completely crazy, obviously...

What about Nader? Can I vote for Nader?

[saracat]

13. Lincoln Chaffee

[smoogatz]

15. If he's a Republican, Hillary's a liberal

eom

[wallwriter]

17. Seriously. Buchanan doesn't count.

He's a fascist loon. And Chafee lacks the necessary balls to be seriously ant-war.

Not a legitimate question. The Republican party is either in such lock-step with Bush that they are automatically pro-War, or if there is a legitimately anti-War repug, then they are sufficiently fracture dthat we can beat them.

[Meeker Morgan]

19. Ron Paul (R-Texas) voted against the war. n/t

[NewJeffCT]

32. Chuck Hagel

he's been pretty much against the war for a while now.

[wtmusic]

6. Can we also assume

the Republican is anti-imperialism? Works with the UN?

Not enough info to decide.

[Walt Starr]

9. It's fair to assume that the party pretty much disowns him/her

as the party will not help is campaign. Thus consider him a moderate on nearly any other issue you care to name.

[wtmusic]

12. the Republican then

because the rift created by his/her election would minimize the influence of the GOP

[sandnsea]

29. Moderate on every other issue?

Sounds like a Democrat to me.

[tomg]

8. I would not trust the Republican to stay Pro-Peace

in the event that he or she would win. Too much pressure and too many other issues. And besides, I am 55 and why ruin my record of never voting Republican. I would not vote for the Democrat simply because, too often, it is analogous to with a child: you don't reward bad behaviour. Before you know it, he or she turns into Zell Miller on you (or maybe one of the Dems who voted in CAFTA). Besides, for too long the Democrats have assumed my vote, and have played to to the middle ( in vain attempts to get moderate Republican and the independent votes) instead of going left to keep mine. So I would go third party. In fact, I've done it before.

[G_j]

10. how would one rather die

drowning or hanging?

[Kali]

11. Good question, made me think -

tough. Right now I am leaning to the war being an overwhelmingly important issue that needs to be taken care of. I might do it - vote for the antiwar republican. (if he is that ethical maybe he would be in sync on some other issues as well! - maybe he is a real moderate!!!)


Oh what are you doing? You are just torturing me with fantasies of ethical republicans.:cry:

[Piperay]

14. Pro-war Democrat

the issue I care the most about is the ENVIRONMENT.

[ngant17]

18. I'd have to pass on both, 3rd party would be only option

Iraq/Afghan is a Republican war, although having the Dems come on board to 'dancing in the desert' helped them as much as their fellow partisans.

No such thing as an anti-war Republican at this moment in our history. Maybe an anti-war libertarian, but those types are hard to take seriously.

[Beam Me Up]

20. I'm confused. What is the purpose of this poll, really?

It's not hypothetical, completely outside the realm of possibility and is, therefore, absurd. An anti-war Republican would never GET the nomination -- so this makes no sense what so ever.

[Walt Starr]

24. Oh really?

Incumbents often run unopposed.

All one has to do is write yourself in and get several other people to write you in during the primary when there is no candidate filed.

BAM, you're on the ballot with little effort. No nominating process.

I know. I've done it twice against an incumbent Republican.

[Beam Me Up]

26. I stand corrected. I obviously didn't read the question closely enough.

My apology. I thought you were asking about a Presidential candidate, not Congressional.

Edit: This was meant to be in reply to Walt's post #24.

[sellitman]

44. Bingo!

Another useless poll.

[tlsmith1963]

21. I'd Vote For the Republican...

...shockingly enough. If he were antiwar, he would be anti Bush & anti neocon. Good enough for me!

Tammy

[mmonk]

22. Based solely on that question,

the anti-war republican. However, that issue alone isn't all that concerns me. Consitutional rights and liberties are being attacked and abridged and these unconstitutional actions are supported by members of both parties. If the republican was against this attack on constitutional liberties and rights as well and the democrat supported these attacks on our basic rights and protections as well as the war in Iraq, I would lean to the republican. But it will take more than just being anti-Iraq war.

[bread_and_roses]

23. I will not vote for a pro-War Democrat

Since my vote is one of the only ways that I can express my opposition to the slaughter of Iraqi civilians, including children, I will not vote for any Democrat supporting this War.

Given the choices in the Poll, I would vote Third Party. I will not vote for a Republican.

[Laelth]

25. Plenty of supposedly pro-war democrats ...

... voted to authorize the use of force at a time of national panic, i.e. right after 9-11. Most, if not all of them, now regret handing * a loaded gun. Some of these still believe that once we've pulled the trigger, we have to stay the course and insure some stability. After all, it's our fault that Iraq is in such a mess at the moment. This, in my opinion, is an honorable position, even if I don't agree with it.

So, for me, the pro-war Democrat is way better than an anti-war Repuke who will continue to bankrupt us, enrich his crony friends, and limit our civil liberties.

This really is a no brainer, isn't it?

:shrug:

-Laelth

[mandyky]

27. I like to vote, it would depend

I doubt I would ever vote for a Repub though. John McCain had me for a bit in 2000 primaries, but he has shown me nothing since shrub got elected.

Not even sure I could have voted for McCain, but I liked his "straight talk" which all seems like a sham now.

[BlueIris]

28. Ending the war does not earn us much if we lose choice and the economy.

Which, yes, I understand, we may have already lost. There are ways to improve the domestic situation, though, and more Republican leadership isn't one of them.

This is actually one of the dumbest, most offensive polls I've seen in a long time. I'm sorry if my desire to support a member of my party who may have been forced to vote "for" the war makes me "impure," and that the person who designed this poll thinks the war is the only issue about which we should make our '06/'08 voting decisions.

[Zuni]

30. It depends where they stand on labor issues really

that is always my first concern. If the repuke is moderate and not too anti-worker, I MIGHT MAYBE vote for him. If the Democrat is excellent on other issues, I would most likely vote for him

[The Magistrate]

31. For The Democrat, Mr. Starr

The detail of a Republican's positions are unimportant: any Republican elected to office enables the worst elements of reaction in their plundering of the people and subversion of freedom.

[mvd]

33. It would be hard, but I'd vote for the pro-war Democrat

If it's at the national level, at least. Maybe that Democrat would actually have a plan, and Bush controls all the branches. We need to gain ground.

[lateo]

34. You can't trust a repub to hold true to an anti-war pledge.

[jonnyblitz]

35. neither. if those were my options i would abstain from voting nt

[bemildred]

36. Party affiliation doesn't mean much to me. Policy does. nt

[all.of.me]

37. would you rather...

win the lottery and die the next day or ... have your eyelids removed? ;)

[Quixote1818]

38. Lincoln Chafee was the ONLY Anti-war Republican

And he is pretty dam good on most issues.

[LittleClarkie]

39. There are pro-war Democrats and then there are those

who's positions are over-simplified to the point where folks call them "pro-war" Dems, even if that doesn't cover the situation.

Leiberman is a pro-war Dem. There is a big difference between him and Dean, Clark or Kerry. Clinton seems to be somewhere in the middle, as she really seems to believe in the war, on thinks it's fucked up, whereas Dean, Clark and Kerry seem to think we're in the wrong place and wasting our time, but are unwilling to say we should get "out now." They would appear to be pottery barn folks.

So I don't see the question in the same black and white terms. I'd vote for Kerry, Clark or even Dean, but I'd have to really think about a vote for Leiberman or Clinton.

I don't think I'd vote for even an anti-war conservative, like say Pat Buchannan, who talks a good game, but would seem to be somewhat bananas.

[davekriss]

40. I would never, ever vote Republican

You can set up all the hypotheticals you want, Walt Starr, but I will revert to the reality.

I have to look not at that lone, hypothetical anti-war Republican congressional candidate, but the coalition of which he forms a part.

The Democrats have cobbled together a constituency from labor, universities, teachers, the poor, minority interests, etc., and as a result there is incrementally more chance that some needs of the many prevail over the interests of elites. The Democrats traditional glue: Action yielding widespread benefit.

The Republicans have cobbled together their constituency from business interests who put profit above all else, crunchy conservatives that view all collectivist solutions as tyranny, neo-cons who champion a program of violent empire-building neo-imperialism, the religious right who would install a theonomic state, and the racial right who'd bring back lynchings and segregation. The Republican's traditional glue: Pandering, bait and switch -- anything to get the rascal multitude to vote for them while in action they deliver benefit only to the top of our socio-economic hierarchy (to the oligarchy).

With one exception this century, Democratic Presidents have left the mainstreet economy better off than they found it, and every Republican President has left it worse off.

Given these two choices, and given our two-party, winner take all system, I will vote Democratic every time -- even when disliking an individual candidate on a single issue. I am voting to strengthen or weaken the coalitions, not just for the single candidate.

However, I am one who does not think there is that much difference between the two parties, though I'm desparate to hang on to that difference as it translates into reduced misery for many.

The reason for that lack of difference? There are two votes in America: The dollar vote and the democratic vote (small d). Nothing gets on the agenda of the democratic vote that doesn't first pass the dollar vote. The problem with this, and the reason it's anti-democratic, is those with more dollars get to vote more often than those with less.

So if both parties, Walt, are representing the agenda passed by the "dollar vote", what does it matter to those of us without dollars? Our voice is not heard; our interests are not advanced. Except, when we're lucky, by coincidence. But more often we're not so lucky. A Taft-Hartley act is passed that cuts our power to organize across industries, muting the power of labor. NAFTA is passed, providing ruthless cover for globalization, which results in the export of many good jobs to areas with cheaper labor. The legislative version of the Fairness Doctrine is vetoed, resulting in a steady stream of propaganda piped into our living rooms daily to keep us quiet and placated. Despite large protests and flooding communications, IWR passes, Bush gets his war. Democrat, Republican -- both screw the man without means. The difference is one leaves more crumbs on the table for the working man and that one has my vote. Not ideal, but the reality.

Given the current perfection of election theft, it will be a long time I think before a candidate that matters wins office. We live in a faux democracy. That's why, until recently, the percentage of eligible Americans who actually vote has been so low. Too few see a clear choice.

[Skittles]

41. I might not vote Dem

but I would NEVER vote republican

[carpetbagger]

42. The dem would vote for cmte chairs who would investigate.

Even if I were a purist on the war, I would find a pro-war democrat more useful in ending the war than an anti-war republican. For God's sake, Lincoln Chaffee is chairman of the subcommittee of the foreign relations committee that oversees that mess.

[The Traveler]

43. Given a choice like that

I would work out a lot. That's what I do when I am totally pissed off and frustrated.

[Dob Bole]

45. The Republican would seem to be the more honest candidate...

but I would worry about his economic philosophy. I won't vote for a candidate who hurts the poor domestically. Unless the Republican was also an economic liberal, I wouldn't vote for him.