Do you think "Did they vote for the war" is overplayed?

[bhunt70]

Poll question: Do you think "Did they vote for the war" is overplayed?

Considering a candidates past voting experience or actions do you think the "war" vote is a position that is being used too much as a litmus test while their other views may be being ignored?

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. I don't think it's really an issue except for the few

who are strongly opposed to crimes against humanity, regardless of who commits them and who makes money, and put those concerns above the goal of putting a Democrat face on the PNAC strategy.

[mikehiggins]

2. No because its awfully hard to claim you were against

Bush's war if you voted for it.

If we can't argue the war issue, we're in really deep trouble.

[bhunt70]

3. I see what you are saying but...

I'm not really talking about if it is an issue to take on bush with but whether it is easier to throw the baby out with the bathwater is a certain candidate didn't say or do the right thing in regards to the war. Is that one issue tying the hands of people who would otherwise think that the candidate in question is great BUT they voted for the war and cannot be considered based on it.

This isn't about any one candidate but just a general question.

edit addition - What if the war never happened? Would your candidate choice be different?

[drfemoe]

10. Undecided . There are trade offs

Do you think "Did they vote for the war" is overplayed?
Considering a candidates past voting experience or actions do you think the "war" vote is a position that is being used too much as a litmus test while their other views may be being ignored?

It's really being used as a question of judgement. Who was able to demonstrate decision making skills.

First, if you narrow it down to the IWR *vote* (stance on *war* at that time), and agree that everyone comes out even on that score, (even Lieberman, who still thinks it was a good idea) ... BUT you also have to leave open the option that the nominee (whoever it is) can take on the potus on that issue (stance on *war* at that time), you will also need to agree that any of the nine have that ability to the same degree, starting there.

That's not going to be too tough with all the investigations, leaks, lawsuits, not too secret plans to "take out Sa**ham", at any cost no less... If he tries to bring the troops home before the election (not likely imo), is Ira* going to hold together long enough? I think there is enough stinky for anyone of them to nail him. ..IF they will, and that's how they can demonstrate their loyalty to we, the people. I don't hide the fact that I support HD. He has been calling *u*h on his sh*t since I first heard him. The rhetoric he chose was to distinguish himself from "dems" who voted with the res, on several issues .. it's not just about Ir*q. Tax cuts, NCLB, invasion of privacy laws and disregarding our constitution ... all these are open season. If someone voted for these laws, let them defend or modify or whatever to get to the point where things stand NOW. They all have positions on these issues.

To move forward from there, most of them agree there will need to be some kind of long term commitment to fix this fiasco and restore human dignity, social justice, and humane living conditions to many populations (us, them, our former allies) etc ...
During the debate, I think it was Gephardt who said it best, that for matters like this you don't have a time line you have a goal line. I heard Clark pick that up as well. Kucinich is the only one I know for sure wants un in us out. I think he is willing to give total control to the un, which doesn't relate to the *vote*, and also, by terms of the agreement, couldn't use his vote to prove he is the best one to bring peace. The point of agreement would be, what went down was not *right*. Some people are responsible but many are innocent, and we need to reassign the true architect of the plan, and move on to make reparations to the innocent at home and abroad. We all know potus doesn't have a plan, other than getting reselected and playing dress up with toy turkeys. Since his course of action is totally unpredictable, except to escalate tensions all over the world, our solutions have nothing to do with his non-solutions.

And then the deck is cleared to go onto other issues besides the *IWR vote*.

Assuming we agreed to a level playing field on the *IWR vote*, iow, what is done is done, and any of them are fit to battle *u*h on the issue, no matter what they said or did at the time of the vote ..

Other issues come into play. One example, is they could not compare their specific experience to war with someone else's. You can't say 'Dean was a dodger' (bad judgement) or 'Kerry, the vet should have known better' (bad judgement). To make the topic about now and the future, issues relating to any *past* wars has to be disregarded.

I don't know if that makes any sense...
But things have to balance out. You can't say, well I fought the *past* war(s), and now I know how to bring peace, but someone else who didn't fight a past war (for whatever reason) doesn't know how to bring about peace . because that is not the correct judgement question either. After all, do we want someone who can fight great wars or someone who knows how to make peace?

If you clear away a bunch of that garbage, yeah, it might work.
There are plenty of other issues to hammer out, which would move us forward, possibly strengthening whoever the nominee is. by-gones.

OTOH . I think Dean might be more open to this agreement than Kerry or Clark would be. If they quit arguing about what the exact meaning of the B-L amendment was (part of the deal) -- after all that's why we do have courts in our land -- they might find they don't need to play up the military angle. And indeed, by the agreement can't use that as a justification for being the better "leader". I don't know if they would want to make that trade? It depends on how they use their judgement NOW, not on an historic battle field. It depends on how important that is to the candidates themselves. (I'm not implying they can't have a resume'. They just can't use the *war issue* (past) to beat up another candidate's *war issue* (past).)

Insomniac here .. If anything makes sense :hi: . if not . :hurts:

[dajabr]

4. Nope. Especially if they opposed the first Gulf War...(nt)

edit: to clarify subject line

[sandnsea]

5. Edwards as VP?

Obviously it's overplayed when almost everybody loves Edwards and rarely bring up his voting at all.

[LiberalBushFan]

6. i think it is overplayed

only because none of the candidates except Kucinich voted against it. I'm not going to support Dean or Clark instead Kerry, Edwards, or Gep over this issue, because the former two never had to take the vote. In other words, I give Kucinich points over all the others for voting against it, but supporting Dean or Clark because of their claimed "would haves" is just silly. For the record, I'm a Clark supporter.

[greyowl]

7. How they vote now is going to tell you a lot on what to expect

If your candidate voted for the war in Afghanistan, for the war in Iraq, for the Patriot Act, for Nafta, for the new overtime bill (or missed it as Dicky Gephardt did...union man my ass). Well explain to me how they are Democrats cause frankly I can't figure it out. Their votes or absence from voting will tell you a lot about what you have to look forward to with them serving as the next President.

[dreissig]

8. A Question of Values

This has been presented as a question of strategy but it's not. It's a question of values. People who voted for the war didn't make a mistake as such, they declared themselves in favor of an approach to world politics. It's one I don't share. Since the war has turned out badly, some of the warmongers have regretted that vote. It's too late. That vote was too important to get wrong.

[w4rma]

9. I think it has been overplayed by those who voted for it. (n/t)

[drfemoe]

11. In what way? n/t

[bhunt70]

12. shameless kick because there are good answers here

and I like reading them :P

[OhioStateProgressive]

13. if they vote for war, i don't vote for them (nt)

[reachout]

14. No

The IWR vote was one of THE defining events of this generation and will resonate through history for a long time to come. I will not only not vote for, I will actively oppose anyone who came down on the wrong side of it.

[kentuck]

15. Would it have been "overplayed" if they had voted to overturn...

..our Constitution? Some decisions cannot be accepted. We are responsible for folowing the Constitution and sending young people to war is a grave decision, no pun intended.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. It's the dividing line between the "old" and "new" Democratic

Party. The absolute "litmus test" for me. I will not vote for any candidate that voted to support Bush's aggression.

[Iverson]

17. Basic civilization can't be overemphasized.

It's more than a litmus test. No kiddin'.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. No

It tells me whether or not they have the courage of their convicitions.

[Padraig18]

19. It's a perfectly legitimate issue.

The verbal contortions and 'nuances' by those who voted for it, when confronted with their votes, clearly show that they consider it an issue, so why shouldn't the rest of us consider it as such? The issue is not so much the IWR, per se, but the larger one of judgment in the conduct of foreign affairs and the proper constitutional relationship between Congress and the Executive. I am convinced that those who voted in favor of the IWR exercised poor judgment. I did not *instantly* oppose the use of force in Iraq last summer and fall, but listened carefully to all sides and then made up my own mind. Frankly, Senators Byrd, Graham and Durbin (my senator), e.g., had a far more logical argument and one that was better seated in the Constitution itself.

I will not refuse to support a candidate who voted for it in the general election, but I will work my fingers to the bone to prevent any of them from gaining the nomination in the primaries.