Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:40 PM
Original message
Poll question: Which would you vote , a Pro-war Democrat or an Anti-war Republican?
Edited on Sun Sep-25-05 07:41 PM by Walt Starr
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?

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. Remember 1968. Humphrey was pro-war.
Nixon won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. There was no "uggh, not this again" button
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
5. Bogus question.
Name one anti-war Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Pat Buchanan?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Lincoln Chaffee
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. If he's a Republican, Hillary's a liberal
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wallwriter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meeker Morgan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. Ron Paul (R-Texas) voted against the war. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
32. Chuck Hagel
he's been pretty much against the war for a while now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
6. Can we also assume
the Republican is anti-imperialism? Works with the UN?

Not enough info to decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. the Republican then
because the rift created by his/her election would minimize the influence of the GOP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
29. Moderate on every other issue?
Sounds like a Democrat to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. how would one rather die
drowning or hanging?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piperay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
14. Pro-war Democrat
the issue I care the most about is the ENVIRONMENT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ngant17 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #20
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. I stand corrected. I obviously didn't read the question closely enough.
Edited on Sun Sep-25-05 08:51 PM by Beam Me Up
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-26-05 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #20
44. Bingo!
Another useless poll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tlsmith1963 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mandyky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
33. It would be hard, but I'd vote for the pro-war Democrat
Edited on Sun Sep-25-05 10:10 PM by mvd
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lateo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
34. You can't trust a repub to hold true to an anti-war pledge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
35. neither. if those were my options i would abstain from voting nt
Edited on Sun Sep-25-05 10:12 PM by jonnyblitz
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
36. Party affiliation doesn't mean much to me. Policy does. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
all.of.me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
37. would you rather...
win the lottery and die the next day or ... have your eyelids removed? ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
38. Lincoln Chafee was the ONLY Anti-war Republican
And he is pretty dam good on most issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davekriss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
41. I might not vote Dem
but I would NEVER vote republican
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carpetbagger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Traveler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-26-05 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dob Bole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-26-05 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 16th 2014, 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC