Would you support John Murtha for the Democratic VP nomination in '08?

[WI_DEM]

Poll question: Would you support John Murtha for the Democratic VP nomination in '08?

Yes he is up there in age, but if McCain can run, so could Murtha. He is fast becoming one of our strongest Iraqi war critics. He has strong defense credentials and served in the Korean War and Vietnam (winning two purple hearts, and a bronze star). He is a old style Democrat. I think he would add alot to almost any ticket we come up with--especially if McCain were the nominee:

Clark/Murtha
Feingold/Murtha
Edwards/Murtha
Warner/Murtha
Bayh/Murtha

The Northeasters running though may not want to put another northeasterner on the ticket? but who knows.

[mattclearing]

1. Nope. He's old. And conservative. We can do better. n/t

[leeroysphitz]

13. NO. Murtha is a FLIP FLOPPER.

Just kidding.

[mattclearing]

19. You know that's what they'd say, though...

He voted for the war before he voted against it. (Edit: I know he didn't vote against it, I'm just kidding)

[Skittles]

2. no

so he did the right thing coming out against this war - let's not forget he was gung-ho for it to start

[immoderate]

6. Think a minute.

Would we have considered him before he spoke out against this war? I think not.

Better he stays where he is.

On edit: This should have been a reply to the OP. Sorry there Skittles.

--IMM

[iconoclastNYC]

3. With a tacit agreement that he never run as President

[LoKnLoD]

4. For some reason

he reminds me of James Stockdale, Perot's running mate in 1992. You all remember that debate when the poor guy looked like a moran in front of the nation. For some reason when I look at Murtha that is the first thing that pops in my head. But I like Murtha, not sure of him as VP though, and he doesn't seem to be the type that even wants that office.

[liberal N proud]

5. Right now he appears to be the only Democrat with any balls

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. How about Gore/Murtha?

[Greyhound]

8. One correct position doesn't change the fact that he is

very pro-military and by association pro-corporate.

[awoke_in_2003]

17. There is nothing wrong..,

with being pro-military, as long as the military is being used the way it is supposed to be: Protecting the american way of life.

[Greyhound]

21. I understand what you're saying but pro military and pro troops

are different things IMO. Pro military would include things like voting in favor of boondoggles like the osprey (something like 30 years and 200 billion to build a plane that doesn't serve the purpose it was ostensibly designed for and still doesn't reliably fly), SDI, etc.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

9. He's not interested

Murtha's very happy - and very powerful - where he is.

He'd never go for this - I'd bet anything.

[natrat]

10. yes if it did not involve that clinton freak

[LaurenG]

11. lol

Here you never know when you might need some of this :popcorn:

[MissWaverly]

12. Yes

I would rather have someone that was a friend of the soldiers than someone who is a friend
of the corporations willing to send thousands off to die to improve their profit margin.
We are going to have to have someone with a backbone and who is knowledgeable about the
military to flush out the neocons & break the hold of the military industrial complex. They must be dealt with if we are ever to have normal government. We need public servants that do not cater to foreign interests, corporate profit or religious extremists (and I mention Robertson's death threats on Chavez here).

[awoke_in_2003]

18. Bravo...

MissWaverly- our soldiers ARE a representation of us. If we think of them, and what they must sacrifice, we think of all of us. This is a country built on ideals, and, sometimes, you must fight for those ideals.

[MissWaverly]

20. Here's what Abe Lincoln said about pre-emptive war

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, -- I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN

The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler, vol. 1 (New Brunswick, NJ:

Rutgers University Press, 1953), pp. 451–52

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. He supports a Draft. I would have to say no.

PLUS, he's a hawk. He supported the illegal invasion of Iraq. I think Wes Clark is a much better choice.

[AmericanDream]

15. NO! ... we want someone who car run after 8 years if we win.. plus,

I don't see what he brings to the ticket besides being a reasoned voice about bringing the troops home. He is a conservative dem... a lot of good Leiberman did on the ticket in '00? Plus, I don't want conservative dems to have any influence on the next dem administration... enough of them!

[NNN0LHI]

16. I think we may be looking at a Clinton / Feingold ticket in '08?

Two heavyweights. Just saying...

Don