Are you ruling in/out candidates based on their IWR votes/positions?

[AP]

Poll question: Are you ruling in/out candidates based on their IWR votes/positions?

IS the Iraq War Resolution vote your sole litmus test for voting in the primary?

[chimpymustgo]

1. I am looking at ALL the issues, and the totality of the candidate.

Integrity, honesty, ideas, electabilty.

Clark, Edwards, Kerry.

[arewethereyet]

6. Integrity, honesty, ideas, electability

Clark is out on the first count.

the others are relatively even but Edwards has the better ideas for me.

[GreenArrow]

2. It's not my "sole" litmus test

but I won't support anyone who voted for that trumped up, transparent glob of bullshit.

[AP]

4. Then it's your litmus test.

No?

[GreenArrow]

27. No, only one of several

By support, I take you to mean actively campaign for and promote. I won't do that for any of the IWR flacks; however, if it comes down to a race between Bush and one of them, (I suspect a Kerry/Clark team) I will probably bite the bullet and vote for them, simply because they are not as personally odious and foul as GWB. I will do so in hopes, not of a change in direction, which I think is naive to expect, but in hopes of a change of tone. And in hopes of not having to look at or hear that smirking, predatory creep and his minions. I would also do so knowing that the whole process has largely become a charade.

Other litmus tests would include, but aren't limited to: support of the death penalty, pro drug war, "tough on crime" mentality, support of Patriot Act and other bills/laws designed to strip away our civil rights and create a surveilance society, favoritsm towards corportations and big business as opposed to ordinary people, privatizion, etc. Kucinich and Sharpton are the only ones realy speaking to the issues that are important to me, and niether has a chance in hell of winning. At this point, Kucinich, is really the only candidate I could see actively supporting.

[SahaleArm]

33. Are you willing to disqualify on the basis of IWR? Yes.

You may have other make or break issues as well, but IWR is one of your litmus test.

[GreenArrow]

47. it's a big litmus test

I won't go out of my way to vote for, campaign for, donate to, or even speak well of (in most cases) any of the pro-IWR candidates. If one of them is on the ballot in November, I'll weigh my options.

[AP]

48. My question was about the primary. It's your litmus test for the primary.

You want to think you're not a single issue voter, but you're saying you are?

[GreenArrow]

79. lets put it this way...

If I honestly believed that Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman actually believed that Sadaam was a threat, and if they had at the same time been fighting for the other issues I listed, then I would be willing to give them a break on this issue. But since I find it utterly incredible that they did not know that W's push for war was murderously dishonest, and since they were busy supporting things like the patriot Act, Nafta, the death penalty, and so on, none of them really give me a reason to support them or give them a break on the IWR issue. Their position on it, taken in context with their other actions, tells me all I need to know about them. They are corporate candidates, beholden to the interests of USA Inc.

Assuming that none of them had voted for IWR, and their other beliefs were still the same, I would still not be casting a vote for any of them in the primary, because I don't believe that any of them are offering any practical, positive change of direction for this country.

Should I vote for any of them in the general election, it would be for the primary reason that they are not George W. Bush.

[MrSoundAndVision]

3. Dialect

I've heard IWR mean "International Worker's Rights." Maybe no one else was confused by this.

[Padraig18]

5. I cannot support anyone in the primary who voted for the IWR.

The general election is different, but I won't suffer some fool who voted for that trumped-up, transparently bogus bullshit in the primary.

[quaker bill]

29. agreed

[IndianaGreen]

7. Life and death, war and peace, are issues that trump all others

There is no moral equivalency between them and issues such as taxes or social programs.

Yes, a vote in favor for IWR is bad. Being unrepentant about a vote for IWR is unforgivable.

It is no accident that those that voted for IWR, and still defend their votes, are also unrepentant and unconcerned about PATRIOT Act.

IWR is a legitimate litmus test, as is a candidate's vote on abortion rights.

[Eloriel]

9. Yup

So much of a litmus test I don't beieve I can punch that button in the general election either.

Eloriel

[Bombtrack]

18. There aren't any anti-patriot act serious candidates

And there is only one candidate that has a policy proposal to PERMANANTLY protect civil liberties. Edwards

[sujan]

24. the guy who wrote Patriot Act?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

37. If Edwards is such a rookie, then he shouldn't be President either!

The ugly truth is that no one in Congress read the damned thing before they voted for it. Had they done so, they would have recognized that it was nothing more than a compilation of every rightwing proposal ever made to squash civil liberties, going back to Oliver North.

[sujan]

46. hahahaha

'legal duty'
&
'he was hardly a driving force behind it's introduction'

[Monte Carlo]

8. I cannot rule any of them out over spilled milk.

The IWR was a terrific wedge vote, and I cannot fault any candidate for voting "yes" forever. Either vote was tough. I will pick the candidate that I think can best beat Bush in November and lead the Democrats for 4 years after that.

[Jacobin]

10. Spilt Blood

Not drama. It's real human life. Not a game.

[Monte Carlo]

15. And its over and done with.

It's a sunk cost, written in stone, in the past. I know no Democratic candidate we have wants unnecessary war, so I will not attribute their IWR vote to malice.

[welshTerrier2]

11. kerry, dean, clark and litmus tests

during the IWR vote and for many months afterword, I posted numerous times saying the IWR vote was an absolute litmus test for me ... kerry, edwards, lieberman and gephardt were out regardless of any other issues ...

i no longer hold this position although i have no criticism of those who do ...

i've listened carefully to the endless DU debates about our candidates ... and i've come to the disturbing conclusion that none of the frontrunners has a stellar record on either Iraq or on Afghanistan ...

All our candidates have been forced to dance around the issue of war ... they were for this but not for that ... they agreed with some of this but wouldn't have done things a certain way ... i've come to believe, not so much that there's anything wrong with making a candidate's position on war a litmus test, but rather that I can't see much difference among most of our leading candidates on the issue ... flame away those who disagree ...

Here's my take on what i consider to be the three dems with the best chance to beat bush:

Kerry has been beaten up (by me) and by many over his IWR tapdance ... but the truth is, that though he voted for IWR, he did make strong statements opposing a rush to war ... he stated before the IWR vote that there was not an "imminent threat" ... and he voted against the $87 billion ... i'm cutting the guy some slack .... your mileage may vary ...

Dean ... it is true that Dean supported the Biden-Lugar amendment ... and, if war is the litmus test, Dean supported the war in Afghanistan ... I did not ... Afghanistan was not about Al Qaeda ... it was about the damned oil pipeline ... the American puppets in Iraq are "oil men" ... and the Taliban had representatives in Texas while bush was governor trying to work out a pipeline deal ... that's what the war was about ... and Dean supported it ... i'm cutting the guy some slack ... but i don't agree with his positions on war ...

Clark ... he said bush was doing a fine job fighting terrorism ... i can't remember his exact quote but my recollection is he's made statements saying he would have voted for the IWR ... i'm cutting the guy some slack ... i would not have voted for IWR ... i can't believe anyone would have gone along with it or with the war in Afghanistan ... but i'm not ruling anyone out on this issue ...

i'm not backing a specific candidate right now ... but i'm not counting anyone out because of their positions on either Iraq or Afghanistan ... i have no objection to litmus tests ... i'm just not sure i can see much difference in the positions of our candidates on the war issue ...

[quinnox]

12. I take the whole picture

into account.

[rucky]

13. The chips just happen to fall that way

I would consider voting for Kerry, but as it stands, my top choices just happen to be against IWR. I think it's a factor, but it's also indicative of other negative traits that work against them.

My top choices are "outsiders": Dean, Clark, Kucinich

I think Kooch qualifies as an outsider, because even though he is a congressman, he's not playing the beltway insider game.

[Walt Starr]

14. It's one of several litmus tests for me

No way will I vote for one of the four pink tutu Dems in the primary. Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt will not get my vote.

[FrenchieCat]

16. I am supporting

the candidate who can beat Bush. That is my sole Litmus test.

I was mad with George Bush before he brought us his Iraq war, before anybody voted for the resolution, before 9/11 hit, and before he talked down the economy. I have been mad at George Bush eversince he stole the election.

So my goal is to see that he doesn't get another 4 year, is all!

[Khephra]

17. If you can be fooled by Bush, almost two years into his term

after all that he'd had done up to the IRW, then you, as a candidate, are too much of a fool to lead.

It's not a "sole litmus test" (nice push poll there), it's an intellgence test.

ABB though.

[Bombtrack]

19. They blast the IWR without offering an alternative plan to disarm Iraq

One critism of "the left" that I fund unfortunatly true is that very often people of that ilk complain and whine without offering a credible alternative

[welshTerrier2]

21. People of that ilk ??

well, i'm of that ilk so let me complain and whine a little ...

you want a credible alternative of how we could have disarmed Iraq ??

fine ... how about this one ... there are no WMD's in Iraq ...

and how can you say the left offered no credible alternative ... how about the idea of giving the U.N. weapons inspectors enough time to do their jobs? remember them? or, how about building a real international coalition instead of going along with bush's fake diplomacy ??? or how about retaining the power to wage war in the Congress as the Constitution's framers intended?

the IWR was about abdicating the responsibilities entrusted to the people's branch of government to the executive branch ...

allow me to quote that well known left-wing extremist, Senator Byrd:

"Congress, in what will go down in history as its most
unfortunate act, handed away its power to declare war for the
foreseeable future and empowered this President to wage war at will."

[Bombtrack]

35. you're putting words in my mouth

i never called people with you're feelings "extremists"

However even the French said that there were WMD's. Not that that alone justifies war, but it's ignorant to beleive that there weren't/aren't any.

[welshTerrier2]

38. war must be a last resort ... IWR did not enforce that standard ...

the essence of the point i made was that "the left" offered numerous, credible alternatives to an invasion of Iraq ...

and to that point, your characterization of it as "complaining and whining" nothwithstanding, you have not responded ...

[Egnever]

45. Actually its ignorant to think there were/are

take a closer look at the sanctions.

[GreenArrow]

28. the credible plan was offered by those whining leftist types

It was not to attack. It was to let the UN continue its search for weapons etc. for however long as it took. It was to use diplomacy and justice rather than bullying and and blind force. Unfortuately, cooler heads and wiser hearts did not prevail.

[Donna Zen]

57. Not exactly true

While I'm not sure about the thoughts of every candidate, the Carnegie Foundation had worked for two years and developed a policy of coersive inspections. Something had to be done about the sanctions which were clearly a fucked up policy. Clark has spoken about them, and iirc, Chris Hedges talked about it. No war, just a return to inspections and NGO's.

There were definately alternatives out there.

While it is a litmus test for me, I also have to consider the the rationale given for their votes. Lieberman is unrepenting, and absolutely thinks we did the right thing. Leaning on the ol' but I hate what they are doing now, doesn't cut it. All of the others are a matter of degrees or view points including Dean who is not as clean on this as he would claim. By this I mean the resolution, although he did call for 60 more days of inspections before the first bomb.

Kucinich is certainly the purest of the group and probably Sharpton. CMB (?) if she were in the Senate and voting with the party...who knows, but I would think she might have voted with Hillary and the leadership. Did she say anything during the summer of 2002?

Clark is a different story for me, while many would call him out, I've done my homework on that one and what he says is strictly according to his philosophy. International law trumps diplomacy---diplomacy trumps use of force. His testimony is very clear and although a restrictive resolution dumping the problem on the UN might have been possible. No war. The UN did need to work with Iraq, the sanctions were unworkable and bad for the Iraqi people. Some watchdog-inspectors inside the country were a good thing. Saddam is actually not a person I would want to lead anything.

BTW, bush fails the litmus test again. When you have a lying sack-o-shit for a resident, how can anything be right?

[Jacobin]

81. And why, pray tell, would you want to "disarm Iraq"?

So that her neighbors could invade?

Obviously it didn't have WMDs as the inspectors told us.

Or was it that nice, gooey oil???????????

[frank frankly]

20. we should not be in Iraq

it was a mistake to vote for the IWR. my vote in the primary will almost 100% for sure be for someone who voted "no."

[Clovis Sangrail]

22. In the primary, definitely

I will not vote in the primary for anybody who supported that fiasco.

"<gasp> I thought Bush would engage in diplomacy when I voted for IWR"
That's such a bunch of crap. If any candidate honestly thought that after watching him, they're too stupid to be considered.

That said, in the general I'll vote for whoever won the primary... even if I have to hold my nose to do it.

[sujan]

23. strumpeting hard for Edwards?

[arewethereyet]

25. nothin wrong with that, he's a great candidate

n/t

[sujan]

26. why is he a great candidate?

[GreenArrow]

30. he's a great candidate because

he poses ABSOLUTELY no threat to the status quo.

[arewethereyet]

32. perhaps you should review his positions, might be surprized

then again if the movement off the status quo is vast then noone will appear to move it far.

[arewethereyet]

31. he's got the whole package

he has charisma, intelect, warmpth, passion, a grasp of the issues in detail and a plan for the future. And he's had a consistant all of these from the get go.

And he has the right accent. You know, the only one that gets elected as a Democrat !

[sujan]

39. that is just sweet talk

he couldn't grasp the issue of Terrorism, Al Qaeda and Iraq in detail so I dont think he can do better.

[arewethereyet]

40. one salient point

he had access to information that you and I do not have nor will we for quite a while so his basis we cannot judge his actions.

I believe his grasp was and remains very good so your sole point is mearly opinion.

[sujan]

44. I hope you are ready to excuse Bush too

[AP]

52. Time will tell that he grasped it better than anyone else.

You're good with the one-sentence hit post, but it betrays a lack of sophistication of analysis.

Time will tell.

[arewethereyet]

55. never mind this, he only sees what he wants to see

kinda sad but all too common

[AP]

56. I take it as a sign of Edwards's strenght that sujan can't muster more

than an unsubstantiated 7 or 8 words to criticize him.

[sujan]

58. good for you

now go back to burying your head in the sand.

[AP]

61. Yes. thoughtful. well-argued.

It'll take me days to compose the sort of response your post demands and deserves.

days.

[sujan]

62. good luck

[AP]

64. ta

[GreenArrow]

42. "the whole package"

I'm less interested in packages than in contents.

[arewethereyet]

53. great news for you then !

it wouldn't be a package without content and relative to Clark (who has none), Dean (whose changes as befits) his is the only fresh face with winable depth !

Welcome aboard !

[AP]

50. Because he represents individuals.

He doesn't represent corporations whose interests conflict with the interests of the public.

He takes no PAC or DC lobbyist money.

He is totally uncompromised.

He has the ability to circumvent the political machine and apeal directly to the people to move towards liberalism, just like Kennedy did.

Every skill he devloped as a lawyer and everythign that motivated him to be the kind of lawyer he was will make him a very capable and progressive president.

He has more character than any two other candidates combined with the exception of Kucinich.

[sujan]

59. shows clearly in the polls

[AP]

63. He'll win the polls that matter.

[sujan]

65. yes, he is clearly winning on the negative

[AP]

67. not a full sentence (yet, consistently, short)

You'd ignore him too if you weren't afraid that he was going start winning in SC and keep on winning.

[sujan]

71. he'd be lucky to win his own state

[AP]

73. He's definitely going to win NC primary. As for GE, NC has gone Republican

since 76, and he still has the best chance of the bunch to win it. If Dean were nominee, Bush wouldn't even bother spending money.

(Note sujan, that was post which consited of an argument plus a fact. You might want to try something like that one of these days.)

[sujan]

75. your 'fact'

is much needed to the Edwards campaign.

Do you read palms too?

[AP]

76. ESL? I don't understand your senence.

?

[Pastiche423]

70. "Because he represents individuals."

AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT DISABLED!

W/one exception - he would represent them if he could make money off of them.

Screw him.

[AP]

49. "strumpeting" is a word?

?

[sujan]

60. as long as you get the message

[Myra]

34. I've ruled out anyone who voted for IWR

It's indefensible.

That was my first filtering criteria.
The candidates I'm still considering exclude
those who cast that shameful politically motivated
vote to trade blood for oil.

Now I'm looking at my remaining candidates
positions on other issues, including the
current situation in Iraq.

[mike_c]

41. the rubber meets the road...

...when congress has to protect Americans from the executive branch. Those who failed us do not deserve our support.

[sleipnir]

43. Yes,I will not vote for any candidate in the GeneralElection who voted YES

So we had better choose wisely....

[AP]

54. The Republicans have played you.

This IW was win-win for Republlicans. Either it was going to be used to portray Democrats as cowardly, uncooperative, an unpatriotic, or it was going to be used revive Vietnam-era type protests to nominate a McGovern-style Democratic nominee.

Democrats should get their acts together and set IWR aside and vote for the candidate who is best on every other issue.

To vote on this issue alone is to let the terrorists, uhm, I mean Republicans win.

[Jack Rabbit]

51. I am not applying a litmus test concerning the IWR itself

However, a vote against the IWR or opposition to the ivasion in general is a major plus. A candidate who can't get around to saying that the invasion was a big mistake that was justified by lies is not particularly appealing to me.

[xxqqqzme]

66. not my 'sole'

test but a heavily weighted consideration. Anyone voting 4 it, was eliminated, so I looked @ the remaining field.

[AP]

68. Another person for whom it was litmus test, yet doesn't want to say so

Why can't people just say, "yes, it was a litmus test"?

[JohnKleeb]

69. It was my litmus test but I still can like and respect those who voted for

[Myra]

72. Why can't people just say, "yes, it was a litmus test"?

Why can't you just let people say what they want
to say without getting in their faces and sneering?

[AP]

74. Becuase I have a theory about how the Republicans intentionally created...

...this dichotomy, and I think the fact that people fell for it, but don't want to admit their falling for it is, psychologically, and politically-speaking, extremely interesting.

So, I'm curious. If you note that people are resisting confronting the truth, how do they react?

[Myra]

77. Well, I must admit I didn't expect such a reasoned response

But I have a theory that people resist when
viewpoints are hammered into them, and may well react
by digging in.

And regardless of the GOP's intentions, which it's
safe to say are never good, I don't feel there was
or is an excuse to vote for invasion of another
nation for clearly bullshit reasons.

[Piperay]

78. NO...

for me the litmus test is the environment. As far as I am concerned there is NO issue more important than the environment and preventing the continued destruction of our planet.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

80. yes....and i will NOT vote for anyone who supported IWR

.even tho their votes on IWR was based on the same lies bushco presented to them ,........they wanted to believe bush was not that evil....but they already knew he was re: 2000 selection.......BIG mistake!

and i will NOT vote for anyone who voted in favor of IWR in the Primary