Will you ever vote for someone who initially supported IWR?

There are a lot of people on that list, perhaps some of your representatives, some people who's names have been brought up for future presidency etc?

There are only a few "killer" issues that would keep me from considering someone entirely. For me, this isn't one of them. When you consider the timing/justification of IWR it isn't difficult to see why some dems crossed over that line. Personally, the patriot act burns me more.

This poll doesn't have an option I feel that reflects my choice. I'll cast my vote on November 2nd for whichever Democrat becomes the primary competition to Bush*. Sorry Nadar, not voting for you this year.

It's either swallow your pride and vote against Bush*, decline to vote this time around and thereby hurt every American with your obstinance, or vote for four more years of Bush*.

for a plethora of reasons, one of them being that he voted NO on IWR, led the Progressive Caucus in organizing the anti-war vote in the House (60% of Dems voted NO), and spoke out against the war in the House, at anti-war rallies, and in other public venues. His first statement condemning an invasion of Iraq is in his "A Prayer for America" speech, given in February, 2002, long months before the October 2002 IWR vote.

Al Sharpton also opposed the war, spoke at anti-war rallies, and deserves credit for that. Howard Dean and Wesley Clark have mixed records about the war, with each of them making statements in the fall of 2002 favoring the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. To make such statements while Bush was lobbying to launch a pre-emptive strike against Saddam was to support the Bush doctrine that allows the United States to attack any country it labels as a threat to its interests. That's a dangerous doctrine.

Support for the Bush doctrine was also implied in voting for IWR, which John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, and Joe Lieberman all did.

The only clear way to show opposition to the Bush doctrine is to vote for Kucinich or Sharpton in the primaries. Second best is voting for those who now repudiate their statements and/ or votes of 2002 and clearly state that they do not support pre-emptive wars nor the Bush doctrine that allows them.

Unless Kucinich or Sharpton is the nominee, all Democrats will be faced with voting for someone who was second best on the Iraq War, Bush doctrine, etc. How do we decide if a candidate other than Kucinich or Sharpton is NOW going to hold to the views he voices? Try this:

1) Pay careful attention to his statements about foreign policy in the following months. Are they consistent? What does he promise to do as president?

2) Look at a man's record and see if he has a good history of keeping his promises.

http://www.clw.org/election/voterecs/2002VotingRecord.pdf

here is a list of who voted what. sorry I couldnt find a text link.

The candidate I support in the primary wasn't in Congress to vote on IWR. If he loses, and someone who voted for IWR is nominated, I'll vote for him because he will be better than Bush.

but with the exception of one or 2 of the candidates I am keeping an open mnd.

My general sense of who supported Bush's war then and NOW will weigh into how I cast my vote.

although dean and clark are at the top of my list, kerry, gephart and edwards are mostly ok with me, despite the iwr vote. no to joe, but he has no chance of getting the nomination, so its a moot point.

edited to remove an unkind comment about sharpton

"Yes, but only if they have renounced/justified the vote since then."


I don't consider this giving a pass, but I do think IWR is not helpful as a litmus test. I can respect every candidate's stance on IWR except Lieberman's.

It's always been my view that Kucinich was first and clearest and boldest in opposing the Bush rush to war. Certainly I will not make Dean my second choice just because he claims he was first and only!

The important questions now are what next in Iraq and who will rein in military spending--and Dennis is still first and clearest and boldest!

after the primaries.

They take up too much emotional energy.