What's better - a pro-war Democrat, or an "anti-war" Repug?

[BushOut06]

To me, either choice is sickening. However, we may be faced with just that in '08. Is foreign policy going to be the only issue deciding the next election? Because while I might not be very happy with Hillary's stance on the war, and I'm sure as hell not happy with her stance towards Iran, I feel much more comfortable with her regarding domestic issues. There are other things at stake here: affordable health care, global warming, the environment, tax cuts for the rich, education, gay rights, a woman's right to choose, the future of the Supreme Court, among many other things. If push comes to shove, I'd much rather have a Democratic president who can help on these issues. I simply do not want to see a Repug who "might" keep us out of war (and there's no guarantee of that), but set us back decades on all these other issues.

That being said, I haven't made my mind up on my choice for our nominee, but when I do, I'll work like the devil to get him/her elected.

[tblue]

1. I know what you mean. Yeah, I'd vote for Hillary given that choice, too. I don't trust ANY Repug &

at least we know Hillary has some redeeming qualities. I don't think she'd send the entire country down the tubes. A tiny piece of it maybe, but not the whole thing.

[lesab]

2. not me

Healthcare and the environment aren't going to mean anything to anybody if we are in the global war that is being initiated now. People in America aren't going to need healthcare if they are running from armed gunmen and dashing bombs.

Priorities .......please.

[MrPrax]

6. Right said...

A third front of an unpopular war would end up producing enough domestic instability that would "set us back decades on all these other issues", because it would create better electoral conditions for those who aren't the least bit interested in catering to the publics' will on those issues....namely an endless cycle of war that will expend all the wealth of the nation, erode constitutional rights and re-define a new threshold for acceptable levels of poverty.

Such domestic issues tend to become 'treasonous' sidebars to the obsessive and elusive goal of 'winning the war'..a perpetual one.

[rurallib]

13. Ya' think you could really trust a Republican to live up to his word?

Remember Nixon and his 'plan' to end the Vietnam mess?
And most recently W and many things including many promises of jawboning and negotiating.
As for me, if a republican tells me the sun is shining, I check it out before I agree.

[lesab]

21. I understand that...

But in the same breath I live in Oklahoma and I do know of some really great people who are republicans mostly because of their conservative beliefs. Not all repubs are evil.....maybe most or all politicians who are repub at this point in time are though. Most of the Republicans I know voted Dem this time though which goes to show you that they aren't evil. Labels are shameless sometimes.

[BonnieJW]

3. Don't they cancel each other out?

[atreides1]

4. Question

With what you've said, how many American military personnel do you think should die for a pro-war
Democrats stand on Iraq and now Iran situations???

A Congress that is controlled by the Democrats can deal with domestic issues versus a Repub president, besides how do we know that Hillary won't compromise on domestic issues if she wins the White House.

Anyone can guess what they might do, but until they are actually on the spot they can never know, and neither can we

[LSK]

5. this is way too simplistic

[BushOut06]

9. No, voting simply because of one issue is way too simplistic

How is it being simplistic to look at all the other issues? What I find highly simplistic is this attitude "I ain't voting for her because of this one issue."

How many people think that splitting the Party in two is going to help anything?

[LSK]

19. actually thats what i meant

And even the views of that one issue is sometimes treated simplistically.

[mmonk]

7. This particular war with all it's violation of law and

the PNAC agenda of global conflict? I would go for the anti-war Repug. Once the war was over, I could go back and elect dems the next election.

[BushOut06]

11. You're assuming the "anti-war" Repug would stay that way

Once the "anti-war" GOPher got into office, how long would he hold on to that position? His base would be demanding that he take action against these "rogue" nations. You have to keep in mind, that many of them would be voting for him simply to keep the Dems out of the WH, not because they're enamored by his viewpoints.

Besides, I wouldn't trust a Repug as far as I could throw him, which ain't that far.

[mmonk]

22. I was answering the question as stated. There was no

other scenario listed. I put my country and the lives and liberty of it's people first.

[lancdem]

8. HRC supports engagment with Iran and Syria

That was what she said in her AIPAC speech, and is the headline on C-SPAN's latest news. I'm nor sure where the war-mongering idea came from. :shrug:

http://www.c-span.org

[WilliamPitt]

10. Andrew Jackson once said

that if there isn't a Democrat for the job, we should do away with the job.

So.

[BushOut06]

12. I wonder if the Democratic Pary can survive '08

I sometimes wonder if we're on the verge of seeing the Democratic Party split in two, between the "progressive" camp and the "DLC" camp. I really fear for the future of our party, all this in-fighting while the GOP continues to rally its base. At a time in history when you would think the Repugs would be on their last legs, when we should be primed for our best days, we're busy tearing each other apart.

Staying home and not voting, or voting for the repugs, isn't going to help our cause at all. I'd like to see a more progressive candidate as our nominee. But I'm not going to participate in the destruction of our own party either.

[WilliamPitt]

17. I really hope not

for two reasons.

1. The progressive wing is much smaller and needs the larger wing to telegraph its message.

2. the "DLC wing" as you put it is bigger, richer but dumber. It needs the base as its conscience and goad to duty.

Both will wither without the other. As annoying as it sometimes is, our sum is better than our parts.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. That's Like Asking "Who's Taller: A Tall Pygmy Or A Short Giant"

To an utter fool, it would seem that there is actually something to consider. But to those who are not fools, it is readily concluded that a pygmy is still a pygmy and a giant still a giant, therefore the giant will always be taller.

[woodsprite]

15. With those 2 choices, I'd have to look whose hands are in their pockets. n/t

[WI_DEM]

16. Iraq is a big issue but not the only one

for instance Hagel with the exception of Iraq is one of the most conservative members of the senate.

[goforit]

18. BOTH are BAD,

[thethinker]

20. It is not about us . . .

Everyone on DU may have to hold their nose and vote for a democrat that is pro-war. The crossover republican voters and independents do not have to hold their nose and vote for anyone.

The mid term elections told us where the public is coming from. The polls have told us where the public is coming from. They want an end to this war.

If the republicans run someone like Chuck Hagel, there is no way the democrats can win with a candidate that is pro war. If the republican candidate is speaking out passionately against the war, and the democrat is trying to look "tough on terrorism" we will lose. The public likes candidates with spine.

[Individualist]

23. Neither is acceptable

as far as I'm concerned.

[JackRiddler]

24. A third party landslide