How important is IWR/Patriot Act vote to you?

[AP]

After reading the threads regarding this, my feeling is, "Don't DU'ers see? No Democratic voter is going vote for someone who puts the IWR vote or the Patriot Act vote ahead of a real concern for what is going on in the economic life of American voters?"

Voters vote first on whether they think the candidate is going to make their lives better, and that means they want to see a candidate who cares, in particular about their economic opportunity. At least Kucinich covers both bases.

Dean, however, doesn't. Dean has attacked the other candidates on these two votes, however, he can't deign to offer the details of a tax plan that won't overburden the middle class, and, I believe, given his statement about the 87 bil Iraq allocation and his education plan, it sounds like he doesn't have a problem giving the wealth of the nation away to Wall St companies and high unearned income earners, ESPECIALLY if giving it away helps him balance the budget.

So, my question is: do you think that we should nominate someone who ranks a no vote on the IWR vote and the Patriotic Act vote as the most important issue in 2004, or do you think it's more important to nominate a candidate who cares most about shifting wealth back to people who work for living and away from the corporatocracy?

[SaddenedDem]

1. Won't bother to answer

Because voters shouldn't have to make this choice.

Real DEMOCRATIC representatives wouldn't have voted for either of these monstrosities.

[AP]

2. The candidates are forcing them. They're revealing in speach in demeanor

their own priorties and asking you to make a choice.

I'm trying to prove that the choice they will make is obvious and it's baffling to me that a candidate would think that there's any other way Dean's priorizing of issues will go than a loss.

Furthermore, I'm not saying that you don't have a choice if you think they should be good on both issues (you have a Kucinich, if you think that).

What I'm saying is that this is a reflection of what the candidate himself thinks is important in America.

If any candidate is so confused that they think that not having a fair tax plan by the first primary doesn't matter, and, instead, complains incessently about these two votes, I don't know how that candidate thinks he's going to receive a warm embrace from the public.

[PATRICK]

5. Worry, thy name is Democrat

If everyone sees it that way you are right about the election. It's also illogical to assume that makes it true. Everyone has suffered unfair tags about war and taxes. If those tags stick to everyone, not one of them can win. The frame is a Bush frame in two senses of the word. Dean is about fiscal responsibility first, but in any event whose plan is going to crawl faster to gridlock? None of the candidates is exactly a PNAC, Bush-loving warmonger or a pacifist(Kucinich excepted?).

So is it the priority of issues or confrontational honesty or the person that will win the voters? After all the smoke and after all the issue loyalists and groups line up it likely will be the person, not the campaign or the difference in executing the generally common Dem platform, that goes the distance.

Someone commented that the debates and the messages are often an inside competition lost on the electorate. They will remember quickly that is in actual connecting with the voter where the whole ballgame is being played.

This will work out. You can never be sure, but I feel we are going on to win decisively.

[fernwoods]

23. Kucinich voted against IWR and Patriot Act and would be bring jobs

I don't want to choose between a candidate who voted against the Iraq war resolution and a candidate that would bring jobs so I will vote for Kucinch. I can't place my trust in a person who would vote for the Patriot Act which takes away our rights before they had time to know what was in it. They must know what they are voting for before they vote. I can not place my trust in a person who voted for the Iraq War Resolution. If they weren't informed enough to know what was going on in our country then, why do you think they would be more informed and make better decisions now? I will vote for the person who had the wisdom and the guts to do what he knew was right and vote against the war and rally many others to do so as well. This is why I will vote for Dennis Kucinich. He was a leader for an unpopular cause that we know was right. But I want jobs too and by canceling NAFTA and WTO and planning new fair trade agreements that are fair to the workers of the US, jobs will be brought back to the US. So if you don't want to choose between jobs and voting record, just vote for Kucinich and have it all.

[Democrats unite]

3. Not voting in this skewed poll...

My only concern is to vote for someone who is going to kick bushs ass out of the White House!

[AP]

4. What's so hard about asking how you feel about the candidates' own

prioritization of the issues.

I think even Clark TALKS about economic opportunity being more important (even though his biography makes people feel a different way).

[IndianaGreen]

18. Changing personnel won't do!

Changing policy is what this is all about!

Replacing the "R" in the White House with a "D" is a mere change in personnel if the Democratic President keeps PATRIOT on the books and continues to wage PNAC wars.

From another perspective, what's the point of defeating Sharon and the Likud, if the new Labor Prime Minister continues the Occupation of Palestine and continues to build settlements, as Ehud Barak did when he was Prime Minister.

[NWHarkness]

6. "When did Dean stop beating his wife?"

Your poll is designed to preclude any answer fair to Howard Dean.

[Clark Can WIN]

37. I disagree

The question is about one of emphasis. Not everything which does not openly promote Dean is meant to "victimize" him.

[bahrbearian]

7. They are one and the same

When you spend $300 billion on a war it will result in corporatocracy.

[AP]

10. Which makes it interesting that Dean wasn't against the 87 bill Iraq allo-

cation.

[Clovis Sangrail]

8. seems to be a bit mislieading...

The 2 positions are not mutually exclusive.

IWR had the end result of shifting money towards the corporatocracy, so it is entirely consistent for somebody to believe that a no vote on IWR is a critical issue _because_ they thought it would result in an corporate give-away.

Besides which, there are no candidates who rank a no vote on IWR and patriot as "the most important issue in 2004".

critical? yes
a deal-breaker? yes
most important issue? no

[AP]

11. The Brtitish haven't turned Iraq into a corporate giveaway.

Furthermore a candidate like Kucinich still has the right priorities even though he's agianst both of these things.

[KittyWampus]

9. Please Add Third Choice: IWR & Patriot Act Important AS Economic Issues

I am not a one Issue candidate and the IWR and the Patriot Act are TWO issues I disagree with Edwards on.

The fact he has yet to be held accountable for either vote will hopefully change soon.

Edwards rarely talks about Foreign Policy. And to pretend it is "Not Important" is ludicrous.

There are many gunning for an Imperial Amercia right now and Edwards has NOTHING in his resume to counter that with.

The fact he trusts Shelton as an Advisor gives me no faith in his judgement.

Shelton came out to pile on O'Neill this past week indicating on what side of the isle he is on.

Here's a bit from Time:

Dick Gephardt and John Edwards hardly mention foreign policy in their speeches. Both voted for the war, but they seem to have done so as a matter of convenience—to get the issue "off the table" so they could concentrate on populist economics. An Edwards adviser told me the Senator wasn't emphasizing foreign policy because "that's not what people are interested in." That seems myopic.

Bascially I think you've just done a sort of push poll trying to make an outcome favorable to Edwards.

[AP]

12. As I said above, you can be for doing something about Iraq

without turning it into a corporate giveaway. That's what Clinton was for, and that's what Blair is doing.

And that's why it seems the 87 bil allocation is a MORE imporant vote, which, oddly, Dean wasn't really against.

[KittyWampus]

14. The 87 Billion Was Predicated On Edwards IWR Vote

1. The 87 billion was an entirely different vote than the IWR
2. The 87 billion was necessitated BY the IWR
3. The Patriot Act was another matter all together
4. Edwards complete lack of credentials on Foreign Policy is = to Dean's gaping hole
5. At least Dean has had Executive Experience as governor. Edwards lacks even that

[bearfartinthewoods]

32. you're hyping experience in a state so small that the lt gov is part time

"that don't impress me much"

[iowapeacechief]

15. Otherwise I find Edwards very attractive...

...but ignoring foreign policy is worse in my book than talking about involvement in intelligence and wanting to further militarize our southern border. I hear his occasional mild criticism of Bush's handling of Iraq, but mostly he's too silent on isses that matter immensely whether he likes it or not. We don't need yet another president who thinks he can play catch-up on world affairs.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. False choice.

I don't take campaign rhetoric all that seriously. If they think they're making headway batting each other over the head with past votes, they can have all the fun they want-- I won't play.

Both IWR and PATRIOT were rushed through with little thought and largely unread by most congresscritters. Emotions were running high, and there were all those nasty hidden political ramifications. Same thing happened with the omnibus crime and immigration reform acts under Clinton. When they actually read what they did, a lot of them regretted it, but there was little they could do.

Everyone was pretty much given a Hobson's choice by the Republican leadership, and while I would have liked to see more resistance, I understand why they did what they did. Disgusted by it, but I still understand.

I am interested in what they actually think NOW about what Shrub and his demonic minions did with those acts.

I am even more interested in what their plans for the future are. IWR is history and can't be undone. PATRIOT can be undone. How will they handle Iraq, deal with al Qaeda and other groups, and get us back to work without undergoing a cavity search every time we leave the house?

[spooky3]

24. well put

[ThirdWheelLegend]

16. Kucinich, cares about both...

He voted against the war and the patriot act. And he cares most about the working class. Kucinich is the ultimate choice.

TWL

[AP]

30. Kucinich has his priorities in order.

[IndianaGreen]

17. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

Who cares about freedom and about peace? As long as my belly is full, I don't care if Big Brother is watching or that Oceania is invading another country!

I don't care if the reason my belly is full is due to the exploitation and murder of others!

As long as I am left alone, I don't care that my neighbor is in the Gulag.

[stickdog]

19. Push poll much? (nt)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

20. OTHER: We can't help the middle class until we end the War/PATRIOT Act

The War takes all the money we should be using to help the working middle class. As long as we are at war, there is no money left for our needs.

I think Edwards' economic plan is great - it's a shame he voted for the IWR and especially the PATRIOT Act. The bankruptcy bill? Edwards, how could you?

[drfemoe]

21. Can't vote because,

yes, Dean does offer both. He has stated his tax plan is to repeal gw's tax cuts and return them to Clinton era levels. Before gw's tax plan went into effect, 70% of Americans said they did not want a "tax cut". I have a problem with Democrats who voted for gw's tax cuts as well as the two items you mention. The "cuts" expire soon anyway. Further action is required to keep the "cuts" in place. I really can't understand how some candidates can defend gw's tax plan. It was a scam.

[Donna Zen]

22. Three issues:

The first issue, the IWR, bothers me because many do not understand, or refuse to understand, the dynamics of that vote. Yes, for some of the members who voted "yes" it was a purely political calculation or a clear opening of the path to war; however, for others it was seen as a diplomatic move, the leverage if you will. If we think back to the period before bush put forward that resolution, the regime said it did not need to return to the UN, but rather had any authority it needed to use force in Iraq based on prior resolutions. It was the Democratic party who called for returning to the UN. Given the nature of bush's wording of the resolution that answered that demand, it was clear to many of us that the regime meant to go to war. Nevertheless, from a diplomatic standpoint, the accepted procedure would be to grant any president the right to present the case to the UN. While many in congress saw what bush was up to, the vote was a difficult one as well as a trap.

Actually, the resolution, as badly worded and as cynical as it was meant to be, worked. Saddam opened Iraq to inspections, and if bush were an honest broker, those inspections could have ended the Iraq standoff. Alas, bush was as dishonest as we who did not have to vote, knew he was. Kudos to those members of congress who understood the nature of the beast, but I cannot cast stones at those who failed to appreciate the exact consequences of trying to deal with the liar in the WH. To hell with those who voted "yes" because they wanted this war. I also say "to hell" with those who drape themselves in the mantle of being anti-war while mouthing words that are spoken to cover their ass. Clark, who is often misunderstood unless one takes the time to actually read what he said then and continues to say, always felt that the war was in Afghanistan and that Iraq would only take away resources and energy from the main strategic objective.

That bush would have and could have gone to war with Iraq without any resolution needs to be considered by those of us who feel strongly about this issue, rather than using the for or against label. The question now is: who can get us out of Iraq?

The Patriot Act is a separate issue. As second on my list, it is a deal breaker of sorts. I see voting for that monster as a betrayal by each and every public official who supported that bill, as a failure to "uphold and defend the Constitution." I wrote to the DNC about this at the time, I wrote to my representatives about this at the time, and I nearly quit the party at the time. I have not given one penny to party since that vote. The bill negated and violated my Constitutional rights, to say I am pissed off forever about it would be to weak a statement. Any member who voted for that bill should be forced to resign immediately.

The third issue of the economy is as many have stated, tied to the war and the defense budget for two reasons. Losing important allies will continue to weaken our position in the world community and adversly affect our economy. Also, not only are American forces bleeding on the sands of Iraq, we are bleeding dollars that we cannot afford if we are to do anything positive about our future.

We need to get out of Iraq asap, we need to repair our alliances, we need to restore our Constitution, and we need prioritize our concerns which means getting the pork out of the defense budget. All of these mean, that bush must go. That is why I am supporting Clark.

[quaker bill]

25. The polls say

2/3 of Democrats prefer a candidate that was against IWR. Thus the focus of the campaign.

Your summary of Dean's economic plan is disingenuous and dismissive to say the least.

[TexasSissy]

26. The IWR and Patriot Act are two separate acts.????

I don't lump them together.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. The IWR and Patriot Act are the deciding factors for me.

I will not vote for any candidate who voted for either. Whether it be Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman or Gephardt. Thousands of people are dead or maimed because of the American invasion and subjugation of Iraq and more are dying. We have become a rogue nation because of that war in the eyes of the people of the world.

As for the Patriot Act, it echoes of what happened in Germany after the Reichstag fire.

Those who voted to support Bush's venture into Colonialism and fascism do not deserve Democrat votes - in the primary or the general election.

[AP]

29. Middle America is going to be offended by a poltician who says this vote

is more important than, oh, say telling them how you expect to shift the tax burden off them so that they can have a life with more opportunity for themselves and their children.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. What do you consider to be "middle Amerca"?

I live in a semi-rural area of Washington, retired federal worker, make about $60,000 per year, drive a Toyota pickup. Sounds pretty "middle America" to me.

But, the point is that some politicians voted to support an unjustified invasion of another country. Whether an ill-defined "middle America" approves or disapproves of such a vote should not be a factor in a politician voting for it.

It's a matter of ethics. IMO 4 candidates failed that test when they voted to support the bloodshed.

I will not vote for any of those 4. I'm ABB, but that doesn't mean that I have to vote for a Democrat who voted to support the Boob-in-Chief.

[AP]

39. Here are the ethics: pretending that VOTE is more important than, oh, say,

how you're going to unburden the mdidle class of the tax burden that has been shifted to them.

Kucinich has his priorities right. He was against war AND he wants to make the middle class strong. Does he go around pretending that that vote is more important than the big picture? Nope. He talks almost entirely about middle class opportunity and ending the Republican rape of the middle and working class.

How 'bout Dean. Well, since he has so little to offer in comparison to Kucinich, Edwards and Kerry (and even Lieberman) in terms of redistributing economic power down to people who work for a living (have you seen his tax plan? no, becuase he doesn't have one yet) he pretends this vote is more important.

Those kinds of priorities are NOT going to play well in America.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. "Pretends?" What makes you thinks so? Do you have any proof?

Having just been banished by the moderators for some perceived sin, and having become overly familiar with the "rules", I do believe that you have to supply proof of any allegations made. Not that I'm about to turn anyone in.

However, what makes you think that his opposition to the war is pretence?

Do you compare not having a tax plan of equal, or less, ethical importance than voting to have people killed?

As for Kucinich, he would be my first choice if I thought that he had a chance of capturing the nomination.

[sangha]

43. It is pretense

And it's not about "opposition to the war". It's pretense to act as if the IWR vote is THE most important issue in picking a candidate. More people have died from a lack of health care than died in Iraq, including the Iraqis who have been killed. I don't see why the deaths in Iraq are more important than those who die here in the US.

[Terwilliger]

28. It's not either/or

IWR, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, War on Terror are sure as hell going to be directly impacting the health and well-being of all Americans as we pursue these non-productive wars and inspire generations of hatred.

The campaigner must link these things for the American people, so they get it through their heads.

[arewethereyet]

31. its still the economy

people still vote their pocketbooks, that never changes.

[Paulie]

33. The WAR is the economy though

Spending hundreds of billions of dollars with masive debt isn't going to help the economy. It will crash it!

[arewethereyet]

35. those child tax credit dollars are real, what you suggest is theory

and people grasp reality far better than theory.

[dusty64]

34. I care about both equally.

I really desire a candidate that will actually oppose our regime instead of enabling their entire insane and extremist agenda.

[depakid]

36. That's a false dichotomy

though I must admit that it's illustrative of one of the many reasons that I don't take much stock in most of the media's polling numbers.

[NoPasaran]

40. It's important to me

It's important to me but not a total deal breaker. In November it's ABB for me.

[Clark4VotingRights]

42. AP, you could have poll options that are more...fair and balanced. :)

The IWR and patriot act votes were my initial screening
criteria. I think voting for them was inexcusable, and
nothing Edwards or Kerry have said has explained or excused it.

Yet I agree with your assessment of Dean, and how vague and
unsubstantial his policy statements are.

That's why I back Clark. He's simply the best candidate,
with the moral authority of opposing the war, and the well
defined and progressive policies to get where we must go.

(Also why I back Kucinich.)