I am now a single issue voter: anti-war

[AllyCat]

When I started following politics and voting 24 years ago, I was a single issue voter: pro-choice. Then I learned about other issues and while a pro-choice stand was important to me in a politician, I realized how much more was on the table than that.

After all this time, I have decided that I am again a single issue voter in support of anti-war platforms and policies. Sure, I am upset about health care, the environment, gay and civil rights, election reform, and a host of other progressive American ideals being eroded in this country by the minute. But none of it matters a whit if we don't stop the hemorrhaging of money to fund this war and of the blood of our soldiers and the Iraqi and Afghani people, amongst others.

The Senate vote floored me. 92-3 to give this jerk in the White House another $150B for this stupid quagmire that makes his buddies rich. They loot the US Treasury and our Congress goes along with giving them more dough at the drop of a hat. But God forbid we should insure poor kids! That's socialized medicine! Hell would freeze over if dared to help Katrina victims. We can't take money away from Halliburton to help folk that might not vote the way we want. And we certainly can't put more money into programs that get us off oil and onto cleaner energy. What, and waste all the money we've spent on this war? No way!

I believe voting single-issue in favor of anti-war candidates is actually a vote in favor of all the things I also hold dear. I don't care what party these candidates come from, as long as they are anti-war. Dennis Kucinich has my vote for President and I am talking him up amongst my friends and family. I am proud to have voted for Feingold for my Senator 3 times...he was one of only 3 sensible Senators to vote against more money for the Chimp in Chief. I'll vote for him again. Especially if he runs for POTUS at some point. While both are Dems, I know there are others from other parties who will vote anti-war. There are even one or two other Dem candidates who would end this war.

No longer will I support ANY Democrat who won't stop this war. That includes all those who didn't bother to show up for today's Senate vote. That includes not voting in the general election should we be so reckless as to nominate a candidate who is pro-war. I won't support anyone from any party who is not actively seeking solutions to stop this war soon. 2013 just isn't good enough. Can the world wait for 2013? No, we can't.

Look at who you support in the upcoming elections. Are they committed to stopping the war? Did they vote Nay on today's bill? Did they show up for the vote? Ask yourself if all the other things you want in a representative or leader will matter with all our money flowing to fund this immoral and unnecessary war that is responsible for the death, torture, and injury of hundreds of thousands of people.

Can you be a single-issue voter?

[MADem]

1. Nope.

I am lucky though. I'm from a state where the bulk of our delegation opposes the war. So I can have that cake and eat it too.

But I can't ignore other issues like health care for young, old and in-between, choice, education, and a boatload of other important issues. Especially choice--with this wingnutty Supreme Court, that's something that could sneak up and bite folks in the ass when they least expect it.

And don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got till it's gone...

[babylonsister]

2. YES! I can, and might be. Anti war works for me. nt

[greyl]

3. That doesn't exactly result in a single candidate choice, however.

Good thing there's over a year before the election. ;)

[AllyCat]

11. Of course not. There are a few choices, but the "frontrunners" are pro-war

So if they want to vote to continue this mess and erode U.S. civil liberties, destroy our environment, and take food out of the mouths of babes, then they don't get my vote. I don't care if it's the GE. My conscience will not allow it.

[Nutmegger]

4. Here's the roll call

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00359

YEAs ---92

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---3

Byrd (D-WV)
Coburn (R-OK)
Feingold (D-WI)

Not Voting - 5

Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

[Lerkfish]

8. wow, that IS interesting... all the nonvotes are prez candidates

[AllyCat]

10. Isn't that amazing? To me, a no show on this is as bad as an AYE

[Lorien]

5. I have a primary issue; the environment. But there are many other issues

that I consider extremely important. I place the environment first on the list for a simple reason; the longer we wait to address it ,the less likely we'll be able to save ourselves from extinction. You want to see war? Wait until China or some other major power has monumental crop loss, or drought, or flooding. Most wars are fought over resources, after all. This could easily happen within our lifetime.

[Solly Mack]

6. War isn't a single issue...especially Bush's wars

War impacts the economy
War impacts social services
War impacts the national morale
etc



Bush's wars have caused an erosion of civil liberties
brought up issues of international law and criminality
abuse of Constitutional powers
attempts at silencing dissent


I'm sure others can come up with a more complete list and I have an old post from a couple of years ago that goes into greater detail

but don't let anyone tell you that war is a single issue...because it isn't.

[AllyCat]

12. Exactly Solly! I'd love to read your post if you have saved it somewhere

This war is putting all the other issues I hold dear in limbo in order to keep it going. They are trashing the environment. They have indeed eroded civil liberties even worse than it was. All our money is going to Iraq while people here are suffering. And of course, Wall Street is doing just fine. The rich get richer...the poor get to go to war and get killed or maimed while their families starve on paltry wages (provided they can stay healthy for their first 18 years of life). Their votes don't get counted. Our votes don't get counted. Our money and jobs continue to go overseas.

This war is ruining everything and I cannot vote for anyone who continues to support it. And that includes those who stand idly by...see the post about the vote yesterday.

[Solly Mack]

16. Hey, AllyCat

Here you go

The War is NOT a "single" issue

[AllyCat]

27. Thanks! That's awesome! n/t

[Lerkfish]

7. I"m not a single issue voter, but that is my biggest issue, since

all other issues are related.

[Marrah_G]

9. No, I can't

When I vote I am looking for the whole package.

If I was a single issue, anti-war voter then I could just as well vote for Ron Paul following that thinking.

Ugh... just the thought of that nut in the white house turns my stomach.

[cali]

13. No. I've always thought it amazingly stupid. still do. n/t

[jpgray]

14. Why is this stupid? You'd have to support Ron Paul over Hillary or Edwards

Which means you'd abandon the poor, women, labor, gays, and the environment because you've arbitrarily decided one issue is the only important one in choosing your vote. You can't pretend something so complex and interdependent as a presidential election can be exclusively limited to a -single- issue without looking foolish, in my view.

[AllyCat]

15. Hillary has abandoned all those things

Her health insurance plan and pro-corporate (esp. moving jobs out of the country) will hurt not just the poor, but the entire middle class. I don't see that will sit well with labor either. She supports the war and liquid coal which hurts the environment. The war additionally hurts gays and women and everyone else because it continues to take money away from things these groups need (like family planning).

Sure, she might be a little more tolerant of bills that support a woman's right to choose. She might be a little more tolerant of "civil unions" or even gay marriage (all these things I support!), but if her corporate backers say it's not sitting well with their market, she'll back down.

Edwards is little different. I thought he would be, but he's not. Labor likes him alright, but that's about it. At least he's not for liquid coal, but he would keep this war going to continue to kill people overseas. I'm not sure I can support that just to buy some extra rights here.

The cost is too high.

I'm not talking just President either. It's everything. Call me stupid if you want. I'm voting anti-war.

[ShortnFiery]

17. Yes! I'm with you.

& BTW, love your avatar. ;) :thumbsup:

[Whisp]

18. 92-3?

what the hellllllll.....

again?..............

[AllyCat]

19. It passed more easily this time than last time.

Look at post #4 above. It will give you the sorry rundown. One repuke in the Nays, but he was probably mad they only gave * $150B instead of the $190B he wanted.

[MazeRat7]

20. That is why I'm in the Richardson camp at this point in the process..

but not for this single issue. Sure he has the best position on getting us out of Iraq... but he also has the diplomatic chops to help recover some of the credibility we have lost in the international community.

I'm looking for someone with "experience" and a solid resume... of course when its all said and done, I wont get that.

But for now.. thats how I'm sizing it up.

MZr7

[Beausoir]

21. Richardson...who said being gay was a choice?

Nuh-uh.

[MazeRat7]

22. Yeah.. that would be him....

Is this your "single" issue ? Considering he apologized and claims to have "spoken in error"... I'm giving him a pass on that.

He still has the best resume of any candidate IMHO.

MZr7

[Beausoir]

23. I don't have a single issue. But anyone who claims that being gay is a choice is not competent.

[MazeRat7]

24. I would suggest you read his interview with "The Advocate"....

Richardson clarifies his debate remarks with the Advocate

MZr7

[Beausoir]

26. I subscribe to The Advocate. He said being gay was a choice.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this.

[dysfunctional press]

25. you'll have to vote third party in november 2008...

all of the viable democratic candidates have said that the troops wouldn't be withdrawn during their possible first terms.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. The "war" is not One issue.

It encompasses everything from foreign relations to civil rights to the economy to our form of government.

I'm not a "one issue" voter. I'll be voting for the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot.

Even if I have to write one in.

[AllyCat]

29. That's a great idea TyL! I completely agree with you.

Did you read Solly's post? Link provided in the post. I like it.

[Lucinda]

30. Nope. I could never be single issue.

SCOTUS is long term, and war is short term, hopefully, and they both matter tons.