Is the IWR/Patriot Act vote enough of a determining factor for you

[MercutioATC]

that, as the field narrows, you'd base your support on the candidate's votes/views on those two issues?

On the Pro-IWR/Patriot Act side we have Kerry and Edwards.

On the Anti-IWR/Patriot Act side we have Dean, Clark, Kucinich and Sharpton.

Will the Kerry/Edwards people stick together one drops out?

Will the Dean/Clark/Kucinich/Sharpton people leave their support in that pool if their candidate withdraws?

[LiberalBushFan]

1. No

but denying that the terrorist threat has been exaggerrated (Edwards) is enough of a factor. How can you say "the threat could not have been exaggerrated considering thousands died"; does that mean Bush couldn't have lied and distorted? Terrorists are no smarter or threatening than they've ever been, it's just that our president is dumber than any we've ever had.

[corporatewhore]

2. NAFTA/GATT/WTO/fasttrack to FTAA vote is a factor for me

IWR and PATRIOT ACT hurts too

[corporatewhore]

8. healthcare is also another biggie

[Uzybone]

3. Lets stop this right here

Clark said he would probably have voted for IWR and Dean supported Biden-Lugar....which is IWR in all but name and methodology. The only Anti-IWR/Patriot act candidates are Kucinich and Sharpton.

[mmonk]

6. Clark

would not invade.

[DjTj]

11. Only Bush

would have invaded.

Too bad Bush was the one in office. I hope he isn't there the next time something like this comes up.

[Democrats unite]

7. Lets stop this right here!

Kerry voted for it! Nuff said. :grr:

[IndianaGreen]

10. Agreed!

Kerry voted for PATRIOT and IWR. To make matters worse, Kerry cheered the war when it began, and continued to support it until things turned sour.

Kerry will not repeal PATRIOT. Kerry will not end the war/occupation. Kerry will not bring the troops home. Kerry will be another Nixon!

[bornskeptic]

12. Meaning Clark gets a pass even if he agrees with Kerry

because he wasn't in a position to vote? Bizarre.

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- Retired Army General Wesley K. Clark said yesterday that he probably would have voted for the congressional resolution that authorized President Bush to wage war in Iraq, taking a position on a key campaign issue closer to that of Senator John F. Kerry than Howard Dean's strong antiwar stance.

"On balance, I probably would have voted for it," Clark said. "The simple truth is this: When the president of the United States comes to you and makes the linkages and lays the power of the office on you, and you're in a crisis, the balance of the judgment probably goes to the president of the United States."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/09/19/clark_says_he_probably_would_have_voted_for_war/

[IndianaGreen]

16. The point is: Kerry voted for war!

We must hold our elected representatives accountable for their votes.

[GreenArrow]

17. As did Edwards

(and he still strongly defends his vote) As did Edwards on Patriot Act. Edwards "believes in a strong America" and "wont take a back seat to George W Bush on national defense." Does this sound like a candidate who is going to get us out of Iraq? Afghanistan? Colombia? All the rest of the countries where we are squatting?

[regnaD kciN]

32. Not just the IWR, but Kerry's many and shifting "rationales"...

...really make me distrust the man.

It started almost immediately after the vote, when he insisted that voting for a blank-check resolution wasn't really giving Bush a blank check. It continued with his vow to ask "tough questions" should Bush use the vote as the basis for a unilateral, pre-emptive war, followed (when such a war looked certain) by a promise to, instead, "keep silence" out of regard for Our Troops.

Of course, the last word most of us read came from Will Pitt's "The Trial of John Kerry." In front of a group of leading liberals, Kerry portrayed himself as someone whose only intent was to make sure weapons inspectors were allowed in to do their job, and was taken advantage of by a White House that had falsely assured him that war was a last resort:

“This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,” Kerry said. “I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for.”

“The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,” continued Kerry, “I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn’t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You’re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.”

Kerry completed his answer by leaning in close to Alterman, eyes blazing, and said, “Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”

The most revealing moment of the entire event came as it was breaking up. Kerry was slowly working towards the door when he was collared by Art Spiegelman. Though Kerry towered over him, Spiegelman appeared to grow with the intensity of his passion. “Senator,” he said, “the best thing you could do is to is to just come out and say that you were wrong to trust Bush. Say that you though he would keep his promises, but that you gave him more credit than he deserved. Say that you’re sorry, and then turn the debate towards what is best for the country in 2004.”

Kerry nodded, bowed his head, and said, “You’re right. I was wrong to trust him. I’m sorry I did.” And then he was gone.

Thought that this was a credible "final explanation"...? Well, oops, he did it again. In the Time magazine cover story (only available on-line to subscribers), Kerry has changed his tune significantly. For whatever reason (possibly because he was campaigning in more conservative states this week?) Kerry has now dropped his "I only voted to bring in the inspectors" line. Instead, he is now claiming that it had been our policy ever since 1998 to bring about "regime change" in Iraq, and his vote for the IWR was simply in line with that (supposed) policy. Instead of being "misled" by Bush, he now merely says he faults the President for his failure to succeed in putting together a larger coalition. In other words, it's not that we should have abandoned plans to invade if we didn't get the U.N.'s backing -- it's simply that we should have made sure that the U.N. was on-board by last March, period. Bush's transgressions have been reduced from lying and warmongering to mere diplomatic incompetence.

What is there to say about a candidate who can hardly keep his own story straight? Time would have it that it is a sign of strength that Kerry's positions are constantly "evolving." I, on the other hand, would take it as the sign of a politician frighteningly without principles whatsoever, who would change his position on a moment's notice based on the polls or the "conventional wisdom" (in other words, what the mainstream media like Time is saying).

Of course, I will still vote for Kerry (or any other Democratic candidate), should he get the nomination. But, while most warnings about Kerry have centered on whether or not he will lose in November, the more I read about him, the more I worry about what may come should he win. I would submit that his constant "explanations" foretell a Presidency which, although certainly better than the current one, will be an exercise in triangulation enough to make Clinton look like a liberal "true believer" -- and one that (since the Republicans will of course label his views as "extreme liberal" no matter how compromised they turn out to be) will mark the death knell for progressives in the Democratic Party or American politics as a whole.

[in_cog_ni_to]

19. No. What Clark DID say

is....He would have had to read the resolution before he decided anything and from what he's heard, he would NOT have voted for it.

[mmonk]

4. Yes

time to make a stand about the future by debating the issue so enough Americans won't be misled again. It's a matter of trust.

[Ficus]

5. I was a Kucinich

person - then switched to Edwards at the caucuses (only when Dennis wasn't viable.) I liked his message - the two Americas message is a real winner. We can beat Bush with that, IMO.

Also, I never got a piece of negative mail from him. I couldn't empty my mailbox quick enough to get all of the Dean/Gephardt/Kerry garbage out of it.

on edit: as far as the issues, no one comes close to Dennis Kucinich, so I figured if I had to choose someone else, I might as well choose a winner!

[Iverson]

9. They're deal-breakers.

I know I'm in a minority, but we all have our barest minimums that need to be met.

[no name no slogan]

13. Not so much IWR-- but WHO'LL GET US OUT OF IRAQ SOONEST

So far, NONE of the front-runners are addressing the need for the US to relinquish control of Iraq as soon as possible.

All of them (even the "anti-IWR" Dean) want to keep US troops as an occupying force in Iraq for the foreseeable future. NOBODY but DK is willing to turn over authority to the UN and get us out of there-- NOBODY.

Yes, it was important to be against the IWR. But that was last year, before we illegally invaded and took over the country. So, how can it be right to illegally occupy Iraq, when it was wrong to invade in the first place?

UN IN, US OUT OF IRAQ. THAT is the issue that needs to be addressed.

[corporatewhore]

14. Yep whether Kerry Dean or bush gets it my father wil go back in 2005

[MercutioATC]

20. Actually, I don't think that's the case.

Dean IS talking about getting U.N. troops in and ours out, but with what I think is a more realistic timeline. For Kucinich to promise a withdrawl of U.S. troops before the U.N. has actually bought off on the agreement seems slightly premature to me. Hey, if we can get the U.N. in in 90 days, great! Promising a quick exit of U.S. troops before any negotiotations with the U.N. is reckless, though...

[revcarol]

21. Kofin Annan says we can get 50,000 UN troops into Iraq within 30 days!!

IF THE U. S. TURNS OVER CONTROL OF THE OCCUPATION, THE CONTRACTS, AND EVERYTHING ELSE. AND THE U.N. IS WILLING AND ABLE TO DO IT.No more sweetheart no bid taxpayer-killing contracts for anything. No more control of oil. NGO'S will flock back in to do humanitarian work, because they won't be seen as patsies of the Americans. More troops will be scheduled in as U. S. troops are scheduled out.The Arab League can be part of all this. Not just white Europeans.
Of course, the agreement would have to be worked out before one U. S. soldier left. And, of course, we (the U. S.) would have to restore the infrastructure back to pre-war levels and pay reparations because we were the AGGRESSORS.(Kucinich)

But this IS more important than just the IWR vote.IMHO.

[ChiefJoseph]

25. I have not seen this,

Do you have a link?

[MercutioATC]

27. That was MY thought. Sounds great, but the last I knew, Kofi was saying

that he'd FINALLY admit to U.N. troop committment with no specifics (no criticizm of Kofi. I think he was absolutely right).

Even if it WERE the case, 50,000 troops is far short of what's needed to get the U.S. out. Is he ready to commit 150,000 troops?

[revcarol]

29. That's just the beginning. That's committment of troops from some

of the countries that wouldn't go along with the U. N. travesty the U. S. was pulling. Like France, Germany and many other nations.there are also committments of BIG humanitarian and reconstruction aid $$, IF the U. S. turns everything over to the U. N., so the U. S. taxpayer wouldn't have to eat the whole bill.

I thought I would wet myself laughing when Kofi Annan said all this. This was back a couple of months ago when Colin was runing around like a chicken with his head cut off trying to get the U. N. back in, WITH US IN CHARGE, and Bush was pressuring Annan for the same thing, and everyone kept saying that we would get the U. N. back in, no doubt.And Annan just calmly diplomatically, politely said NO, but if we are in charge we can get 50,000 troops in there within a month.

Then other nations starting listing the amounts they would give IF the U. S. were out... and the major NGO's who had been there until a few days before the war started said they would come back, IF the U. S. got out, because it wasn't safe being perceived as part of the American Occupation effort...

this could be part of a basis for a feasible scheduled withdrawal. AND KUCINICH COULD PULL IT OFF, AND GET THE RESPECT OF OUR FORMER FRIENDS AND ALLIES AS A MAN OF PEACE.

[genius]

15. I don't consider Dean and Kucinich to be on the same side.

Kerry, Edwards and Clark are closer to Kucinich on most issues.

[MercutioATC]

18. I was specifically asking about the 3 issues I posted.

Kerry and Edwards are on their own with these three.

[revcarol]

23. Dean is not on the same side as Kucinich regarding the Patriot Act.

Dean would tweak it a little bit.
Kucinich would throw the whole mess out!! NO EVIDENCE that it has prevented terror and has just cut our civil liberties into ribbons.

[MercutioATC]

26. Untrue. BOTH have issues with the basic premise...the abuse of civil

liberties. Kucinich would throw out the whole thing. Dean would keep certain security funding provisions and throw ot the rest. Essentially, it's the same. Both want security funding (cargo containers, etc) but take issue with the civil liberties issues.

They have different approaches to te same end.

[JohnKleeb]

30. Why hasnt Dean aunnoced his stand with DK on his bill

Seriously I see all his supporters saying they wont support so and so because of it but he hasnt even endorsed the bill or aunnoced his support. :shrug:

[MercutioATC]

33. Dean wants to keep certain funding provisions. DK wants to repeal the

whole thing. Same goal - different methods.

[ChiefJoseph]

22. How can you say Clark was against the war?

When he said he "probably would have voted for" the resolution. And after all that gushing praise of the war that was read aloud during the debate.

[spooky3]

24. I really see Kucinich as separate from the other three.

It is completely different to be faced with the decision to vote and vote one's position at the time, then to say later how you would have voted, had you had the chance.

There is no way for anyone to know how, faced with identical conditions at the same time--including constituencies that expected you to represent them--one would have behaved, and there is no way for others to verify any claims one might make.

[Seldona]

28. Not an issue for me.

I was conned like everyone else.

I am a Clark man, and even though he did say he probably would have voted for it, he also clarified that that vote would have been wrong.

Matches my position exactly.

Go Clark!

[LibDemAlways]

31. Kucinich is the conscience of the Democratic party.

He makes sense and walks the walk. He has my vote in the primary. Not sure at this point if I'd vote for Kerry or Edwards in the GD if either of them becomes the nominee. If the race was close here in CA I'd probably hold my nose and do it, but I wouldn't be happy about it.