The critical question: Which candidate would uphold the Presidential Oath?

[Progress]

For me, that is the critical question.

The Presidential Oath of Office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The Congressional Oath of Office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

I believe that Edwards and Kerry (and others) violated their Congressional Oaths when they voted for IWR and the Patriot Act. Now they are asking me to vote for them as the Democratic nominee for President. How am I to believe that either of them will remain true to their Presidential oath?

I love my country. I don't want to see Bush elected this year. I tried, I really did, to not dwell on the IWR and Patriot Act votes of Kerry and Edwards -- the candidates touted as "most electable." I tried reasoning with myself that the most important thing was to get Bush out of the White House and then try to heal the country. But I just can't do it. I can't help hand the nomination to a man who I feel betrayed his country.

Patrick Henry said, "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but the by the past." Kerry and Edwards betrayed their Congressional Oaths, and I must assume they would betray the Presidential Oath as well. My patriotism prevents me from supporting them. I have to vote for one of the remaining candidates.

I have in the past voted for candidates who did not share my ideals. I have voted for candidates based on factors of "electability." I would never consider going third party because I respect the nomination process and am realistic about the two-party system. I also realize that if Bush is elected this year, there will be many people worse off than I am. That is not something I take lightly. It's one thing to take a risk for yourself, and it's quite another thing when others will be bearing far more of the burden.

But no matter how I try to rationalize it, in the end I just have to do what I feel is right. Our Constitution took a great blow on 12/12/2000. We need to put someone in office who has some respect for the document our democracy is based on. Besides, I feel that fear is a bad thing to base my vote on, and that's what I would be doing if I voted for Edwards or Kerry. I suppose it comes down to faith. I must have faith in democracy, faith that the nation will endure. There are always risks in life. Why not at least give democracy a chance?

[FloridaPat]

1. Kucinich, Dean, Sharpton, maybe Clark. The two senators

have already given away their senate right to declare war.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Listen...

You're taking the vote out of context. These were two guys who knew they were running for office in a time when a vote against was seen as extremely unpatriotic. Kucinich had the luxury of being in a safe House seat and was never considered a major presidential candidate, meaning he had nothing to lose by voting as he wished. The two senators had essentially no choice in this. Does it piss me off that they didn't vote against IWR? Absolutely! But the resolution was passing with or without their support of it. In such a case, they did what was politically prudent. Nothing more, nothing less.

[HFishbine]

3. You really just made the point

that so many of us have a problem with: that some candidates put political expediency ahead of principle.

[ShimokitaJer]

4. So it's okay that they failed to uphold the Constitution...

...because it was politically expedient? Oh yeah, that's going to convince us what a great president they'd make.

[Progress]

5. Well, they made their choice didn't they?

They chose to do what was "politically prudent" rather than abide by their Congressional Oaths to uphold the Constitution. What would have happened if they had simply done the right thing? It may have damaged their political careers. There are soldiers losing life and limb in Iraq, and Kerry and Edwards helped send them there. But Kerry and Edwards couldn't bear any harm to come to their own careers.

[Mairead]

6. " The two senators had essentially no choice in this"

That, my friend, is a clay vessel packed with steaming foecal matter.

The only threat to Kerry's re-election was caused by his vote: Dr Randy Forsberg was so outraged by the way he had ignored the thousands upon thousands of pleas from constituents that he vote No that she mounted an ad-hoc, word-of-mouth campaign against him immediately afterwards.

[youngred]

10. safe house seay?

Not likely.

[IrateCitizen]

14. Sorry, but that's the way of cowards, not leaders

A vote on self-preservation over public interest on such a critical matter as life and death does little to bolster my confidence that they will do the right thing in the future when a lot is riding on the line.

OTOH, I seem to recall that the one person whose "no" vote you discounted essentially sacrificed his political career by putting the interests of Cleveland's citizens ahead of his own and those of big business by refusing to sell their public power utility. Of course, he was vilified at the time -- but in 1998 was declared a city hero for his foresight and personal courage in doing so.

Sorry, I'm not buying that argument. It is in situations such as this that the mettle of men (and women) is truly tested. Those who voted for the invasion and are now trying to sidestep that vote simply failed the test.

[redqueen]

7. That's a good question

and it should affect one's decision, I think.

[Mairead]

8. Dennis Kucinich is the one working to restore our Constitutional rights

So I'd guess he's the one who'll always honor his oath, too.

[Progress]

9. Is there any defense other than "political prudence"?

If any Kerry or Edwards supporters wish to defend their candidates, I'd like to hear from you. I've struggled with this myself, and perhaps there is yet some angle I hadn't considered...but I doubt it.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

11. I think that IS the most important question

And Kucinich has already shown that he will.

[republicansareevil]

12. While everyone focuses on Drudge propoganda,

While everyone focuses on Drudge propoganda, the real scandal is ignored.

[redqueen]

17. You just identified a large part of the problem, friend.

*sigh*

Our constitution is undermined, our countrymen are sent to die for oil out of cowardly political expedience...

and this is what has people in a fit. :(

[MuseRider]

18. Oh yes.

That is true, so true. I feel sometimes that I am living in People Magazine.

[genius]

13. Kucinich. Also Edwards is pretty honest and knows the Constitution

Dennis has had a good influence on him and I think he would be the second best.

[republicansareevil]

15. Despite Edwards votes for the IWR and the PATRIOT Act? (nt)

:shrug:

I realize Kucinich and Edwards are on friendly terms, and maybe Edwards is a "nice guy," but he certainly wasn't upholding the Constitution when he voted for those travesties.

[MuseRider]

16. Only Kucinich.

He has already shown us that he will risk even his own political future to do what he said he would do for the people. We need more than anything some integrity in the White House, to restore peoples trust, to give them something to compare to in the future. Hopefully it will help people to make better judgements.

[RememberTheCoup]

19. And neither Kerry nor Edwards has disavowed either vote.

Correct me if I'm mistaken.