If Democrats refuse to stop the war, will you vote for them anyway in 2008?

Question

I sure as hell won't.

goldenrae, the alternative is called "peace". Let's give it a chance.

Yes, I could live with the Republicans again, and it would be worth it to teach the Democrats a lesson in Democracy.

I couldn't stand Guiliani when he was Mayor, but he's hardly a "fundie". Nor is Romney, McCain, etc.

Face it - the Democrats have been used fear of Republicans to get them out of keeping their promises.

Let me clue you in on something, Nobody: Congress decides whether or not it wants to pay for the war. And the Democrats run Congress.

But Kenneth, the war is the biggest issue and two-thirds of the country wants it to end--including nearly ALL democrats. So if they won't do that, what good are they?

g, I'm willing to give them until November, 2008. That should be plenty of time.

nebtet - the Democrats don't need cooperation from Republicans to stop the war. The Republicans need cooperation from Democrats to continue paying for it. And if Democrats provide that cooperation over the next two years, and do not stop the war, then they will be breaking the promise they made to the American people on the most important issue facing our country. And then they won't deserve anyone's vote.

Answer 1

They had better do something ! I think they are starting to realize that we meant it when we elected them to stop the war. One way or another they had better get it accomplished. I'm not a democrat unconditionally. I expect them to live up to democratic principles. Or I'm leaving.

Answer 2

Stopping the war is just their distraction tactic.

They will take no real steps to end the war. They want to be able to use the war in the 08 election, if the war ended tomorrow, it would be old news and much less useful.

Both parties overwhelmingly approved the war. Leadership in both parties are protecting the war by taking impeachment off of the table. One cannot cut supplies to our troops in the field.
They all know there will never be enough support to cut funding. Absent funding cuts, the only other way I see to end the war is to impeach Bush and Cheney.

No impeachment, no change in the war until after Jan 09.

It is time to clear out our government. With perhaps one or two exceptions, the incumbent for every race should be voted out in 2008.

Neither party is interested in removing our troops completely.
Neither party is interested in cutting the corrupt corporate money train.
Both parties represent the best interest of their corporate sponsors and not the people of the US.

Only by removing the veteran, most corrupt politicians can we end the cycle of corruption. I believe it is time for an entirely new set of faces in congress. A new set of faces that is made keenly aware that their stay is as temporary as their resistance to corruption.

A new Congress, with none of the old debts, none of the old habits, and hopefully little or no exposure to the current corrupt backdoor, kickback system of legislation.

Maybe if the job was a short tenure high pressure job with few perks, the job would be less appealing to so many easily corrupt-able people.

Answer 3

i have self assurance the Democrats will take definitive action and that's going to contain funding. the priority is being particular no funding cuts impression the troops already in Iraq - it truly is the finest issue at the same time as reducing money. see you later as they do this, they are going to be superb. yet they are going to be walking by a minefield and they know it. in the journey that they flail about and not in any respect some thing get finished, I even ought to assert it received't replace my options about vote casting in a Democratic President. i imagine a lot of human beings will be grumbling, yet rightly or wrongly, they are going to assume Congress had that's palms tied by ability of Bush and Cheney and they are going to bypass the more beneficial mile to get a Democratic into the Oval workplace. If Iraq continues to be in chaos it will be a slam dunk for the Democrats, no count number what action or inactivity they have taken. Many moderates, the most important voters, are disgusted with the Republicans over more beneficial concerns than the conflict. that's a mixture of all forms of elements - the conflict, inactivity on immigration, border and port protection, the chance of Iran and the phobia that this President will screw up there as badly as he has in Iraq, center classification economics, no longer some thing yet lip service to our surroundings problem, inactivity from Republicans on attempting to fix a badly damaged well being care equipment, and so on. The list is going on and on. i actually imagine the Republicans do not have a shot in Hades of taking the White homestead in 2008. some thing truly strange may ought to ensue - in spite of the undeniable fact that it would not be the first time, politics isn't some thing if no longer mercurial.

Answer 4

well, the Dems only have a slim majority in both houses so would need co operation from the Repubs. Congress can pass a bill but if the Senate rejects it ... it's dead. then even if the Senate accepts it the President gets the chance to veto it and so then it goes back to the Senate. so what i'll be looking for is those individuals, Dems or Repubs or Indep, who tried to stop the war and bring the troops home as it's doubtful that there's enough consensus within either and/or both parties to get out of Iraq before GW leaves office and his mess to the next president. tho i generally vote Dem i vote for the individual who best recognizes and offers solutions to my concerns.

PS. sorry but IMO it would be pretty damn stupid to hand the power back to those who created the fiasco in the first place just because the Dems couldn't clean up an 8 year disaster in 2 years.

PPS. sheesh! i guess you'll be expecting the next president to snap is fingers and poof! all is right with the world. the Dems have been in power THREE WHOLE MONTHS fer krise sake. aren't you paying attention? we're finally getting some oversight going on. Gonzales is nearly out on his azz and investigations are going on into all kinds of corrupted GOP dealings. hmmm maybe you're just a neoCON posing as a Liberal seeking to prematurely foment Dem discontent
long hair and a tye dye bandanna does not a Liberal make.

Answer 5

Democrats will of course vote for democrats, Long Hair, regardless of whether or not they cut off funding for the troops. What's their alternative? The Republicans won't have voted to cut off funds either, so, being on an equal playing field on this one issue, democrats will go with democrats, regardless.

You're an intelligent guy, Long Hair. You ought to learn about politics, real politics, so that you understand why things happen the way they do in the belt. It's not as simple as up or down votes on almost every conceivable issue. Politics, and constituencies, play serious roles. Voters are but one concern to our elected representatives. And, as it is with national Presidential elections, it's the 10% of undecided, or Independents (like me) who matter the most, ironically.

Because 40% will vote for Democrats, no matter what. And 40% will vote for Republicans, no matter what. Because of that, those constituencies actually matter less than other groups.

There are usually 10% who vote for third party candidates. And that leaves the Independents. Me! And those like me. And we're a fickle bunch, that's why we're neither Democrats OR Republicans. We actually consider everything on it's merits. And WE'RE not so cure cutting off funding, withdrawing troops, and leaving the Iraqi people, the women and children, in a horrific mess that WE created is such a good thing to do.

Btw: Independents gave Congress to the Democrats last fall, and less Republicans voted. It's not like more Democrats suddenly emerged.

Answer 6

The Dems are trying. They do not have the numbers in the Senate to really do anything but slow Bush down in his attempt to destroy the US. If you expect them to cut funding for the troops already in Iraq, that would be a mistake and they won't do that. If you do not vote for a Democrat in '08, you will be voting for a Republican, think about it.

Answer 7

Before the mid-election in 2006, the Democrats campaign aggressively to stop the war in Iraq and the people voted for them. However, when they already assumed the control of Congress, they refuse to put a halt in the war. The people should not vote for them anymore in the coming election.

Answer 8

Even though the war is a major issue, there are other issues that are just as pressing on the homefront (Health care, Economic slowdown, education, etc.) It would be silly for the Democrats to run on just one issue alone. Democratic refusal to stop the war will not keep me from voting for them if they can benefit the country in other ways.

Answer 9

uh... I'm willing to give them a bit of time... LIKE THEY SAID THEY NEEDED... to get this done... and according to polls, people want a slow pull out, LIKE THEY ARE TRYING TO DO...

and you're gong to vote Republican to "teach them a lesson"?

the only lesson they will get is that they "weren't conservative enough" out of a vote for a conservative? DO YOU HEAR WHAT REPULBICANS SAY WHEN THEY WIN... THEY SAY AMERICA WANTS US BECAUSE AMERICA KNOWS WE'RE RIGHT...

basically you're enabling Republcians if you vote for them... and that's AT LEAST 4 years down the drain again... maybe 8 since incumbents win quite a bit...

why are people so impatient? and why would you ever vote where it would JUST MAKE THINGS EVEN WORSE?

there ARE OTHER ISSUES OTHER THAN THE WAR AND THERE ARE MANY OTHERS DYING FROM THINGS OTHER THAN THE WAR... like healthcare...

PAY ATTENTION TO THE WORLD FOR LIKE 5 SECONDS...

Answer 10

I have no intention of voting for Democrats in 08.