Using Dems Votes for War as Leverage in 2006?

[ShullsM]

By using some of the Dems votes for the Iraq War Resolution, do Republicans gain a true upper hand, despite the fact that many of the Dems have come out and said they made a mistake and that many Americans believe they were decieved as well? Is this really going to be a hot button issue come 06?

My belief is that the whole situation must be reevaluated and that a vote for the war resolution combined with a changed view on what has gone on should not damage a candidate. Agree, Disagree?

 

[stsburns]

For strategy purposes, if they ever got off their soap box, I think they could put a Democrat in.

 

[FinnMacCool]

I agree. Especially since both sides messed up big time. I think the democrats have a huge advantage regardless. The results of the recent elections just proved that people are fed up of Bush and, perhaps, those like him.

 

[dragonslayer]

By using some of the Dems votes for the Iraq War Resolution, do Republicans gain a true upper hand, despite the fact that many of the Dems have come out and said they made a mistake and that many Americans believe they were decieved as well? Is this really going to be a hot button issue come 06?

My belief is that the whole situation must be reevaluated and that a vote for the war resolution combined with a changed view on what has gone on should not damage a candidate. Agree, Disagree?

We need to be careful. Neo Cons are similar to the German Nazi SS, and they always lie and deceive. even when it isn't necessary. then they want to kill some one.

 

[ShullsM]

Until one of the democrats gets the balls to ask if they would prefer, in the situation, would they prefer someone who'll admit when they've made a mistake or not.
Screw it, most of them are useless anyways, this backlash should push us in a more libertarian direction since that's for the most part the opposite of the Bush administration.

A few of the democrats have already agreed they made a mistake. Edwards said it and came up with an exit strategy. I respect that. Many of the democrats who voted for the war have now come back and said we should start looking at alternative strategies. The thing that bugs me is that these people are getting railed by the Reps, but everyone knows the course of the war has not gone as planned and the smart thing to do is re-evaluate. Cantwell and others have mentioned it and they've gotten railed for flip-flopping. I don't think the term flip-flopping even applies in this situation. It's the circumstances that have flip flopped, not the congressional leaders.

 

[ShullsM]

I really don't think it'll be that useful, the whole flip flopping thing, considering when we went to war 70% of people supported it, and isn't its support in the 30s now? Thus 40% of the nation has flip flopped on the war, so I doubt there will be too many holding that against them.
It reminds me of something that I saw on Real Time with Bill Maher, it was a fake Bush/Cheney commercial saying "In December 2001 Bush has 90% approval ratings, now he only has 37%, sounds to me like a flip flop. Americans, bad for America, paid for by Bush Cheney."

Thank you. I see it your way as well. That's why I'm so confused by some of the conservative comments I've seen lately using this as ammunition against the Dems. It just doesn't make since. What sparked my interest in this was an article I read about a GOP leader in WA, Chris Vance, and a random condemnation of Maria Cantwell for voting for the war. It's like they are reaching.....

 

[ShullsM]

Of course they're reaching, it's all they have left. Over the last 5 years the republicans have been very successful by making sure the argument is always over something bad that a democrat did, and just ignoring everything that the republicans did. Liberals bit hook line and sinker, they believed that every little stupid thing that a conservative said needed to be debated. The main reason why this worked were there were plenty of legitimate complaints with a lot of democrats conduct that had been building up for years. Now the well has for the most part run dry, and for the most part all we have left to discuss is the leftover screwups on the republicans' parts, and this would be horrible for the republicans, and so now they're just clinging to whatever else they can claim is the real problem with the US hoping that we'll spend our time debating little pointless things instead of discussing the war, or Tom Delay's money laundering, or Bill Frist's insider trading, or the Downing Street Memos, or the Valerie Plame issue, etc.

I think you hit it on the head with the continued scandals that crop up every other week with the Republicans. I just don't get it. People seem to be blind to it and believe it is ok that our countries leaders are accepting bribes on decisions that we elect them to make. It's crazy. All the stuff you pointed out is right there in everyone's face. The Democrats get railed by the Republicans for trying to pin down the oil executives, and then a week later it comes out that they in fact did not tell the truth in fron of Congress. Why do people think liberals wanted them to testify under oath? They don't exactly have a record that spills honesty?