Is anyone else sick of the "war" being the ONLY issue some base their support of candidates on?

[saracat]

I have some many issue that I am concerned about and the WAR is just one among them.I am afraid those issues get lost in the shuffle. I am against the WAR but I would NOT support a candidate that would end the war, but let other issues go hang.Just wondering how others felt! I expect to get flamed for daring to say this.

[rinsd]

1. It depends.

I have problems with one issue voters but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

For many I think the war is their most important issue but not their only issue.

[GreenArrow]

15. the war's not one issue

It's a whole knot of other issues tied up in one convienient bundle.

(edited for spelling)

[HeraldSquare212]

45. Agreed.

Hard to feel like we're advancing issues here at home when we're bombing elsewhere. For example, we want universal health care because we want to make sure people are being helped regardliness of ability to pay; what's the point of achieving that here if we're maiming and killing elsewhere?

[AtomicKitten]

2. It's an important issue for consideration.

Matters of life and death are and should be scrutinized.

[MoJoWorkin]

3. No. n/t

[Jokerman]

4. It's not the only issue, but it's a BIG one.

If a candidate can support an illegal act of aggression, then they have very little to offer me.

[pocoloco]

5. Butchering Iraqis is ok??

They not near as good as dogs??

[WildEyedLiberal]

12. Is that what she said? No.

Don't be deliberately obtuse and put words in people's mouths. There is absolutely nothing in saracat's post that implied your hateful distortion, and it's this kind of crap that makes it impossible to actually, reasonably discuss things on DU.

I think saracat has a valid point about the war sometimes overshadowing other, equally important issues such as "free" trade, economic justice, and health care, which also contribute to much death and suffering. The death and suffering of those people just happens to not be as spectacular and photogenic as the victims of a war zone, so it's easier for us to marginalize and ignore them.

[saracat]

35. Thanks guys.It was silly ,huh?

[LittleClarkie]

29. Yep

Chop them up for lunchmeat.

[WildEyedLiberal]

33. .

:rofl:

Really, over the top sarcasm is the only acceptable reply to such a dumb post.

[Adelante]

6. Sorry you're bored with war

I find it an extremely important issue as more and more people die, but maybe that's just me.

[saracat]

10. I am Not Bored with the WAR! I just have other issues as well! Some don't.

or at least don't appear to. I was just wondering.

[LittleClarkie]

30. It's just you.

Is that the ONLY issue you base your decisions re: candidates on or do you have other issues?

She didn't say she was bored with war. She said she wasn't a one issue voter.

Are you?

[Adelante]

43. I am not, actually, a one issue voter

I have many issues I am concerned about. However, this is the second thread I remember where the OP appears to think we all should get past the war as a concern when the war isn't even over. It does rub me the wrong way.

Edit: I just realized I confused the OP with another poster I disagreed with on this same thing. Apologies for that.

[anniebelle]

7. It's important to see how they reach their position.

And, sadly, we're in such a despicable political climate right now, it's hard to get past the slime to see how each candidate will handle himself once at the helm. We absolutely KNOW how the repukes will react, so forget Ron Paul and whatever "well-he's-against-the-war" candidate that goes against a Democrat -- it doesn't matter if there's not a "D" behind that name. At least we have a chance at regaining our country and our pride on this planet, but not with a neoCONservitve, libertarian, whatever they want to present their puppet. And for the party that is so anti-Hollywood, how about Fredrick of Hollywood Thompson going to be their number one man meat. Ooooooooooh, Chris Matthews will be in heaven!

[maximusveritas]

8. Sounds like a strawman to me

I'm not aware of anyone who's ONLY issue is the war. Many people may place a great importance on that issue for good reasons, but I highly doubt anyone uses it as the only issue.

[saracat]

13. I know some people whose ONLY issue is the WAR. I know some Dems who

are anti-choice and anti gay rights but are only interested in the WAR.I know some that oppose Labor Unions.This is what I am talking about!

[LittleClarkie]

31. Some people's only issue is impeachment

That I've definitely seen

[WildEyedLiberal]

34. People like Cindy Sheehan

Just sayin'.

[saracat]

39. Great example.

[maximusveritas]

44. I don't think that's true

Don't you think the war is also an important issue for Cindy? She's also mentioned other issues at various times.

[saracat]

48. Yeah.She is a libertarian on taxes.

[WildEyedLiberal]

52. Well her decision to run against Pelosi was about impeachment and nothing else

Her entire candidacy is based on Pelosi's refusal to meet Sheehan's deadline to introduce articles of impeachment, so as far as this election cycle is concerned that makes her a one issue candidate.

[saracat]

56. True Dat!

[Jax]

63. At least she put herself out there after losing a son

to the oily bloodbath of lies. She doesn't park her ass on a keyboard all day insulting voters who put country over party, she is active.

[saracat]

66. Consider who you speak toYou have no idea what some of us have done!

Cindy did nada before the death of Casey.Nada. Many here are former candidates, and lifelong activists. Many of us were active long before there were "keyboards to park our asses in front of". and continue to be active.And Cindy is not the only mother to lose a son.That meme is getting old and is an insult to the many other mothers who have lost their sons AND their daughters.

[Jax]

67. Really

I could care less what you think. I have read enough of the hate Cindy bullshit memes to last a lifetime.

[saracat]

69. Guess no one efforts count but Cindy's. I am only interested in informed opinions.Yous is

apparently not one.

[caseycoon]

9. Ahhhh saracat

I agree 100%

I want the war to end

I want our Constitution back

I want the Bill of Rights back

I want someone who is aware of & will do something about global warming

I want equal rights for EVERY American citizen

I want health care for all

In short, I want what Howard Dean & Dennis Kucinich want.

Thanks for bringing this up.

[stillcool]

11. I think Iraq...

exemplifies where, when, how, and why.. we as a nation fell off the cliff. Iraq brought to the forefront where our government's priorities lie. Our justice system, our economy, the separation of powers, the consent of the people, civil rights... our future, can all be defined by our actions in Iraq...not to mention world opinion, and blow-back. I'd say it was a pretty significant issue.

[fed-up]

14. evidently theft of 1-2 Trillion Dollars of taxpayer $$$ that should go to health, ed &welfare not

to mention the environment, energy policy and infrastructure means little or nothing to some people

Yes, the was has affected peoples lives for the past 6 years (including lead-up to)

and will continue to affect people for probably the next 50-100 years (not including effects of depleted uranium or any other wars the are started because of this one)


IT IS HUGH


war and past/present/future votes for/against are part one for me of the elimination round as monitor all the candidates

[mooseprime]

16. not as sick as i am

of people calling this a "war." every time we do that it validates and reinforces the lie that the people of iraq are somehow our national enemy. this is our belligerent occupation of an innocent, unarmed nation that posed no threat to us whatsoever. each time it is referred to by anyone as "the war" we are repeating the bush government's conflation of iraq and 9/11. "end the war" is misbegotten and fosters people taking pro-/anti-american sides. that's not what's going on here. ending the occupation immediately is the only pro-american side. we can halt the occupation and take care of our own needs at the same time, it's not either/or.

[saracat]

20. Good point. It is not a "war" I fell into it too!

[mooseprime]

21. thanks

for the support - i thought everyone would be angry with me for going off topic. the thing is that i go abroad a lot for work and no one in the whole world except us is calling this a war, and they are stunned when they hear americans use that word for the first time.

[onenote]

17. I tend to agree

Its probably not entirely accurate or fair to say that there are many (or even more than a handful) of DUers who treat the immediate end of US involvement in Iraq as the sole issue on which they would base their support of candidates, but the fawning that was displayed by some DUers over Ron Paul, who holds a variety of positions anathema to many progressives, was troubling. Also troubling is the vitriol aimed at some Democrats who are viewed as insufficiently anti-war (even if they voted for establishing a timetable for withdrawing the troops) and thus as clones of repubs, even though those alleged DINOs often have very progressive records when it comes to other issues of importance, including protecting the environment, protecting a woman's right to choose, favoring the rights of working people over big business, etc.

[Milo_Bloom]

18. Its about judgment.

To vote yes on the war one either had to be a complete IDIOT, believing that Iraq was a real threat to America.

OR

One had to be willing to completely sell out their principles to politics in a vote where hundreds of thousands of lives (Iraqi and American) were potentially on the line.


If a candidate can be that fundamentally wrong or that policially calculating when lives literaly depend on the outcome, how can they be trusted to make the lesser decisions without succumbing to simple and easily debunked propoganda and/or political pressure?

Very simply, those who voted for the war are either too stupid or too irresponsible to hold office and every one of them should be kicked out of office as soon as possible and they certainly shouldn't be given a higher office than that which they held at the time of the vote.

[saracat]

19. So a bunch of Ron pauls would be okay with you?

[Milo_Bloom]

40. Can you get real for 2 seconds?

The answer to the silly question you just asked is "no", because Ron Paul lacks judgment on many other issues.

[TreasonousBastard]

22. Actually, I'm also sick of the war being the one...

topic Congresscritters are being judged on.

It's big, and important, but it won't go away tonmorrow and there are many, many other things to deal with.

[electprogdems]

23. yes

This war is horrific, but I predict the day the war ends (which will never be soon enough for me), you will see many regulars around here move on.

[saracat]

24. I think thst is very true!And not only here but in the Democratic Party and as volunteers, they

will disappear!

[welshTerrier2]

25. here's a hint: the "war" is NOT just one issue

in fact, it's almost ALL issues. the national focus is on the war. we are likely to end up spending between 1 TRILLION and 2 TRILLION dollars on the war. the war is destroying our alliances. it is destroying America's influence and prestige in the world. it is increasing the threat to Americans. it is killing American troops and Iraqi civilians. it is setting a precedent for pre-emptive war. it is setting a precedent for the use of privately funded militia like Blackwater. it is allowing the US government to pressure the Iraqis to give away their oil resources to private, commercial businesses in the oil industry. it has gutted Iraq's infrastructure.

i would rule out a candidate because of their position on the war. i would also rule out a candidate because of many other issues. does this make me a single issue voter? I care about ALL issues. on a few of them, I will not compromise.

i've always considered the criticism of single issue voters to be misguided. voters can weight the issues any way they damned well want to. it's fine for you to disagree with them but i see no reason to not respect their right to decide based on whatever criteria they choose.

[DrDan]

26. isn't that enough?

our image around the world is falling.

our debt is increasing at an astounding rate. Our Grandchildren will be paying off this debacle.

We are losing our military at a rate of around 100 per month.

Warmongers are making huge profits.

It is making us less safe.

Our defense capabilities are nearly broken.

We are losing our ability to handle natural disasters.

We can expect to be supporting tens of thousands of wounded vets for the next 50 years.


Seems to me the handling of this war is soooooo bad that it alone is a satisfactory reason to support a presidential candidate.

[LittleClarkie]

32. Support Ron Paul then

You don't mind if he's also pro-life and extremely conservative, do you?

[DrDan]

42. now make no assumtions . . .

I did not say it was my lone reason for picking a candidate . . .

I simply implied that I would not fault anyone should it be their only reason. Unlike other "skirmishes" of the past few decades, this one has been so poorly handled that it touches many many areas of our daily lives . . . and will for decades to come even after the last soldier has left.

Of course I am not pro-life nor extremely conservative nor could I ever support Ron Paul. Otherwise I would certainly not be posting here.

[saracat]

49. "Make no assumptions".We DO have pro-Life consevative posters on DU.

And most are against the war.

[DrDan]

54. I have lost your point . . .

I have no problem with someone being pro-life . . . regardless of their position on the "war"

I have no problem with someone being anti-Iraq war . . . there are enough issues wrapped up in this one to put this country in a bind for years to come . . .

I do not care to support Ron Paul as I do not agree with most of his positions . . . like pro-life, doing away with the UN, etc.

Do you actually read the posts?

or did I just not make myself clear?

I have no problem with someone who chooses a candidate based on the single position of being against junior's debacle in Iraq.

I do have other issues personally that I want supported in a candidate.

I do not know how to make that any clearer.

[saracat]

55. Your last sentence led to the "assumption "you didn't think Pro-Life

conservatives posted on DU!But I "assumed wrong it seems!

"Of course I am not pro-life nor extremely conservative nor could I ever support Ron Paul. Otherwise I would certainly not be posting here."

[DrDan]

58. ok - I understand . . .

I was speaking for myself . . .

I do not think I would be comfortable here should I hold more conservative values . . .

If others want to post here - with different values . . . that is certainly fine with me . . .

[ieoeja]

27. Yes n/t

[NYCGirl]

28. No. NT

[noamnety]

36. Nope.

That's issue one for me. They have to pass that test. Then from there we move onto other issues, some of which are also deal breakers.

Racist genocidal adventures are definitely a no-go for me.

[FrenchieCat]

37. War and peace affects everything, including the Governmental budget

and how it is used.

Like Kucinich once said...those who think foreign policy don't affect domestic policies don't understand the big picture (paraphrasing".

[jenmarie]

61. What she said ^^^

[FrenchieCat]

38. dupe.....

[sampsonblk]

41. All the candidates are Dems. No issues will 'go hang'

[Sapphire Blue]

46. Yes; there are 37 million other reasons to support a candidate... not too many people seem to care..

... about them, though.


However, there is someone who does care about those 37 million other 'reasons'...

John Edwards: 'Poverty Is Personal'
By Peter Dreier and John Atlas, AlterNet. Posted May 8, 2006.

The former vice-presidential candidate has resurrected his 'two Americas' platform for a possible bid for the White House in 2008.

(excerpt)

Now Edwards has not only resurrected the rhetoric, but has pinned his hopes for the White House on a strategy of connecting to the nation's grassroots activists. Since January 2005, he has visited 34 states and three foreign countries talking about the two Americas. In key swing states like Ohio, Iowa, Arizona, Michigan, and Nevada, Edwards has joined Maud Hurd, president of the activist group ACORN, to promote grassroots campaigns to raise the minimum wage. At each stop Edwards said, "I am strongly committed to moving people out of poverty and into the middle class," and "One of most important things we can do is help families earn more money at work."

(snip)

Edwards' riff echoes Bill Clinton's campaign theme that, "Any American willing to work hard and play by the rules should have a chance to get ahead." But Edwards' willingness to work alongside unions and groups like ACORN puts him closer to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. It also connects him to the kind of politics that Bobby Kennedy embraced when he built a campaign coalition that included civil rights groups, labor unions, and the poor, and would have catapulted him to the White House, had he not been killed in 1968.

(snip)

Caring About the Poor

It has always been safe for politicians to care about the poor in America, so long they confine it to the noblesse oblige of the George Bushes and the rich who support volunteers at homeless shelters and soup kitchens. Now here comes Edwards, searching to define the next New Deal in an era of globalization. He supports an increase the national minimum wage, local living wage laws that impose even higher wages on companies that receive government subsidies, strong labor laws that level the playing field between business and unions, and protections for middle class families from the insecurities of corporate downsizing and outsourcing. In his stump speech, Edwards lashes out against the greed of big tobacco, big pharmaceutical companies, big insurance companies, big broadcasters and Big Oil.

He says the US should be embarrassed at being ranked first in poverty. Whether or not Edwards wins his party's nomination, his presence in the campaign will help shift the debate to a stronger focus on social injustice. No doubt he is already hearing from political consultants, editorial writers and many of the Democratic Party's corporate funders who say that resurrecting the moral idealism of Bobby Kennedy is no way to win the White House.

But with a fire in his belly that seems genuine, Edwards hopes to prove that promoting an agenda of prosperity, opportunity and compassion can win the hearts and minds of America's affluent, its beleaguered middle class, and the working poor. If he's correct, the son of a mill worker might become the next president of the United States.

http://www.alternet.org/story/35849 /

John Edwards: On Issues of Race, War and Poverty in America, Silence is Betrayal – And Dreaming is Not Enough
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2007
By: John Edwards, Special to BlackAmericaWeb.com

Sunday, I was honored to stand in the very space where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his famous “Beyond Vietnam” speech 40 years ago at the Riverside Church in New York. With the full force of his conscience, his principles and his love of peace, King denounced the war in Vietnam, calling it a tragedy that threatened to drag our nation down to dust.

Today, the forces of war and poverty threaten the fabric of our nation again, and, as Dr. King put it then, there comes a time when silence is a betrayal -- not only of one’s convictions or country, but also of our deeper obligations to one another and to the brotherhood of man.

Dr. King’s call to service and to action couldn’t be more appropriate today. When Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast a little more than a year ago, we were all confronted with stark and vivid reminders of the enduring poverty that exists throughout America. I will never forget the faces and stories of the people I met when I toured evacuation shelters in Baton Rouge shortly after Katrina hit.

We saw Americans, largely divided by race, abandoned by their own government; a vivid depiction of the need for serious change to improve the lives of people living in poverty in this country.

(snip)

In the end, it comes down to what Dr. King once called “life’s most persistent and urgent question: What are you doing for others?” What are we doing to strengthen this great nation of ours? What are we doing to give every American a chance to share in the great blessings of America? What are we doing to build a more secure and livable world?

In the end, we know these are the only questions worth asking -- and answering them is the only work worth doing. The world needs to see us doing it. And we’re going to do it, together, with our whole hearts.

- - - - - - -

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) is a candidate for U.S. president.

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/johnedwards116

Lots more here: http://johnedwards.com and here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Sapphire%20Blue


btw, John Edwards also has a Plan To End The War In Iraq...

Senator John Edwards calls on Congress to cap funding and end the war by 2008


Says Bush is acting without authorization


Senator John Edwards believes that every day this war goes on it is worse for Iraq, worse for our troops and worse for our country. We cannot wait for the next president to end the war in 2009, we must act today.


Edwards has issued a comprehensive proposal to end the war in Iraq—starting today: It calls on Congress to use its funding power to block President Bush's escalation, immediately begin withdrawing troops by capping funding and requiring complete withdrawal of all combat troops in 12 to 18 months.


Edwards believes that the only solution to the situation in Iraq is a political solution, which requires all the parties in Iraq to take responsibility for the future of their country. Only when American combat troops leave Iraq will the Iraqi people, regional powers, and the entire international community be forced to find an inclusive political solution to end the sectarian violence and stabilize the nation.


Edwards' plan for Iraq calls for Congress to:

• Cap Funds: Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 combat troops. Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately.

• Support the Troops: Prohibit funding to deploy any new troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped, so American tax dollars are used to train and equip our troops, instead of escalating the war.

• Require Authorization: Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago, and now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.

• End the War: Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in 12 to 18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

In addition, Edwards believes stabilizing Iraq requires a major diplomatic effort to:

• Engage in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria

• Support a political solution to the sectarian violence inside Iraq, including through convening a multi-party peace conference.


Edwards also believes the United States must intensify its efforts to train the Iraqi security forces.

Recent Articles About John Edwards' Plan To End The War In Iraq: http://johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/


http://johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/

Transformational Change For America And The World - JOHN EDWARDS for PRESIDENT 2008

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

A true revolution of values

"I'm proposing we set a national goal of eliminating poverty in the next 30 years." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

"If you call wanting to give everybody a chance 'class warfare,' then so be it. That's what I'm for." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

"Every time another radical Republican running for president speaks, the American people are reminded of how out of touch with economic reality they are." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Building One America Starts in New Orleans - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Silence is Betrayal - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Moral Leadership - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Ending Poverty in America - edited by Senator John Edwards

[ProudDad]

47. I'm against ALL wars

I'm for Universal Health Care and removing the health insurance mafia from the equation and reigning in big pharma -- HR 676 is a great start.

I'm for severely cutting the war budget and using the money to make life better for the People of the U.S. and the Peoples of the Earth.

I'm for ending the bullshit, phony "war on terror". I'm for treating other People's and Nations as we would wish to be treated.

I'm for curbing the power of corporations and taxing them.

I'm for Public Financing of elections along with taking back OUR AIRWAVES for substantive candidate information dissemination and real debates.

I'm for complete Civil Rights for LGBT persons and all marginalized minorities including "ex-felons".

I'm for the repeal of the misnamed patriot act and all oppressive, police state bullshit legislation.

I'm for complete separation of church and state, that includes banning the "religious concept" and word "marriage" from ALL public laws and discourse -- substitute "domestic partnerships" and make them available to all.

I'm pro-choice. This is a separation of church and State issue! Absolute separation!

I'm for repealing ALL laws that are based on the myths of the desert religions...or any religion.

I'm for ending mandatory minimums, ending the phony "war on drugs", ending the torture chamber philosophy of the criminal-injustice system and replacing it with a humane system of temporary separation from society and rehabilitation for our brothers and sisters who harm others.

I'm unalterably, utterly, completely, absolutely opposed to the death penalty and the egregious life without parole. Both refuse to recognize the human capacity for redemption.

I'm for free public education for all persons from Pre-K through Graduate School.

I'm strongly for renewable energy and an END to the subsidies to the oil/coal/gas/nuclear mafia in favor of subsidies for decentralized solar.

I'm for repealing NAFTA and withdrawing from GATT and the WTO. If any "free trade" agreements are to be made they should include worker rights and environmental protections AT LEAST AS STRONG as "investment" and protections for multi-national corporations.

I'm for repealing the egregious, anti-worker Taft-Hartley Act and support Worker's rights to join together to counter the evil power of the corporations.

I'm for a government crash program on the level of the WPA for Green Jobs...put the millions of unemployed and underemployed to work at creating a sustainable economy and rebuilding manufacturing in the U.S.

I'm for strong subsidies for local economies -- food distribution, small manufacturing and mom and pop businesses to rebuild Main Street U.S.A. I'm for high taxes on multi-national corps. No hiding places for corporations -- no offshore tax havens. You wanna' do business here, you pay stiff taxes here to support the infrastructure We the People supply them.

That's why I'm voting for Kucinich...

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/

[proud patriot]

51. Great post dad

:applause:

[ProudDad]

59. Well, shucks

Thanks

:blush:

Now that I reread it, it wasn't bad.

I've posted it as a thread here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3472988

I like posting positive stuff better than negative stuff...

[bread_and_roses]

50. We've destroyed an entire country, slaughterd it's citizens, created a hell

on earth where children are dying from lack of clean water. And we're still doing it. Not to mention still trying to steal it's oil. And what do we hear on NPR? Various talking heads beating the "Iraq's goverment has failed" drum.

When we're killing children, no issue tops that.

[saracat]

57. Killing anyone is bad.We are killing all kinds of people and innocent victims. It isn't just about

children and flame me if you want but I think all lives are equal and children are not MORE important than others!

[L0oniX]

53. I'd say that the amount of money that's being spent ...

makes it the most important thing. We all are getting our countries financial assets plundered for this illegal war.

[alteredstate]

60. Do you have a son or daughter or spouse serving in Iraq?

You may be "sick" of it, but for me, the "war" is the most important issue of the upcoming election.

8/23/2007 3724 American soldiers killed

[saracat]

62. No but I am working with the family of a19year old Marine who has been left

shackled and lying in a pool of blood and charged with a crime because of a food fight! He is bi-polar and has PTSD and the government would rather charge him with a "crime" than pay for his medical treatments! I also have relatives who have died from an inability to afford health care, and I myself have a condition that is difficult to treat and is considered a "rare" disease so the government does little research on it. I have many "issues" beside the "war"!

[TwilightGardener]

64. The way I see it, if you are an informed public official who is STILL

for the war, then you are immoral and can't possibly be a good person. It's that simple--no one on the Repub side, Paul excepted, is a good or decent person. They are all immoral, because they STILL support an immoral war in which people still die, despite the fact that it was a huge pointless mistake. That's not my only criteria for judging a candidate, but it's the most important one. That's why I have such a hard time with Bob Kerrey coming back to Nebraska to take Hagel's seat.

[Odin2005]

65. Starving homeless people in the Bronx aren't as photogenic as an IED going off.

The homeless guy that freezes to death on a park bench because he lost his home because of the cost of healthcare is just as much dead as the Iraqi in Baghdad that is killed in a suicide attack, yet people seem to get more outraged over the deaths caused by big explosions then outraged over less obvious deaths that don't have to happen.

[killbotfactory]

68. The Iraq war is bankrupting the US on purpose

That was another motivation for this stupid criminal war. The more money they can divert to their friends and relatives in the defense and contractor industry, the less money will be available for the US to spend on domestic problems.

[saracat]

70. I agree!

[LWolf]

71. No, I'm not sick of it.

67 U.S. deaths so far this month. SIXTY-SEVEN MORE YOUNG PEOPLE DEAD.

That doesn't count the injured, or the deaths of non-U.S. troops.

Military Fatalities: By Month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
8-2007 67 4 0 71 2.95 24
7-2007 79 8 1 88 2.83 31
6-2007 101 7 0 108 3.59 30
5-2007 126 3 2 131 4.22 31
4-2007 104 12 1 117 3.89 30
3-2007 81 1 0 82 2.64 31
2-2007 81 3 1 85 3.03 28
1-2007 83 3 0 86 2.77 31
12-2006 112 1 2 115 3.7 31
11-2006 70 6 2 78 2.59 30
10-2006 106 2 2 110 3.54 31
9-2006 72 3 2 77 2.56 30
8-2006 65 1 0 66 2.12 31
7-2006 43 1 2 46 1.48 31
6-2006 61 0 2 63 2.09 30
5-2006 69 9 1 79 2.54 31
4-2006 76 1 5 82 2.73 30
3-2006 31 0 2 33 1.06 31
2-2006 55 3 0 58 2.07 28
1-2006 62 2 0 64 2.06 31
12-2005 68 0 0 68 2.19 31
11-2005 84 1 1 86 2.86 30
10-2005 96 2 1 99 3.19 31
9-2005 49 3 0 52 1.73 30
8-2005 85 0 0 85 2.74 31
7-2005 54 3 1 58 1.87 31
6-2005 78 1 4 83 2.76 30
5-2005 80 2 6 88 2.83 31
4-2005 52 0 0 52 1.73 30
3-2005 35 1 3 39 1.25 31
2-2005 58 0 2 60 2.14 28
1-2005 107 10 10 127 4.09 31
12-2004 72 1 3 76 2.45 31
11-2004 137 4 0 141 4.69 30
10-2004 64 2 2 68 2.19 31
9-2004 80 3 4 87 2.89 30
8-2004 66 4 5 75 2.41 31
7-2004 54 1 3 58 1.87 31
6-2004 42 1 7 50 1.66 30
5-2004 80 0 4 84 2.7 31
4-2004 135 0 5 140 4.66 30
3-2004 52 0 0 52 1.67 31
2-2004 20 1 2 23 0.79 29
1-2004 47 5 0 52 1.67 31
12-2003 40 0 8 48 1.54 31
11-2003 82 1 27 110 3.66 30
10-2003 44 1 2 47 1.51 31
9-2003 31 1 1 33 1.09 30
8-2003 35 6 2 43 1.38 31
7-2003 48 1 0 49 1.58 31
6-2003 30 6 0 36 1.19 30
5-2003 37 4 1 42 1.35 31
4-2003 74 6 0 80 2.66 30
3-2003 65 27 0 92 7.66 12
Total 3725 168 129 4022 2.48 1619

http://icasualties.org/oif/

I, too, have other issues that are also important. Health care, NAFTA/CAFTA, NCLB, to name a few.

Happily, there is a candidate that is strong on all of these, and more. The same candidate who is most likely to put an end to the slaughter soonest. If the single-issue Iraq War voters vote for the candidate with the best plan and the best record on Iraq, they automatically get strong and active on the other big issues, as well.

[ecstatic]

72. It is my top issue; however, I'm forced to move past who voted for what

I'm still bitter about it, but I've decided to support the nominee. MAKE NO MISTAKE, the Iraq fiasco is very important because thousands of people are dying in our names. If that doesn't concern you, what does?