This opinion post is related to the poll:
This posting contains links to web articles about the 2008 Presidential candidates’ positions regarding Iraq.
This is an opinion posting. Any voter in this poll can post an opinion posting. I’m posting this as a voter, not as the proponent of this poll. Opinion posts don’t have to be objective, since they aren’t official poll material. Nevertheless, I try to speak my own opinion as little as possible here, and to let the candidates state their positions in their own words, via the web links provided below. However, when I let slip a personal opinion, that’s ok too.
Why Iraq? Many people consider Iraq to be the main issue of the next Presidential election. But even if you don’t agree with that, you might agree that a candidate’s position on Iraq tells us a lot about, in general, the direction that that candidate would take this country. And, lastly, I feel that it tells us something about the candidate’s honesty, independence, and moral character.
As described in the poll introduction, this poll uses a three-level points-rating method. You can give to any candidate a high rating, a low rating, or a middle rating. They’re counted as 0, 1, and 2. But the same winner would result if they were counted as -1, 0, and +1. So you could look at it either way.
It’s well-known among students of voting systems that, with a points rating system (such as this one), the strategic voter will give the extreme ratings to all the candidates. In other words, in this poll, a strategic voter wouldn’t assign any middle ratings.
I’m voting in this poll exactly as I’d vote if it were an actual Presidential election, using this 3-level points-rating system. Therefore, my own ballot is a strategic one. If I were voting sincerely, I’d give to Bill Richardson a middle rating. He advocates immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but he doesn’t say it in the strongest terms. But he does say it, and he’s an acceptable compromise, so I give to him a high rating, just as I give to my favorite candidates such as Nader. The beauty of points rating methods like this one is that we can fully vote for our compromise(s) while still fully voting for our favorite. One’s best strategy in this and any points-rating system is to give top rating to one’s favorite, and to every acceptable compromise, and to give bottom rating to the others.
Without getting my own opinions too much into this post, I advise voters in this poll, and in the actual election, to be really particular about what they call “acceptable”. If you vote for a “lesser-evil”, you ‘re endorsing and legitimizing an evil. Don’t let anyone tell you what your choices are. Someone said that it’s better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you don’t want and get it.
This is off the subject, but what’s the best strategy in the 1-vote Plurality system that is actually used in our elections (primary and general)? Vote for whichever of the acceptable candidates is most likely be able to beat the unacceptable candidates. The key is in the judgement of what is acceptable.
The link below is to a New York Times article about the Iraq positions of many of the Democrat and Republican candidates. It doesn’t cover candidates other than Democrats and Republicans. In fact there may be important Democrat and/or Republican candidates that it doesn’t cover. So I’ll soon add links to at least the most familiar Presidential candidates of the Greens and the Libertarians, and anyone else important who would otherwise be left out. But these Democrat and Republican positions are worth looking at, because there are some big differences. There are several Democrats that I like, even if not as favorite. So I’ll be voting in the Democrat primary.
Here is a link to one of many speeches by Representative Ron Paul, a Republican Congressman who advocates getting out of Iraq now instead of later:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr021407.htm
Here is a brief quote:
Rep. Congressman: Impeach Bush For Violating Constitution - Not Partisan Payback Paul said that Bush should be impeached not under the umbrella of partisan vengeance but for ceaselessly breaking the laws of the land.
"I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office."
[end quote]
Remember that, with our points rating system, you don't have to choose--You can give the highest rating to every acceptable candidate, and that's your best strategy.
Rebecca Rotzler is a prominent Green who has expressed interest in 2008 Presidential candidacy. Here is a position paper of her party regarding Iraq. Rotzler and the Greens take a refreshingly strong and frank position:
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_02_20.shtml
Here is the link to the New York Times article about the 2008 Presidential candidates’ positions on the Iraq issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/IRAQPOSITIONS.html
Ralph Nader is quoted as saying that if Hillary Clinton runs in '08, he will run.
Therefore I've included him in this poll as a candidate. The following links are to papers by Nader that were published during his 2004 Presidential candidacy:
Here is a link to a Nader position paper from his 2004 candidacy, regarding Iraq.
It's entitled "U.S. should withdraw from Iraq":
http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=55
Here is another Nader link, to a paper of his in which he discusses the Iraq war and calls for impeachment:
http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=15
Here are some quotes from Kucinich, in which he advocates withdrawing from Iraq, and opposes impeachment at this time: