Seems simple enough. How does your stance on the two most controversial policy issues discussed on dKos, immediate withdrawal from Iraq and impeachment, predict who you support for Prez? Take the damn poll! But first read the damn instructions :-)
Many of you may feel that this poll is a couple of months late. Many have concluded - some with relief or exasperation, others with resignation and despair - from the actions of the new Democratic majority so far that impeachment is de facto indeed off the table. And many now have a sinking feeling that a timetable for withdrawal is next. I would ask you, for the purposes of this poll, to ignore your assumptions of how likely impeachment and a timetable for withdrawal are to become realities at this point. What I want to know is whether your support for a particular candidate has anything to do with whether you view impeachment and/or a timetable for withdrawal as the right thing to do for Democrats in principle.
Another point: It isn't going to be very informative to say that you're for or against impeachment/withdrawal per se. Many "moderates" would support impeachment/immediate withdrawal in an ideal world, but consider them impracticable and unproductive as policy goals in the real world. So below, I try to hash out plausible definitions of pro and contra policy positions. Please take these into account when registering your vote pro or contra impeachment/immediate withdrawal. Thanks! I tried to characterize the pro and contra positions as reasonably and fairly as I was capable of. If you think I mis-characterized a position, please pipe up in the comments!
Immediate withdrawal
Pro: Congressional Democrats have the mandate and the moral duty to end the occupation of Iraq thru complete withdrawal of U.S. forces, starting immediately, to be concluded in such a manner and time frame and with such re-deployments as to minimize the harm to the troops and personnel and to the people of Iraq. If necessary, the Democrats should use the power of the purse to do this. Not only is this the right thing to do, but it is also good politics. It is what the new Democratic majority was elected to do, and Democrats will pay a price if they are letting down their constituents. Besides, by dawdling now, Congressional Dems are only kicking the ball down the road, forcing the next President - likely a Democrat - to oversee the withdrawal of American troops and thereby to take, in the mind of the public, partial responsibility for the outcome of a misadventure of epic proportions that should be wholly owned by BushCo and the Republicans.
Contra: Yes, in an ideal world, the troops should come home immediately. Heck, in an ideal world, this insane war would never have been started! But we don't live in an ideal world. In the real world, for the Dems in Congress to try to force an end to the occupation of Iraq would be both futile and bearing the risk of disastrous political repercussions. It would be futile because there is no way in heck the Dems would muster a veto-proof majority for immediate withdrawal. And it would be likely disastrous because the Republicans would beat up on the Dems for decades as the guys who wanted to cut and run, even leave the troops without funding. Even worse, in case the Democrats do manage to bring the troops home, Republicans will forever blame them for loosing the war and hang whatever destabilization ensues in Iraq around their necks. It is a sad, sad truth, but Republicans started this war and it won't end until enough Republicans in Congress are willing to make ending the war a bipartisan effort.
Impeachment
Pro: It is true that impeachment likely won't result in the removal of Bush and Cheney from office. It is also true that an impeachment trial is probably harder to sell to the public during the waning months of an outgoing administration. Nevertheless, it would be irresponsible of Congressional Democrats to shirk impeachment if that is where the ongoing confrontation with the White House over the "administration's" violations of the Constitution - over illegal wiretapping, the politicization of the DoJ, the Preznit's abuse of signing statements, the outing of an undercover CIA agent for political gain, involvement in illegal activities connected to voter suppression and other election manipulations, and quite possibly lying to Congress over the evidence for WMD in Iraq and other matters since (most recently, the FISA amendment) - is headed. BushCo continues to obstruct at every turn, even when they have nothing to gain but the escalation. The Framers, by giving it the power to impeach, appointed Congress (not the Supreme Court!) the guardian of the Constitution vis-a-vis an unresponsive, out-of-control administration. Not to use this weapon means selling out the Constitution. The price to pay for this sell-out may be calculable as far as the remaining term of this "administration" is concerned - but the damage to the rule of law will be immeasurable because of the precedent set for future administrations.
Contra: It is not the Democrats' job to right BushCo's wrongs. It is the Democrat's job to make good laws and generally keep their constituents happy and make the Republicans look bad so that people elect even more Democrats. The road to a stronger Democratic majority does not pass through impeachment, which lacks public support (it has some, but not enough) and would provide a reallying cause behind which Republicans can once again unite. And when the inevitable acquittal comes, it will be celebrated as a huge victory for Republicans and a stinging defeat for Democrats. If the need for a symbolic statement of disapproval of the administration's actions is felt, motions of censure are the appropriate method. Impeachment accomplishes less at a far greater price.
As for the candidates, I included Clinton, Edwards, Gore, and Obama. I know Gore is not a candidate now and probably won't run this cycle. But since plenty of polls have suggested that a majority of Kossacks would actually favor him over the other three, he seems a relevant option when it comes to determining how candidate choice is related to policy preferences.
dKos polls are limited to 15 choices max, and I don't want to spread this out over a series of diaries. I'm one option short, and I decided more or less arbitrarily on Obama supporter, contra immmediate withdrawal, pro impeachment for the one choice I needed to skip. If this happens to be your choice, please post a comment, which others who share your persuasion can then uprate.