The upside down nature of the 14th District race
Is a vote for incumbent Congressman Ron Paul a vote against the war in Iraq?
Paul is the Republican incumbent in our 14th District, but has been an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq from the beginning.
His Democratic opponent, Shane Sklar, has said he "probably" would have voted in support of invading Iraq.
If you're a Democrat who is opposed to the war, do you vote for Paul?
If you're a Republican who supports the war, do you vote for Sklar?
If Paul wins, does that mean 14th District voters oppose the war in Iraq?
If Sklar wins, is that a vote in support of the Bush Administration's actions in Iraq?
It's a bit puzzling. A conundrum. What do you think?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ADDENDUM: Paul pledges for GOP cause
In case there's any confusion due to his past votes, Rep. Paul has pledged an undisclosed amount of funds via a payment plan to the Grand Ole Party's midterm re-election fund. So he really is a Republican, loyal and true (wink-wink).
Posts
3 comments:
It's not really a conundrum. Whatever Sklar might have done in 2002, he won't favor Bush's "let's just keep doing what we're doing until 2009 when I'm out of office and this all becomes someone else's mess to clean up" policy. That's what matters.
-- Kuff
so a vote for either is a vote against current Iraq policy?
More or less. You could, however, frame it as a choice between a vote for a Republican-controlled Congress, where no one will challenge the current Iraq policy, or a vote for a Democratic-controlled Congress, where there will be plenty of oversight opportunities. I'm sure Rep. Paul could come up with his own framing if he chose to.
-- Kuff
Post a Comment