Young Evangelicals Abandoning GOP Over Iraq, Economy

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You could argue that a vote for McCain is a vote for pre-history...

Though his campaign would benefit from a 2008 equivalent of Racquel Welch in a fur bikini.

But just as likely to end up with the Geico cavemen - or those barbarians from the Capital One commercials...

[chri'stina 190]

Very old wisdom... wisdom older than burger king... older than Pakistan...

The kind of wisdom that forgets Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore...

Wisdom from the time of Gandhi, that sounds better.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Very old wisdom... wisdom older than burger king... older than Pakistan...

The kind of wisdom that forgets Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore...

Wisdom from the time of Gandhi, that sounds better.

McCain should campaign in a loincloth.

[chri'stina 190]

and shave his head...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Very old wisdom... wisdom older than burger king... older than Pakistan...

The kind of wisdom that forgets Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore...

Wisdom from the time of Gandhi, that sounds better.

McCain should campaign in a loincloth.

Not a pretty sight on most people - loincloths work if you have the body to show it off, like Tarzan or Conan the Barbarian.

That said - adult diapers don't look good on anyone...

[Sister Fracas 5]

Very old wisdom... wisdom older than burger king... older than Pakistan...

The kind of wisdom that forgets Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore...

Wisdom from the time of Gandhi, that sounds better.

McCain should campaign in a loincloth.

you lost me there... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As long as he takes the Immodium before he swings onto the stage, what could go wrong?

[HAL 9000 96]

I do wish there was a 3rd prominent party that mixed together some things from the right and some from left. As a Christian (and "evangelical" I guess) I do have the struggle sometimes. I think "big deal if Obama is Pres". It'd be cool to have our first black Pres. I am not going to freak out if he wins(well I am saying this assuming he is the dem nominee). But then if I hear him talk a lot about his stances then I can't help but be turned off by a lot of it. I personally can't see myself voting for him. I am not going to judge Christians who do, I don't think a Christian has to vote Republican of course. And like I said I wish there was a 3rd party who was against abortion but also was into a few more social issues...but since there isn't I pretty much feel like I have to vote for McCain because of certain issues.

A woman's right to choose aside, what other issues does Obama seem like such a turnoff to an evangelical-inspired vote? Gays? Etc?

I mean, we can compare actual stances... war, for example... if we are against death as a fundamental religious value then it perhaps should be noted what political idiocy has gotten thousands of innocent civilians dead in other parts of the world as well as thousands of our own soldiers sacrificed for avarice. Food for thought. We can't preach individual morality without seeking social morality.

A question was asked at a debate about a book read at an elementary school describing a homosexual relationship and did they think that was appropriate, etc. I didn't like his answer or his views on this issue. Hillary had a better answer. I don't like his unrealistic promise to take troops out of Iraq so quickly, which I think shows a lack of care for the Iraqi civilians, not caring what happens to them when we leave. Yes that is my valid concern, you can't just leave and let them all fend for themselves, that's wrong IMO. Some people blame Bush for killing innocent civilians, well I will blame someone for abandoning the civilians if they do that suddenly. That to me shows only the care for the US and it's money, not for the people involved over there that we brought into the mess in the first place. I think it also shows a lack of experience. I am against death but I am for freedom and for fighting for those who are weaker. I am not against all wars. I believe there are wars worth fighting such as WW2, etc. I am not going to argue about why we went into this war. Whatever reason we went in, we are there and have to leave better than abandoning it just to appease the public. I agree more has to be given over to the Iraqi govt and give them ultimatums. But I don't think I have heard Obama give a realistic plan for getting the troops out besides just saying he is going to do it (to win votes). I am tired of hearing people talk about how we shouldn't have gone to war(well it's been 5 years we all know that opinion over and over again) instead of saying we ARE in war and this is how to realistically end it or leave responsibly. The Wright issue I don't care about, I don't believe Obama agrees with his views. And if Obama is Pres I won't freak out, but I am just saying some of the reasons why I don't feel like voting for him.

Thanks.

I for one don't think he would be so brash in pulling out of Iraq overnight. Logistics and security concerns tend to outweigh immediate pullouts. As well as making promises to foreign citizens such as Bush Sr did in promising military support in the toppling of a now forgotten Saddam Hussein back in the 90s... but that is another issue not to do with what I consider morals or evangelically-related and frankly put I also do not see much obligation in expecting the security situation for most Iraqui civilians to spiral out of control with the absence of the US in Iraq for one main reason- the insurgency is mostly aimed at our presence, not the civilian population. Of course, countless thousands are victims of ridiculous suicide bombings... WITH the presence of US troops in the country. I can only wonder and imagine how these would stop or reduce given the main objective of most of these attacks are geared at weakening the resolve of the occupying armed forces (ours).

Therefore, if anything, a US pullout represents a probable improvement of security for most Iraquis as well as an amelioration of the rising tide of anti-Americanism prevalent in that part of the world. With a firm, diplomatic, and intelligent US Presidency, alliances can be made to intelligently resolve legitimate issues... not issues that we ourselves created by going gung-ho in the first place.

So... again... if its a moral issue we should think a little more about what is morally acceptable- invading a country that has nothing to do with what our chosen leader says it is, causing the loss of massive numbers of human life... or choosing to stay there and continue feeding the terror frenzy that ensures future terror and animosity against us.

I just prefer to look at it with common sense and legitimacy, not morality, even though that I see to be more on the anti-war side too.

[GaryC 7]

Thanks.

I for one don't think he would be so brash in pulling out of Iraq overnight. Logistics and security concerns tend to outweigh immediate pullouts. As well as making promises to foreign citizens such as Bush Sr did in promising military support in the toppling of a now forgotten Saddam Hussein back in the 90s... but that is another issue not to do with what I consider morals or evangelically-related and frankly put I also do not see much obligation in expecting the security situation for most Iraqui civilians to spiral out of control with the absence of the US in Iraq for one main reason- the insurgency is mostly aimed at our presence, not the civilian population. Of course, countless thousands are victims of ridiculous suicide bombings... WITH the presence of US troops in the country. I can only wonder and imagine how these would stop or reduce given the main objective of most of these attacks are geared at weakening the resolve of the occupying armed forces (ours).

Therefore, if anything, a US pullout represents a probable improvement of security for most Iraquis as well as an amelioration of the rising tide of anti-Americanism prevalent in that part of the world. With a firm, diplomatic, and intelligent US Presidency, alliances can be made to intelligently resolve legitimate issues... not issues that we ourselves created by going gung-ho in the first place.

So... again... if its a moral issue we should think a little more about what is morally acceptable- invading a country that has nothing to do with what our chosen leader says it is, causing the loss of massive numbers of human life... or choosing to stay there and continue feeding the terror frenzy that ensures future terror and animosity against us.

I just prefer to look at it with common sense and legitimacy, not morality, even though that I see to be more on the anti-war side too.

My God, where do I begin? First of all, you either think he is a man of his word and we will be out of Iraq in 90 days or he is a lier and we will be there much longer. Which is it?

Second, How naive can you be? The security situation will improve if we just up and leave? That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard a "smart" person ever say. It will be a bloodbath with Iran taking the place over. All military experts say this. And if you think that tucking tail and running will somehow foster a rising opinion of the US in the area you are sadly mistaken. It will instead be seen as a defeat for the US just as it was in Vietnam. It will embolden our enemies and give them the impression that we can be defeated because our people don't have the will to stick it out. The idea of a "firm diplomatic and intelligent US presidency will make any difference to the terrorists is a real joke. The only thing they understand is power. They would laugh at us and Obama. They would see him as someone that is a coward. Obama's stated policies would put our country in grave danger and your willing to hold hands and sing kum-by-ya and feel good about yourself while the country burns. God help us if people like you take over. You haven't a clue.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

There yah go...

[HAL 9000 96]

Thanks.

I for one don't think he would be so brash in pulling out of Iraq overnight. Logistics and security concerns tend to outweigh immediate pullouts. As well as making promises to foreign citizens such as Bush Sr did in promising military support in the toppling of a now forgotten Saddam Hussein back in the 90s... but that is another issue not to do with what I consider morals or evangelically-related and frankly put I also do not see much obligation in expecting the security situation for most Iraqui civilians to spiral out of control with the absence of the US in Iraq for one main reason- the insurgency is mostly aimed at our presence, not the civilian population. Of course, countless thousands are victims of ridiculous suicide bombings... WITH the presence of US troops in the country. I can only wonder and imagine how these would stop or reduce given the main objective of most of these attacks are geared at weakening the resolve of the occupying armed forces (ours).

Therefore, if anything, a US pullout represents a probable improvement of security for most Iraquis as well as an amelioration of the rising tide of anti-Americanism prevalent in that part of the world. With a firm, diplomatic, and intelligent US Presidency, alliances can be made to intelligently resolve legitimate issues... not issues that we ourselves created by going gung-ho in the first place.

So... again... if its a moral issue we should think a little more about what is morally acceptable- invading a country that has nothing to do with what our chosen leader says it is, causing the loss of massive numbers of human life... or choosing to stay there and continue feeding the terror frenzy that ensures future terror and animosity against us.

I just prefer to look at it with common sense and legitimacy, not morality, even though that I see to be more on the anti-war side too.

My God, where do I begin? First of all, you either think he is a man of his word and we will be out of Iraq in 90 days or he is a lier and we will be there much longer. Which is it?

Second, How naive can you be? The security situation will improve if we just up and leave? That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard a "smart" person ever say. It will be a bloodbath with Iran taking the place over. All military experts say this. And if you think that tucking tail and running will somehow foster a rising opinion of the US in the area you are sadly mistaken. It will instead be seen as a defeat for the US just as it was in Vietnam. It will embolden our enemies and give them the impression that we can be defeated because our people don't have the will to stick it out. The idea of a "firm diplomatic and intelligent US presidency will make any difference to the terrorists is a real joke. The only thing they understand is power. They would laugh at us and Obama. They would see him as someone that is a coward. Obama's stated policies would put our country in grave danger and your willing to hold hands and sing kum-by-ya and feel good about yourself while the country burns. God help us if people like you take over. You haven't a clue.

Were to begin? Well for starters, you can read into the message for coherence in what is actually being said.

As I've stated quite obviously- perhaps you missed it- if things are done logistically and intelligently, then there is no need for a bloodbath when the atrocities currently taking place are directed at our presence. That should be common sense to you old chap.

What you call tucking tail and running I call being available for real national security crises, not the ones we are fooled into believing are threats. Oh right... now those maniacs over there are a threat to our safety and security... right...

If they only understand power in absolutes, then a nuclear option or a completely massive, all-out military solution wiping out 95% of the population would have been the only solution. Unfortunately for your cause, it is not and now we need someone that will correct the silliness your messiah has started.

As for having a clue I think there is enough to be said about being denser than a brick in having an ounce of common sense as foreign policy comes along. I for one subscribe to the radical notion that people tend to reap what they sow, cause and effect, and the human behavior of retribution.

[Tsup2 0]

I have been a life-long Republican. I cant support John McCain because of his pro-Amnesty views for illegals, belief in Al Gore's Global Warming scam, economic policies (wont fix social security/medicare), so called "campaign finance reform" and he is not a fiscal conservative. Of course Obama and Clinton are much worse.

I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils any more. So and I many other Republicans will sit this one out. Maybe what this country needs is Obama in the White House so we can experience having Jimmy Carter in the White House all over again. Then perhaps a true conservative will emerge in four years and will get considerable support. The Republicans need a wake-up call. They just dont get it. They didnt learn with Bob Dole, they dont get it now.

[Sister Fracas 5]

I have been a life-long Republican. I cant support John McCain because of his pro-Amnesty views for illegals, belief in Al Gore's Global Warming scam, economic policies (wont fix social security/medicare), so called "campaign finance reform" and he is not a fiscal conservative. Of course Obama and Clinton are much worse.

I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils any more. So and I many other Republicans will sit this one out. Maybe what this country needs is Obama in the White House so we can experience having Jimmy Carter in the White House all over again. Then perhaps a true conservative will emerge in four years and will get considerable support. The Republicans need a wake-up call. They just dont get it. They didnt learn with Bob Dole, they dont get it now.

Write in a candidate, or vote Libertarian....it's better than staying home

[HAL 9000 96]

I have been a life-long Republican. I cant support John McCain because of his pro-Amnesty views for illegals, belief in Al Gore's Global Warming scam, economic policies (wont fix social security/medicare), so called "campaign finance reform" and he is not a fiscal conservative. Of course Obama and Clinton are much worse.

I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils any more. So and I many other Republicans will sit this one out. Maybe what this country needs is Obama in the White House so we can experience having Jimmy Carter in the White House all over again. Then perhaps a true conservative will emerge in four years and will get considerable support. The Republicans need a wake-up call. They just dont get it. They didnt learn with Bob Dole, they dont get it now.

Go Bob Barr!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Thanks.

I for one don't think he would be so brash in pulling out of Iraq overnight. Logistics and security concerns tend to outweigh immediate pullouts. As well as making promises to foreign citizens such as Bush Sr did in promising military support in the toppling of a now forgotten Saddam Hussein back in the 90s... but that is another issue not to do with what I consider morals or evangelically-related and frankly put I also do not see much obligation in expecting the security situation for most Iraqui civilians to spiral out of control with the absence of the US in Iraq for one main reason- the insurgency is mostly aimed at our presence, not the civilian population. Of course, countless thousands are victims of ridiculous suicide bombings... WITH the presence of US troops in the country. I can only wonder and imagine how these would stop or reduce given the main objective of most of these attacks are geared at weakening the resolve of the occupying armed forces (ours).

Therefore, if anything, a US pullout represents a probable improvement of security for most Iraquis as well as an amelioration of the rising tide of anti-Americanism prevalent in that part of the world. With a firm, diplomatic, and intelligent US Presidency, alliances can be made to intelligently resolve legitimate issues... not issues that we ourselves created by going gung-ho in the first place.

So... again... if its a moral issue we should think a little more about what is morally acceptable- invading a country that has nothing to do with what our chosen leader says it is, causing the loss of massive numbers of human life... or choosing to stay there and continue feeding the terror frenzy that ensures future terror and animosity against us.

I just prefer to look at it with common sense and legitimacy, not morality, even though that I see to be more on the anti-war side too.

My God, where do I begin? First of all, you either think he is a man of his word and we will be out of Iraq in 90 days or he is a lier and we will be there much longer. Which is it?

Second, How naive can you be? The security situation will improve if we just up and leave? That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard a "smart" person ever say. It will be a bloodbath with Iran taking the place over. All military experts say this. And if you think that tucking tail and running will somehow foster a rising opinion of the US in the area you are sadly mistaken. It will instead be seen as a defeat for the US just as it was in Vietnam. It will embolden our enemies and give them the impression that we can be defeated because our people don't have the will to stick it out. The idea of a "firm diplomatic and intelligent US presidency will make any difference to the terrorists is a real joke. The only thing they understand is power. They would laugh at us and Obama. They would see him as someone that is a coward. Obama's stated policies would put our country in grave danger and your willing to hold hands and sing kum-by-ya and feel good about yourself while the country burns. God help us if people like you take over. You haven't a clue.

I've also read something to the effect that this will happen anyway, and Iran comes out stronger whichever way you look at it, short of a fundamental cultural shift on the part of the Iraqi population. The unenviable problem the US faces is how to deal strategically with what was a very bad, very short-sighted policy decision. I've said this before as you know - but I for one don't believe "hindsight" is an excuse for that degree of blundering incompetance and that much of what has happened subsequent to the invasion was entirely predictable. Indeed it was predicted at the end of Gulf War 1, when Bush Sr. opted to not remove Saddam from power because of the political instability that would result, and which would work to Iran's favor.

Firstly, you obviously can't force through a total military withdrawal without at least some assurance that the place won't get straight to hell - and politically at least, they still haven't reached a definitive settlement with the Al-Sadr's and other rival Sunni and Shia factions over all-inclusive government - and like it or not many of the less palatable groups (like Al-Sadr's) have a lot of power.

Secondly - you also can't maintain massive levels of artillery and manpower for the forseeable future - for one thing, the cost is crippling (as we know). For another - people get antsy about having their relatives gone for long periods of time, and this translates into political pressure to pull out (exactly what is happening).

The fact remains that the US cannot create a representative political landscape for the Iraqi's - this is something that the government has to work out for itself. The US can only provide some guarantee of security (via martial law) - gains which (as Gen. Petraeus has said) are both fragile and reversible.

Given the political and economic pressures - is it possible to achieve the sort of victory that many want in Iraq, a representative Iraqi Govt that doesn't ally itself with Iran? I don't think that's very easy to answer...

I don't envy the person who has to inherit this mess and try to force a solution - of course we all have to pay for the fallout from 2003 for many years into the future.