Young Evangelicals Abandoning GOP Over Iraq, Economy

[chri'stina 190]

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

I agree. Suj gets mad when he hears people say they will just stay home and not vote. He says if we have the freedom to vote, and people aren't bribing us to vote one way or intimidating us to vote one way, then it is our right and duty to vote. He can't vote of course since he's not a citizen. But it irks him when people refuse to vote at all.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

McCain comes across as that old grouch who keeps asking the kids to get off his damn lawn.

that's my job

[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

I agree. Suj gets mad when he hears people say they will just stay home and not vote. He says if we have the freedom to vote, and people aren't bribing us to vote one way or intimidating us to vote one way, then it is our right and duty to vote. He can't vote of course since he's not a citizen. But it irks him when people refuse to vote at all.

People take it for granted. Irks me too. Especially when you see images of people in 3rd world countries putting their lives in danger to go out and vote.

[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.

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.

Furthermore I find it quite hypocritical for people to argument that it is not our responsibility to solve the world's problems yet quite on the flip side they are first in line to support sending our soldiers into harm's way for solving foreign problems that are at best irrelevant to reality and at worst, a seed for future problems.

[rebeccajo 14]

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

I agree. Suj gets mad when he hears people say they will just stay home and not vote. He says if we have the freedom to vote, and people aren't bribing us to vote one way or intimidating us to vote one way, then it is our right and duty to vote. He can't vote of course since he's not a citizen. But it irks him when people refuse to vote at all.

Go Suj!

I love that!

[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.

Furthermore I find it quite hypocritical for people to argument that it is not our responsibility to solve the world's problems yet quite on the flip side they are first in line to support sending our soldiers into harm's way for solving foreign problems that are at best irrelevant to reality and at worst, a seed for future problems.

Unfortunately - as always we get the government we deserve.

A bad choice and you end up paying for it for years - or decades in this case...

[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.

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.

Furthermore I find it quite hypocritical for people to argument that it is not our responsibility to solve the world's problems yet quite on the flip side they are first in line to support sending our soldiers into harm's way for solving foreign problems that are at best irrelevant to reality and at worst, a seed for future problems.

Unfortunately - as always we get the government we deserve.

A bad choice and you end up paying for it for years - or decades in this case...

Lest it becomes the damnation of an entire generation... oh wait! That is supposed to be Obama's future reputation. I tell you... so much clairvoyance these days!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

Gary, are you listening?

Tsup2 - have you considered voting for Bob Barr?

[GaryC 7]

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.

Gary, are you listening?

Tsup2 - have you considered voting for Bob Barr?

Since a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama then no, I will not vote for him. Defeating Obama is just to important. The country just couldn't take an Obama administration.

[HAL 9000 96]

If the country is you, Gary, then yeah, the country couldn't take an Obama administration.

[Dan J 277]

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.

Gary, are you listening?

Tsup2 - have you considered voting for Bob Barr?

Since a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama then no, I will not vote for him. Defeating Obama is just to important. I The country just couldn't take an Obama administration.

Corrected

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the country is you, Gary, then yeah, the country couldn't take an Obama administration.

If this were the election for GWB's second term - he'd be drummed out of office.

[HAL 9000 96]

If the country is you, Gary, then yeah, the country couldn't take an Obama administration.

If this were the election for GWB's second term - he'd be drummed out of office.

Well lets remember the opponent to GWB got plenty of swiftboating against him. It wasn't exactly a swift advantage for Mr. Bush last time. But it still makes one wonder as to the reasoning ability of many voters.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the country is you, Gary, then yeah, the country couldn't take an Obama administration.

If this were the election for GWB's second term - he'd be drummed out of office.

Well lets remember the opponent to GWB got plenty of swiftboating against him. It wasn't exactly a swift advantage for Mr. Bush last time. But it still makes one wonder as to the reasoning ability of many voters.

Yeah that was surprising - not least because Bush was his own swift-boat.

[Tsup2 0]

We have a two party system. Libertarians always lose. Bob Barr is goofy. Ron Paul got no traction because alot of his ideas were unrealistic. So really I have a choice between two Socialists and a so-called Republican who espouses views I dont agree with. Having the right to vote doesnt mean we should exercise it irresponsibly. It looks like Obama will win. If that's what people want, we get what we deserve. At the end of his term, I predict we will be further in debt, the country wont be unified, the Palestinians will still be occupied, we will still be in Iraq, our standing internationally will further decline, the Iranians will take adavantage of perceived weakness. the energy crisis wont be remedied, social security and medicare fixes will be passed to future adminstrations and we will all be paying more taxes without having universal health care.