2008 Republicans Back War

Archive - Caveat Emptor!

Moderator: Super Moderators

Post Reply
Shirleypal
Pirate
Posts: 45448
Joined: 03-06-2003 03:00 AM

2008 Republicans Back War

Post by Shirleypal » 05-04-2007 12:40 PM

Hard to believe they are still backing this war, are they brain dead or what, they certainly are not listening to the American people!!

2008 Republicans back war By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
Fri May 4, 9:20 AM ET

Republican White House contenders offered strong support for the military effort in Iraq but voiced qualms about the Bush administration's management of the war during a quiet first debate on Thursday.

The Republican debate at the California presidential library of conservative Republican hero Ronald Reagan produced few confrontations or memorable moments but exposed some differences among the 10 candidates on social issues like abortion.

Most of the candidates called for victory in Iraq, one week after Democratic presidential candidates in their first debate endorsed the war's quick end.

"We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, there will be chaos, there will be genocide, and they will follow us home," said Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), who has led the charge in support of the war and backs President George W. Bush's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq.

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the leader of the Republican pack in national polls, said: "We should never retreat in the face of terrorism. Terrible mistake."

But some candidates raised doubts about the management of the war by Bush and his administration. McCain said the war was "badly managed for four years."

"Clearly there was a real error in judgment, and that primarily had to do with listening to a lot of folks who were civilians in suits and silk ties and not listening enough to the generals," said former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

The debate in California occurred in a dour political climate for Republicans six months after the party was tossed from power in Congress in November's elections.

Polls show broad public dissatisfaction with Bush, the Iraq war and Republicans in general 18 months before the November 2008 election for the presidency, forcing the candidates to walk a fine line in deciding whether to embrace Bush or his policies.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whose strong fund-raising and establishment support have elevated him into the race's top tier even though he lingers in single digits in national polls, said candidates must ignore the polls when it comes to the war.

"I want to get our troops home as soon as I possibly can. But, at the same time, I recognize we don't want to bring them out in such a precipitous way that we cause a circumstance that would require us to come back," Romney said.

'I CHANGED MY MIND'

Conservatives have grumbled about the Republican presidential field, criticizing Giuliani for his stances in support of gay rights and abortion rights and Romney for changing his stance on those issues.

Romney defended his switch on abortion rights as an honest change of opinion. "I said I was wrong and changed my mind and said I'm pro-life. And I'm proud of that, and I won't apologize to anybody for becoming pro-life," he said.

Most of the candidates said they backed repealing the Supreme Court decision making abortion legal, although Giuliani was ambivalent.

"It would be OK to repeal it. It would be also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent," Giuliani said, adding abortion should be an issue left to the states.

"You have to respect a woman's right to make that decision," he said.

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson said it should be up to the states to decide, while former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore said he supported the right to abortion in the first eight to 12 weeks of pregnancy but had taken other steps to limit abortion when he was governor.

Giuliani and McCain agreed they would be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, although McCain said there were plenty of other options before reaching that point.

The debate's location at the Reagan library generated an explosion of tributes to the former president and conservative icon.

Former first lady Nancy Reagan, along with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, watched from the front row. But Reagan's presence did not convince many of the candidates to agree with her support for federal funding for stem cell research.

Also participating were Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), Reps. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) of Texas, and Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record) of California
Link

OMG
Pirate
Posts: 2596
Joined: 04-17-2006 02:02 AM

Post by OMG » 05-05-2007 02:34 AM

There was nothing inspirational from these people. Just visual they all look the same. I think these last 6 years George Bush has pushed back and delayed America's progress on every issue from policy, growth, to even science.

Nancy Reagan right there and they still have a close mind on science and stem cell research, 3 of the people don't believe in evolution, and one person believes an employer should be able to discriminate on sexuality. What year did these people come from before when they were frozen in time?

How can any independant vote for these guys, the past 6 years have been seen as the worst leadership role in America history and I don't see how any of these guys are considered a sharp turn away from that which is so nessesary.

SETIsLady
Pirate
Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

Post by SETIsLady » 05-05-2007 07:31 AM

I think the closer they get to the election they will start changing their tune about the war. But then they will be "getting it" for the wrong reasons.:(

Shirleypal
Pirate
Posts: 45448
Joined: 03-06-2003 03:00 AM

Post by Shirleypal » 05-05-2007 10:22 AM

SETIsLady wrote: I think the closer they get to the election they will start changing their tune about the war. But then they will be "getting it" for the wrong reasons.:(


Maybe so, let's hope the American public doesn't forget what they are saying now, I for one don't like flip flopping.

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 12362
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: SE WI
Contact:

Post by Riddick » 05-05-2007 02:22 PM

Setis: I think the closer they get to the election they will start changing their tune about the war. But then they will be "getting it" for the wrong reasons.:(

Rightly or wrongly IF any one of them DOES start changing their tune, I sure hope it's not Ron Paul... in the wake of this debate it may not be widely reported but he's the hold-out exception IN the field to the apparent '08 Republican Pro-War presidential candidate rule: while other hopefuls may still seem to be living in an alternative universe, Paul, he's always "got it" and has kept right on "getting it" all along.

Interestingly enough, it may ALREADY be becoming apparent that NOT 'getting it' is going to be looking less and less like a strategery worth pursuing even among more traditionally conservative voters, as some post contest polls such as MSNBC's had Paul either "winning" the debate, or beating out one or more of the GOP's so-called 'top-tier' candidates!

Just imagine what might happen if Ron continues singing his tune as he has been and keeps on scoring points -- down the road, might we see the others start to "Sing Along with Paul..." ?

... I would guess having little to no history or recent experience IN melodizing against the war, we could easily hear a sour note or three!!
_____________

Shirl: Maybe so, let's hope the American public doesn't forget what they are saying now, I for one don't like flip flopping.

And ON the subject of tune-changing, flip-floppers and alternate universes
--
Ed Sullivan: We've got a rilly big shew for you tonight... making their first appearance in front of a national audience as a pro-peace group, it's Mitt, Rudy and John: the "FAB FLIP-FLOPPER FOUR MINUS 1"

Image

John: We're against the war Ed

Mitt: Yah

Rudy: For sure... um, which war are we talking about now

Ed: That's a new tune from you three. What do you have to say about Paul?

John: No style. He's not a proper flip-flopper. We work better without him

Mitt: What he said. Besides, he's old school. There's rumour Paul may be dead.

Rudy: For sure... um, who's Paul again?

Ed: There are people who say your hearts & minds aren't really into changing tone

John: Pure Poppycock! You won't find any three singers more committed to peace

Mitt: All we are saying is give peace a chance...

Rudy: For sure... In fact, how about we start a world wide war for peace eh!

Ed: Now fellas, wouldn't that come as kind of a mixed message?

John: You have to understand, Ed. Our music is complex

Mitt: Life is complex. Peace is worth fighting for, innit

Rudy: For sure... what, me worry?

mudwoman
Pirate
Posts: 9375
Joined: 05-17-2000 02:00 AM

Post by mudwoman » 05-05-2007 02:30 PM

Riddick wrote: Setis: I think the closer they get to the election they will start changing their tune about the war. But then they will be "getting it" for the wrong reasons.:(

Rightly or wrongly IF any one of them DOES start changing their tune, I sure hope it's not Ron Paul... in the wake of this debate it may not be widely reported but he's the hold-out exception IN the field to the apparent '08 Republican Pro-War presidential candidate rule: while other hopefuls may still seem to be living in an alternative universe, Paul, he's always "got it" and has kept right on "getting it" all along.

Interestingly enough, it may ALREADY be becoming apparent that NOT 'getting it' is going to be looking less and less like a strategery worth pursuing even among more traditionally conservative voters, as some post contest polls such as MSNBC's had Paul either "winning" the debate, or beating out one or more of the GOP's so-called 'top-tier' candidates!

Just imagine what might happen if Ron continues singing his tune as he has been and keeps on scoring points -- down the road, might we see the others start to "Sing Along with Paul..." ?

... I would guess having little to no history or recent experience IN melodizing against the war, we could easily hear a sour note or three!!
?
Great post, and I LOVE the graphics! :D :D

Right you are that Ron Paul is not only against the continued occupation, but was against the invasion in the first place. A fact that is being virtually ignored by the lamestream press.

Case in point:

MSNBC ignores Congressman Paul's opposition to the Iraq war

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may200 ... 7MSNBC.htm

Shirleypal
Pirate
Posts: 45448
Joined: 03-06-2003 03:00 AM

Post by Shirleypal » 05-05-2007 03:07 PM

Hey Riddick love the way you explain flip flopping, who would have guessed.
:D

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 12362
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: SE WI
Contact:

Post by Riddick » 05-05-2007 05:15 PM

Hey now Shirl, far as guesses go... I would venture to say should by some strange confluence a number OF '08 GOP candidates DO get to sounding anything even remotely akin to '60's pop music peaceniks here, in OUR universe?

I rather expect there'd be some stalwart pro-war souls and waggish neo-right talk-squawkers who'd quickly take to calling them ...

Image

SETIsLady
Pirate
Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

GOP Lawmakers: Loyalty to Bush May Hurt

Post by SETIsLady » 05-06-2007 12:48 AM

Talk about the timing of this article :D

Republicans in Congress are increasingly worried that their stalwart support of President Bush's Iraq war policy may cost them dearly in next year's elections. Should their solidarity crack, it could boost Democrats' efforts to start troop withdrawals.

GOP lawmakers have marched in virtual lockstep with Bush so far, supporting his troop increase, an open-ended war commitment and other policies that have grown increasingly unpopular. Privately, some express fears that their loyalty might lead them over a political cliff in 2008, when they hope to reclaim the House and Senate majorities they lost last year.

Full Article

Shirleypal
Pirate
Posts: 45448
Joined: 03-06-2003 03:00 AM

Post by Shirleypal » 05-06-2007 12:55 AM

Well they certainly weren't thinking about that in the debate the other night.

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 12362
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: SE WI
Contact:

Re: GOP Lawmakers: Loyalty to Bush May Hurt

Post by Riddick » 05-06-2007 10:45 AM

from Setis' link

"Some Republican lawmakers report considerable support in their states or districts for Bush's campaign against terrorism, despite widespread frustration over the war's longevity and casualty rates. But a number of conservative commentators recently have said elected Republicans are becoming dangerously out of step with mainstream public opinion"

Alternative Universe Future-Cam

Image

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government Pre-2007”