galenrox

Alright, funny numbers from last night, but John McCain beat Ron Paul amongst anti-war Republicans. Someone explain that to me. I'm not complaining, but what the hell is that?

The Campaign Spot on National Review Online


Another thing, people who support the war prefer Romney? The guy who didn't have anything to do with the surge and wouldn't defend it until it was certainly accepted as being successful?

Whatever, I'm looking forward to McCain whooping Romney's dumb *** all around Michigan. Polls coming out from the weekend showed McCain at 29 and Romney at 20. That's before the bump he's about to receive.

Hey Romney! Good luck with your attack ads you ****ing jackass!

__________________

chevydriver1123

Im looking forward to McCain whipping that flip floppers *** as well.

__________________
Examples of social/religious conservatism: Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE

Examples of fiscal liberalism: Cuba, Venezuela, Europe

Zyphlin

The only thing I can think of is that Anti-war republicans aren't all the "OMG GET OUT NOWWWW!" type of people but instead are people that disagree with the war but understand the problems that would likely come about due to an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. As such, they probably trust McCain more in the thought that they view him as the one most likely to get it to a stable enough point and then get us the hell out of there.

That'd be my only thought, and is in line with most of the republicans I know in real life that don't like the war.

galenrox

No, I can see that. I mean I certainly wouldn't say I approve of the war or that it was a good idea in the first place, but I'm much more a McCain guy than a Paul guy. I could see a lot of New Hampshire Republicans as seeing things similarly.

Zyphlin

I think this is a good reason why many candidates are missing on the whole "war" issue. Its seems you're either "For the war and want to stay there forever" or "Against the war and want out now".

Republican wise I can think of a number of peoples stances. Get out now. Agree with the war, what we've done, and should keep expanding. Disagree with the war, but we're there, so lets do the best we can till its viable to pull out. Agree with the war, but don't want to be in Iraq for ever, lets get it to a stable point. Agree with the war, don't agree with how it was handled. Etc etc...

People say "against the war" and think that means one thinga nd one thing only and it just isn't the case.

ARealConservative

The worst part for me is that without an imminent threat, their is no reason not to stand up for an actual declaration of war.

I'm not going to throw support behind someone that won't draw that same line in the sand.

My candidate can disagree with me on foreign policy, but on that aspect of the constitution he must see it my way.

Curious George

I'm not a Republican but I usually vote that way. I also agree with Paul on a lot of issues, but not necessarily on Iraq.

Here's how I feel:

The war in Iraq was not justified. We should've never started it. When we did start it we should've gone with more troops and a better strategy. Now that we're there, we need to see it through to a point where, at the very least, Iraq is stabilized and is in a better position than we found it. Following that, if Iraq wants us to leave, we should leave. If they want us to stay, and we find it in our interests to maintain a base there, then I see no reason why we shouldn't (the same way we do in Germany, Japan, Italy, Kuwait and a number of other countries around the world).

Personally, I think we should consider breaking up Iraq if it's diplomatically feasible. I think a lot of issues came about from Britain drawing arbitrary lines in the sand to begin with. Let the Sunnis have their country, the Kurds can have theirs, and the Shia can have theirs. I think that's more or less the basis of the "Biden plan" which had been gaining popularity a while back. Now that we're in a better position in Iraq though, I don't know if that's still on the table in terms of our options for dealing with Iraq.

As to the future, I believe non-interventionism is the way to go. That does NOT mean isolationism. I'm all for diplomacy. We should talk with other countries, trade with them, etc., but I don't believe we should be starting wars or aiding revolutions (or worse, terrorist organizations, as we HAVE in the past, especially arming bin Laden and others against the Soviets). Since WW2 we've engaged in these kinds of meddling policies and since WW2 we've not had any worthwhile success. In fact, it's arguably the case that these actions have cost us far more than they've helped us.

Curious George

You can't really expect a mainstream candidate to support that position though. The truth is that, in most cases, the constitution, as it is written, no longer applies. Congress has passed so many laws that just completely override or abridge it over the years and, in most cases, the Supreme Court has incredibly upheld those laws as constitutional.

So now whenever Congress passes a law that says a President can do this or that, they follow that law and not the constitution, truly believing that what they are doing is constitutional because the Supreme Court has said that it is and the rest of the country abides that decision.

It doesn't matter what the constitution says, it matters what the Supreme Court says it means (which can be anything, including the exact opposite of it's literal interpretation). As long as everyone agrees with that, Presidents will continue to do what is legally allowed and those decisions will be widely accepted as the normal way things are done. To expect a candidate to go against the norm in such a "radical" way is to expect him to be a radical and to never get elected. So you'll probably never vote for a winner.

ARealConservative

Yes, it is true that the constitution no longer applies, but I believe the general voting populace is completely unaware of this.

It is our duty as citizens to make people aware of it.

"A Republic, If you can keep it".

American

Because the Constitution doesn't say that only frontrunners can run for President.

__________________
It's Obama's fault!