The "War in Iraq" is big loser in these primaries.

[kentuck]

Last night, "9-11" Rudy got 3% of the vote in the Michigan primary. It is significant, in that he has been the biggest supporter of the "war on terror" and the war in Iraq. Obviously, the voters are not impressed.

So now, it will be the job of the MSM to convince the voters that it is now the "economy" that is the main issue - not the war in Iraq. No doubt, the eocnomy is in shambles and has been going downhill for some time.

But Guiliani is not the only victim of the disinterest in the Iraq War. Senator McCain, who had won Michigan once before, was surprised by the "business" candidate, Mitt Romney. South Carolina could be the final nail in the coffin for Mr. McCain, much to the chagrin of Lindsey Graham.

From this vantage point today, it appears that the Republican voters are more like Democratic voters than the Republicans of the last two elections. After South Carolina, do not be surprised if Romney and Huckabee are the two front-runners for their party's nomination.

But, there is a message in these Republican primaries that some Democrats should pay heed also. The war in Iraq is not a popular issue. Hillary should watch what is happening to Rudy and take notice. She appears to have done that in last night's Democratic debate. If the people have to choose between staying in Iraq for "100 years", as Senator McCain suggested, or getting out in the next year, they appear ready to close the door on this disaster.

[European Socialist]

1. Republicans are about the only people who support....

the war and McCain is going after Independents. Where will the votes come from for him to win?

[kentuck]

2. Obviously, the Repubs are not supporting it anymore...

Other than the candidates themselves. The average Republican voter does not seem to be turned on by that issue.

[Angela Shelley]

3. The attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq was never planned

to be a win-win situation.

[DCKit]

4. Yet that's not what we were told....

My confusion stems from the conservative Republican voter's ongoing need to fall for any candidate who professes a deep Christian belief, regardless of their actions. Even worse, the more radical the stated beliefs - Dominionist, end-times, literal translation or, what formerly would have passed for a cult - the candidate espouses, the more eager they are to jump on the bandwagon.

What is driving so many people to religious extremism and how does that carry over to staunch belief in a party that has consistently lied to them and actively works against their interests?

[Angela Shelley]

7. My explanation on "falling for stated beliefs",

and I´m not saying this to attract attention.

The type of Christian doctrine which is taught in the US is extremely confusing.

Most people would like to be part of the Christian community, but since the doctrine is so confusing, they have a hard time standing up and saying what their beliefs are. When a politician or a prominent person stands up and says what he believes, the people are so impressed, and figure that this person is something special, because this person wouldn´t stand up if he wasn´t sure about what he´s talking about.

The average Christian voter is so unsure of himself and his religous beliefs that he looks for a leader who will talk about God and Jesus in public.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Johonny]

6. ?

Huckabee a week ago said we wouldn't have lost Vietnam if only we stayed longer, McCain wants to stay in Iraq longer than the Babylonians, Guiliani want's more Iran and Iraq, Romney is for more Iraq... They all are pro-war. The only one that isn't is Ron Paul and he's not winning anything. I think it's safe to say the war stance is not issue the Republican voters are showing up at the polls to be against. Guiliani is a victim of poor campaign strategy... or not. Until Florida we won't know how Guiliani does in a state he has tried to actively win. Right now all we've learned is if you show total disinterest, you don't attract voters.

[kenfrequed]

8. Interesting thoughts...

And so very, very true. Most of the Democratic candidates were poorly positioned to make the war in Iraq the issue that the American people have been demanding. The candidates that had the best shot of exciting people about it and making it the big issue have been hamstrung by the corporate media.


As far as the repukes go:
McCain: He will stick it out a bit longer. No one seems to have tracked that his New Hampshire "win" was by a much narrower margin than in 2000. S. Carolina will sink him again as operatives of the other campaigns will ressurrect old rumors. Still might hold out a bit longer

Thompson: Fell asleep behind wheel. You falled off cliff. Splated. Campaign over.

Romney: Doomed. Michigan was as good as he could do. His ability to be charismatic to 'not-as-insane-but-still-crazy' moderate republicans in blue states will help him only so much. The south will reject him. Fox news can only keep him afloat so long.

Huckabee: As I predicted long ago, he is one of the candidates that might take the nomination. He has religious right cred and his slightly fiscally moderate suggestions in the face of the housing crash are going to give him the slightest of populist jolts within the repugniks. Fortunately he has also backed the war all the way and that should hurt him.
Also he will be using his backing by the religious right as a shield against the usual hell that is South Carolina.

Hunter: My cat ated him. Campaign over.

Guilianni: As I long ago predicted he is on his way out the door. He has been hitching his star to a wagon going nowhere. Florida is a mess and is not going to put him over the top. The elderly vote there can only be so frightened before they give up. He might be able to justify support if he had taken something...anything, and since he can't win in South Carolina he will be walking in pretty low. To play the "Expectation game" there he would have to be spreading out his campaigning more and spending a lot less money there. But, hell when the dark horse candidate (Ron Paul) beats you it is time to consider retiring to write a book. Oh wait, Ghoul-lianni is a repulican isn't he? Ok, so retire and go be a high paid corrupt lobbyist.

Ron Paul: A cruise missile that, along with Huckabee, will tear the Republican party apart. Anti-war republicans will become angry as pundits keep ripping on Paul. When (not if) he drops/implodes/crashes/or is booted it will anger a decent subset of the repugnik voters who will go hunting for something else to vote for, probably a third party candidate like Bloomberg (who won't run anyhow).