Does a pro-war candidate have a chance to stop Hillary or should Republicans nominate an anti-war candidate?

Answer 1

Hillery is NOT "antiwar" candidate!!!

Answer 2

Given that there is only one anti-war Republican running, the question is can that person win. The answer is no for several reasons.

First, his position on the war in Iraq and the war on terror matches the most liberal of the Democrats. Second, his position on domestic policies is that most of the major legislation pushed by this Administration was a mistake.

I do not know how you get Republicans to the polls saying that everything they have supported for the last eight years was wrong.

I don't know what you use to appeal to swing voters if you eliminate the war on terror as a campaign issue. The Republican Party trails on most other issues.

In short, the Republican Party has already gone all in on the Iraq War and the War on Terror. Backing down now, concedes the 2008 election, both at the presidential level and at the congressional level.

Answer 3

No look at the statistics.. there is so much anti-war senitment a pro war candidate is simply unelectable.. The only republican who is anti war is Ron Paul... Paul is a man with principles, Beside him, most of the Republicans look like charlatans, and the Democrats who are allowed on television and in the New York Times look like spineless cowards. They look like spineless cowards not because they favor peace (they don't), but because they refuse to stand up to Bush and Cheney. Paul stands up to Bush and Cheney. NOTHING is more powerful than that in today's politics, and he does it.And if we had the courage of our convictions we would put everything we have into backing him. Not only might he win, but our backing him now might force the Democrats in Congress to act like they believe in something, and force other candidates to improve their positions

Answer 4

The Republicans will never nominate an anti-war candidate. Bush has made it clear he will leave this war to the next President and the Republicans will be falling all over themselves to be the ones to administrate it. You have the mistaken idea that Sen. Clinton is anti-war. She is not. She is anti-policing a civil war, but she is full ahead on keeping forces in Iraq to make sure Iran and Al Queda do not take over, and to use our forces to help deal with the Taliban on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. She has been quite clear about this for a very long time. She's not into this all or nothing deal. She's not about stay the course, or the complete pullout the liberals are screaming for. She understands the complexities and what we need to do in that region to protect our interests.

It's why she keeps gaining so much support. People are starting to actually listen to what she is saying instead of listening to the nitwits who just talk smack about her all the time.

Answer 5

i would not flow so some distance as to assert that she's professional conflict in spite of the undeniable fact that it fairly is authentic what you stated approximately her votes in 2005 and 2007. i think of that she has replaced her suggestions appropriate to the Iraq conflict yet you should bear in suggestions that she replaced into interior the White dwelling house for 8 years whilst Iran and Iraq have been seen the main important threats to united states of america of america. She would desire to think of that Iran is a rational worry an identical way that she theory Iraq replaced into in 2005. i'm for Obama interior the time-honored for this reason.

Answer 6

There won't be a Republican in the White House for quite awhile - no matter what his/her agenda is. The Republicans have spent the last 6 years kissing Bushs' $$$ and letting him get away with murder. All they did was goof off, give themselves big raises in salary, cut taxes for their rich friends, uphold and support the idiot in the Oval office in his illegal war and totally ruin our economy. The Republicans have never given a tinkers-dam about we, the people, but rather, their own self-interest.

So, they could run the Pope and would lose the election - doesn't matter - they are history for a while.

And, no matter which Democrat wins the election, the war will be over.

And, that sorry lot of Republicans in Congress who will not vote to end the mess in Iraq will lose their seats in the next election - just like what happened in 2006.

The American people want the war to end....bring our young people home.....it will end with or without the Republicans when the elections are over.

As for Hillary? I will vote for her....and Bill....

I'd vote for Happy the Clown if he was the only Democrat running before I'd vote Republican....anyone would be better than the mental midget liar currently in occupancy.

Answer 7

Republicans need an anti-war candidate.

That way we can stop Hillary.

Answer 8

Chuck Hegel is the only guy I can think of that would run for president and who is anti-war (and he is a Republican). But Republicans would then have to admit that they were wrong this whole time about the Iraq war, which is why I think Hegel would never have a chance, even though he is a social conservative.

Answer 9

i think the republicans should nominate the pro-peace candidate they already have and that's Ron Paul.

he already has my vote

Answer 10

Yes a pro war candidate can win. Despite what Move On might tell you there are plenty of people who want to win in Iraq and not quit like the left is desperate to do.