|
December 13, 2007 03:49 pm
|
Photos
|
On the Issues: Voters frustrated by Iraq war; Many say it's No. 1 issue in presidential race
"Both parties are so far away from this middle ground." -- Chester, N.H., resident Mike Corey, 55
Editor's note: This is one of a series of stories examining the top issues of concern for 154 voters in Southern New Hampshire.
By Gordon Fraser
CNHI News Service
DERRY, N.H. — Whatever New Hampshire voters think America should do about its presence in Iraq, they're frustrated.
Whether they think the Democrats are trying to forfeit a necessary war or they think Republicans are trying to prolong an unnecessary one, it seems they all want the U.S. government to do something about the military's current plight in Iraq.
The Eagle-Tribune polled voters in 16 Southern New Hampshire communities. Of those, 84 percent said the U.S. presence in Iraq is among the 10 most important issues to them when voting for a presidential candidate. Thirty-three percent ranked the war in Iraq as their No. 1 concern.
But just as Washington pundits and presidential candidates can't seem to agree about what America should do in the Middle East, voters in New Hampshire are equally divided.
For 78-year-old Francine Byron of Danville, the debate itself is harming America's interests abroad.
"Every time (the Democrats) open their mouths, they're making the opposition stronger. And you know what that used to be called? Sedition," said Byron, a retired Navy nurse.
Congressman Duncan Hunter, a Republican presidential candidate, said he shared Byron's frustration.
"I would say the dissenters certainly have the right to exercise free speech," the California lawmaker and presidential candidate said in a telephone interview. "But certainly their strong statements against the war don't help the morale of American troops."
While many New Hampshire voters share Byron's frustration with the Democratic Party, many others think free and open debate is critical -- especially in a war as complex and difficult as this one.
"Both parties are so far away from this middle ground," said Mike Corey, a 55-year-old Chester man who works in customer support for mortgage software.
For Corey, the frustration is that politicians seem more interested in positioning themselves for the next election than working to solve the problems America faces in Iraq. Without compromise and real diplomacy, Corey doesn't see a solution to America's woes in the Middle East.
That's why Corey plans to vote for Sen. Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat who has been running as a Washington outsider able to bring the country together.
"The other people are too entrenched in their ways and too divisive," Corey said.
But Suzanne Defoor, a 28-year-old fitness club manager from Derry, is frustrated with comments all three Democratic front-runners made in the last televised debate. Neither Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton nor former Sen. John Edwards would commit to having all troops out of Iraq by 2013, the end of the next president's first term.
"I think that we should get out of there completely," Defoor said. "We shouldn't even be waiting until 2013."
That's the position of some so-called second-tier Democratic candidates like New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and former Arizona Sen. Mike Gravel.
"Let me say this: There is no difference in policy between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and the Bush administration. It's just a difference in rhetoric," said Elliott Jacobson, Gravel's national field director and New Hampshire state director.
The Obama campaign, though, said promises of having all troops out by 2013 are misleading.
"While it might be politically expedient to make promises about withdrawing all our troops from Iraq in three or six months, Sen. Obama believes that it is more important to be honest with the American people," the senator's campaign responded in a statement. "We will still have an embassy to protect and civilian humanitarian and diplomatic workers."
The Obama campaign also said a strike force would remain to fight al-Qaida, a position shared by Clinton and Edwards.
But many voters feel a moral need to fight alongside the Iraqi government.
Fremont resident Judith Arsenault, 65, said it is a question of right and wrong.
"I want them to stay in and finish the job," she said of U.S. soldiers. "I think we went in there, and I think we have a moral responsibility (to stay)."
Arsenault doesn't know whom she'll be voting for, but said it will be a Republican.
She has a few choices. Among Republican candidates, in fact, only Ron Paul has vowed to bring the Iraq war to a quick close.
Paul, who described himself in a recent radio ad as the only "real" Republican in the race, said America should get out of its most recent military adventure as quickly as possible.
"Leaving Iraq is the only way to fix our credibility. As a doctor, if I make a mistake and prescribe the wrong medication, I cannot save my reputation by pretending I did nothing wrong," the Paul campaign wrote in a recent response to questions.
Film student Steven Donovan, 21, of Windham, agrees with Paul and the Democrats that America should leave Iraq. But he doubts that it will help our credibility, as Paul says.
"It (stinks) to leave with your tail between your legs," Donovan said in a telephone interview. "But, eventually, you have to do that."
Gordon Fraser is a New Hampshire-based reporter for The Eagle-Tribune, of North Andover, Mass.
|
