Speaker does a disservice to troops by skipping out on Petraeus briefing
By Congressman Roy Blunt Posted in Congress | Congressional Contributors — Comments (67) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Later this afternoon, members of Congress will gather in a House committee room to receive an update on our progress in Iraq. But the classified briefing won’t be conducted by committee staff, counsel, or outside experts – it’ll be run by two four-star generals who also happen to be the commander of our Multinational Forces in Iraq and the highest-ranking military officer in our country.
Trust me: It’s not every day that sees this level of expertise and operational knowledge assembled in the same room at the same time for the same purpose. And best I can tell, it’s not as if General David Petraeus and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace have nothing better to do today.
Read on...
Busy as our days may be, it frankly wasn’t very hard to find time on my schedule to meet with Generals Petraeus and Pace. Nor apparently was it difficult for just about every other member of leadership – in both chambers – to spare a couple minutes this afternoon to hear a first-hand assessment of our mission in Iraq, and get answers to important questions they may have on our current status.
Unfortunately, on the very day she intends to bring her plan for date-certain surrender to the House floor, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s schedule could yield no such accommodation.
Of course, this meeting wasn’t exactly foisted upon her at the last minute. Reports indicate that an offer had been extended several weeks ago to meet with our top commanders in Iraq. Though she initially rejected it, she ended up calling back that same day to accept the invitation along with her fellow Democratic leaders.
Frankly, given the circumstances, one has to wonder why she agreed to meet with Gen. Petraeus in the first place. After all, the speaker declared her intention early on to minimize in some cases – and outright eliminate in others – the operational authority of our top military commander in Iraq. And as she has made clear, neither changing facts on the ground nor a Petraeus confirmation vote of 81-0 in the Senate were going to dissuade her from that view.
And to her credit, she has stayed true to form — undistracted by new information, and unmoved by requests from our military commanders and troops on the ground to be given the tools and support necessary to achieve our goals in the region. Her intransigence has even prompted the largest newspaper in her home state to declare in an editorial that she’s “interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs.”
I won’t lob such a charge in this forum, but I would ask that she not reject new information out of hand that challenges her preconceived notions of progress in Iraq. Meeting face-to-face with Gen. Petraeus today would go a long toward achieving that goal.
More likely, however, the speaker will be using this afternoon’s new-found free time to make final preparations for bringing her disastrous conference report to the House floor. And quite a plan it is. The text agreed to by House and Senate Democrats would begin our final retreat as early as this July, with no attention paid to the progress we’ve made or the work we still have left to do. Even more disturbing, the conference report would force our top commander in Iraq to brief Congress every 60 days on the state and status of operations in Iraq.
It’s anyone’s guess as to whether Democrats would find the time to attend those briefings. But if this week’s performance is any indication, I wouldn’t hold your breath.
6am-9am: Make-up!
9am-10am: Speech at Helen Reddy Elementary School, “Mommy doesn’t need Daddy and neither do you!”
10am-11am: Call Assad to get name of his interior decorator.
11am-noon: Polish gavel.
Noon-2pm: Power lunch and geography lesson with Murtha. Fruit salad ... yummy, yummy.
2pm-3pm: Wake up Murtha and remind him what day it is. Watch re-runs of "Perry Mason" with Waxman.
3pm-4pm: My turn to drive the abortion shuttle bus!
4pm-5pm: Send VHS of “Who’s the Boss?” to Steny.
Evening: Fantasy role-playing scenarios. Palomino!
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
me as quite ironic what the Democrats are doing. They are going around everywhere claiming that Bush is in denial and he doesn't want to listen to anyone with a different opinion on Iraq. Isn't that exactly what the Dems are doing by skipping this briefing? The hypocrisy seems to be thick in this case. It is also ironic that Ms. Pelosi goes out of her way to meet with a vicious dictator but cannot find time to meet with our commander in Iraq.
Every Republican in congress, and I mean EVERY last one of 'em, needs to talk about this. President Bush needs to talk, in public, about this. Inflict maximum political pain on Pelosi. What is more important than our troops? If she's going to stick her head in the sand and not listen to the commanders on the ground then she needs to pay for it. This is a slow pitch softball just hanging out in the middle of the plate waiting to get knocked out of the park.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
A random walk through my head at Indiscriminate Tastes
We need to get this message out to the public and hammer it home.
It is quite obvious that most media outlets dont give a flying leap about what is really going on in Iraq because it doesnt fit their template or Democratic needs.
What did Reagan do in the 80s when faced with similar circumstances? He took it directly to the American people. The same thing needs to be done here.
...not every republican was there. McCain missed it. Perhpas you need to ask yourself why the media doesn't care about that????
Pelosi did contact Petreaus by phone, and stated that she agreed with him that a political solution is what is required.
FWIW, you are currently way in the lead for the absolutely smarmiest comment posted on Red State in 2007. Way in the lead.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
You meant that I responded to a drivilling comment devoid of any context with an equally context-less comment, then I take that as a compliment....
Now...the comment by rbw...that had substance...and I applaud it...
Indeed, the wrong phrase. What he meant was, "Most pointless comment, devoid of foundational evidence, links, and logic, that we've seen in easily a few days."
The problem you have is that when you kept this at pointless non sequiturs, you were fine. When you got around to insulting the regulars, you got my attention.
Here's your chance to correct the problem. See the quotes in my first paragraph? Fix your deficiencies, as outlined, and move on.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
So i didn't realized you required links...
so here...McCain's schedule for today...he was in NH...
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Calendar/Default.aspx
But does your liberal media mention that?
That's a partial cure; you left out, inter alia:
Pelosi did contact Petreaus by phone, and stated that she agreed with him that a political solution is what is required.
Every clause and subclause needs a link there.
You also need to address the rest of what I'd noted.
Clock is ticking good luck.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
from the conservative "regulars"...but here you go..
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3075560
There is a link to a conservative blogger stating they spoke for 30 minutes. The quote that they 'agreed' is from nancy.
Everyone does agree that a political solution is what is required....Petrueaus and nancy don't agree on the surge, and I won't argue they do...Nancy doesn't agree with the surge. I will admit the "agree" portion was intended as irony...it was spin...thought you would get that...
So, I linked to Pelosi talking with the General, and McCain campainging....if you wan't more links, I can link to Dems demanding a change in war strategy from 2004 through 2006, and Bush refusing to change despite failure...if you like....
(1) We don't.
(2) We demand it of non-conservative non-regulars who feel that taking shots at the regulars of whatever political persuasion is A-ok.
(3) The link is to Jake Tapper, hardly a conservative, reporting what an anonymous Democratic aide said. Please don't insult my intelligence by misconstruing things I can read.
(4) This means you still haven't met the requirements I set forth, but then again, I'm in a generous mood, so you get a slide this one time.
(5) You may spin when you have credibility here. You do not, so you may not.
(6) Cut the smartassery. Your contributions to date have been limited to taking shots at the regulars and being less than truthful about the very data you present. In the old days, I would have dropkicked you in thirty seconds flat. You're being given a second chance. Don't waste it.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Now that Nancy is in agreement with General Petreaus when will she give him the funding he needs and stop trying to micromanage him like he's flipping burgers at McDonalds?
BTW, Nancy's "political solution"? It was written on the back of a treaty with Assad.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
what is apparently the only thing heard by the left during his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"General Petraeus Believes Military Action Is Necessary For Political Reconciliation To Occur, And More Troops Are Needed To Secure Baghdad."
Gen. Petraeus told the Senate that securing Iraq is "necessary" for a political solution to occur. "It is, however, exceedingly difficult for the Iraqi government to come to grips with the toughest issues it must resolve while survival is the primary concern of so many in Iraq's capital. For this reason, military action to improve security, while not wholly sufficient to solve Iraq's problems, is certainly necessary. And that is why additional U.S. and Iraqi forces are moving to Baghdad." (Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 1/23/07
The political track is but 20% of the picture, as are the military, security, economic and diplomatic aspects of the comprehensive strategy. However, security is a prerequisite for the success of the political and economic aspects.
Apparently, Speaker Pelosi isn't interested in success. Only defeat.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
and I imagine he said that there are military prongs to the solution today...
However, all agree that the Iraqis must get their house in order before success is achieved....
I find the "political" part about 80%, as it paves the way for reconstruction, economy, diplomacy, et al. Military is 20%, but extremely important....
which is why,...
Kerry proposed increased troops in 2004, Biden proposed splitting Iraq in 2005, and Obama proposed creating Iraqis Government Benchmarks in 2006...
All of these strategies were refuted by the "stay the course" crowd.
In addition, the "fire Rumsfeld" crowd in 2004 was refuted by the "stay the course" crowd.
I'm beginning to believe that I will wake up in ten years and wonder what would have happened if Rumsfeld had been fired and Patreus had been allowed to surge in 2004, when Rummy should have been fired.
What if....we will have democrat and republican presidents who will have to struggle with that question..and its aftermath.....
Kerry didn't really mean it...but it sounded good at the time; Biden is an idiot...nothing more to add to that; and "benchmarks" in Obama-speak...is actually a time-table for withdrawl.
Sec Def Rumsfeld, despite highly restrictive ROE's, laid the foundation and implemented the strategy that has been responsible for the recent success in Iraq. The Surge™ has just begun, but has not been funded, and Gen. Petraeus is still waiting on his request for additional troops to secure Baghdad.
The March 2007 Report to Congress is referenced on the front page by RS Insider here. I prefer the full pdf version entitled Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq, and it can be found at defenselink here. It's only 47 pages, and just by themselves the charts and graphs paint a much different picture of the situation in Iraq than the "failure" you seem so eager to accept.
Read the entire report. The Dem's misleading TalkingPoints™ are systematically Drawn & Quartered.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
but they won't. Republicans do not know how to fight anymore.
When the President will not stand and fight why should they. They should fight, they would win and make her look like the power grubing person she is.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
Are the Republicans - TO A PERSON - going to stand against Pelosi and Reid and make an issue of their priorities and their statements at EVERY opportunity? If not, why not?
Are you planning on declaring war on the Democrats or can we just expect more NewTone™ and bipartisanship? I'm distressed by your comment I won’t lob such a charge in this forum... Why not?
I'm really fed up with smarmy go-along-get-along style and actions of the leadership of the Republican Party - in the House, in the Senate and in the White House.
Mr. Blunt, DO SOMETHING. Stop the blathering and whining and go on the offensive. BE offensive if that's what it takes. Or get used to being in the minority.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Get out there and get at em!! If we are going to go down go down useing every weapon we have. As much as it pains me to say it it seems that only McCain is willing to put everything on the line for this great cause.
It must be hard to be an American soilder right now, who can you trust?
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
Sad as it may seem, but even recruiters have a higher level of trust from the troops than the government does...
(disclaimer: that is not to say that recruiters do not deserve trust, only to say that they never get any)
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
and took your call to action, mbecker.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/25/153524.shtml?s=ic
Amen, and amen. If elected Republicans won't fight, why should anyone else? Or maybe fighting back would mean awkward moments in the gym later in the day - too much of a sacrifice.
I pray that those here in Southwest Missouri and beyond will read this message and buy a clue to what is going on.
I can only think of one other time in history that our government has advocated the defeat of its self and guess who was in charge of Congress at that time as well?
It is essential that individuals understand what the price we will pay by allowing Pelosi and the Democrats to run such a policy through. I pray that as Darin and Becker above state - that there is some way that you will make them pay a heavy political price for advocating the defeat of our nation in such a vital conflict.
On a seperate note I have read somewhere that Pelosi is apparently scheduling a vote during the time of the Patraeus briefing. I think we all know why it was planned - that way people who wish to hear what the general is saying will be unable to attend. Where is the "accountability" for that action?!
But why let the facts get in the way of the democrat message of retreat defeat in Iraq!
Reid and Pelosi are showing their true colors.
EliTheBean
“Got Two Good Eyes But Still Don’t See”
important today than having a meeting with the general in charge of a war-a war that congress wants to micromanage and possibly defend-or at least make the funding all but impossible to get.
Micromanagement from the White House didn't work in Vietnam, I don't expect micromanagement from congress is going to work any better.
I will, congressman. And I do....here and now.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are both more interested in their party's political advancement than the security of the United States of America.
I actually wish the Republicans in the House would use every parliamentary means to shut it down for business.
If she can't be bothered to attend this briefing, then it should be made clear by Republicans that NOTHING else is as important and NOTHING else will be discussed or done.
Also, every Republican on the talk shows this weekend should bring this up, no matter what the topic.
Pound her to death with it. MAKE it an issue that won't go away.
why don't the good citizens of Nevada start a recall petition of Reid. Nevada is a fairly red state, and I think a petition even if it fails will send Mr. Reid. Any citizen of Nevada should start the petition and do it through redstate.com and let the blogosphere pick it up and see how far it goes.
that she would be up for moving to Nevada to do just that.
Harry Reid on Iraq: “I say we’ve lost. Let’s bring our boys home in, oh, say 18 months. In the meantime, no more funding for them.”
One of the Nevada blogs appears to be attempting to do just that. One of the local radio stations 840 AM appears to be bringing it up for discussion. Mark Noonan of Battle Born Politics reports that it takes 25% of the actual voters of the previous election to start the process.
That's why some of us have been asking for years for Congress to pass not only a Term Limits Amendment, but an Amendment for Recall for House and Senate members.
Yeah, like *that* will ever happen... :(
I don't know if you actually read the comments or just have somebody post here. But if you're reading, we'd I'd like some feedback on just what you are planning on doing. And if it's more mealymouthed BS, you've got no business in the leadership.
We have soldiers and Marines whose lives are on the line and it's time YOU and the rest of the leadership stood up and held the Democrats accountable. Day in and day out.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
right now they are in the briefing with the vote to follow afterward.
i agree i would like to see some response as well - but i would give them some time given the events of today.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
to get in the Speaker's face this afternoon. The debate on war funding starts this afternoon. Time to put up or shut up.
I'm betting on shut up.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Ms. Pelosi's behavior is disgusting. And I say that without the slightest sacrifice to my commitment to civility, for there is no possible excuse for her. She, as such high ranking representative of the American people, douses me in shame.
John E.
Patraeus and Pelosi spoke on the phone for 30 minutes yesterday.
hellobb,
Pelosi asked for a private meeting with Petraeus. He told her to screw off. Then she begged for a phone briefing so he gave her 30 minutes. Of which I'm sure she talked for 25 minutes about how good the gavel feels in her hand and that Assad wears boxers instead of jockeys.
President of the United States!
It hit me this morning. Nancy Pelosi actually believes that the Congressional Elections last year did in fact, put her in the White House!
Thus, when General Petraeus comes to town to give briefings on the Iraq War, he obviously makes a personal private appearance for the Commander-in-Chief and Nancy thinks that is her. You doubt me that she really thinks this? Hmmmm...am I not correct that Nancy Pelosi asked Petraeus for a personal briefing? (and he told her to basically fly a kite).
Power does funny things to people. In this case, it has turned a Congresswoman into a raving psychotic.
Pelosi and Reid are trying to do to Petraeus what they are doing to Fox News, which is to make it appear as though both are the interest of only one party and thus are not truly social entities in which everyone has some interest. They wish to make it seem as though only persons and works they consider legitimate are worth paying attention to. The last thing they want is for the public to get interested in victory in Iraq.
Pelosi is 2 heart beats from being the Leader of the Free World.
If that isn't enough to turn your hair gray and your knees to jelly, nothing will.
state to the effect that Pelosi is "interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs," it appears that you agree with the paper, though you are loath to "lob" that into this forum.
She consorts in a high-profile visit with a terrorist leader of a terrorist country. How many leaders of neighboring countries must he kill before the Dems think he's a terrorist?
Which forum wouldn't you be loath to "lob" a charge which appears patently true if even the LAT appears to think so, with all its leftardo baggage? Looks like the usual pattycake that landed the Republican Party into its new minority status, which it may keep for a long time given the Congressman's deferential tone.
I can't wait to read Bernie Goldberg's new book "Liars to the Left of Me, Wusses to My Right."
______________________
When taunted by a Liberal in Parliament that he was going to die "on the gallows or of a vicious social disease," Disraeli replied "That depends on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Thank you all for reading and for your comments. Tgharris, I think you bring up a fair point. I can tell you having just come back from this afternoon’s briefing with Generals Pace and Petraeus that neither Sen. Reid’s recent comments – nor Speaker Pelosi’s refusal to attend – went unnoticed by those who were there.
I think you’re also right to point to the pronouncements and actions of Democratic leaders as a clear demonstration of a caucus that lacks the ability to look beyond short-term political implications to craft a long-term plan for success.
I should add that today’s meeting was informative, productive – and very well attended. Members of Congress were able to pose direct questions to both our top military commander on the ground, as well as our top ranking military officer in the country - and I assure you that we gained more from that personal interaction than we ever could have gotten over the phone.
Tonight we will see if this afternoon's meeting had a measurable effect on the Democrats who attended. It certainly did on me.
Four paragraphs to say exactly nothing. But you were very polite to your colleagues in the House on the other side of the aisle.
Tonight we'll see if the meeting had an impact on the Republicans. You indicate it did. So do something for God's sake. We have the US military in the field, in harms way. Do something, confront the Democrats, stand up and fight.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
via Foxnews that Pelosi is spinning her talk with the General as that there is no military solution for Iraq--deja vus with Reid recently, only 200 reps reported being there, cynical side speculates-says it was just the GOP there.
Another vote to follow? OK well LOL to the Speaker to get this thing passed again.
Like I said before, Republicans don't want any awkward moments in the House or Senate gym for standing up to these jerks.
There will be some awkward moments when they stand beside a soldier, however.
give way to an "in-your-face", "call'em-like-you-see'em" style of politics, as practiced rather routinely in the British Parliament.
At least accept his challenge to "rendezvous with destiny," and emulate the passion and moral clarity Ronald Reagan displayed that night in October of 1964. The stability and economic future of the entire region hinges on which path the 110th Congress chooses.
My words from Paul's post, which by the way, has a great YouTube clip of Reagan that October night.
"The words convey such moral clarity and purpose that "A Time For Choosing" is simply known as: "The Speech.""
Substitute a few of the players, and the speech is just as relevant today, as it was in 1964. The current threat to our national security and the safety of the American people are just as real.
Time has run out, it's time to choose.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
I can tell you having just come back from this afternoon’s briefing with Generals Pace and Petraeus that neither Sen. Reid’s recent comments – nor Speaker Pelosi’s refusal to attend – went unnoticed by those who were there.
Is this really the strongest statement you can make on the Speaker's actions? What could possibly be more important than listening to what these two men, the Commanders of the nation's men and women serving their nation in Iraq, have to say?
Where is your courage, sir? You're the Whip ... why are you not "suggesting" in the strongest terms to your fellow Republicans to flood the airwaves and denounce this decision by the Speaker in the strongest possible terms?
Thank you very much for coming back to Redstate. I, for one, do appreciate it ... but you guys (Republicans in Congress) are such a disappointment. Is there nothing that you will go to the wall to fight for? Even if it risks a negative New York Times editorial?
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
"Is there nothing that you will go to the wall to fight for?"
Yes. Isn't is about time for another congressional pay raise?
Hear that sound? That's me STILL not writing a check to any Republican campaign committee.
It seems that she is like all Reid and Murtah or just trying to give our country away. Nancy Pelosi is a disgrace, but what do you expect Frm SF.
....the Demos, are playing with fire and I don't think they realize it. They're walking the same path of acquiescence and submission that the Brits and the French did in 1938, but in their arrogance, they think they can get away with it this time.
Islam has been at war with Christianity, Democracy, and Western Civilization since 723 AD. Don't they know that? Have they completely forgotten 9/11? Do they have the same mind set as the people and the Congress of the United States in 1940, who were convinced that because a lot of Japanese wore coke bottle lensed glasses, the Japanese couldn't be much of a threat because they couldn't shoot straight?
Do they think they can openly demonstrate this level of national weakness and lack of resolve that they are currently displaying, without somebody, somewhere, deciding to test it even further? Obviously they think their current theatrics are occurring in a world wide political vacuum with nobody paying attention. Benedict Arnold, himself, wouldn't be any prouder of the damage these buffoons are doing to our Nation as they sell out the legacy and heritage of these United States.
When the inevitable physical assault comes as a result of the Democrats actions, can we survive and overcome it? Will we call these oafs to a reckoning for their foolish, witless,
betrayal? Will we then have the will to punish them adequately for their idiocy? I suggest we temporarily suspend the Constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishments as a reminder to any future politicians who choose to follow the same inane path as the current Democratic Party. The treatment accorded the surrendered British Soldiers at Singapore, 1942, would be an appropriate way to start.
...that this kind of rhetoric is acceptable discourse under the site rules. It's not. Don't do that again. Ever.
Be grateful that you have a posting history: it's the only thing that kept you from being banned on the spot, and even then I had to stop and think about it.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
(sung to the tune of the 60's (has it really been that long?!?) hit)
I'm so busy, my head is spinnin'
Like a whirlpool it never ends.
And it's BDS that's makin' it swim.
I'm so-o busy...
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
stlatty72's comment and hellob's comment below are of a type that we've all seen in action before. On a site like this (aggressively opposition oriented), it will definitely struggle to do what it's designed to do. But in the offline world it's very effective - the Democrats have some truly remarkable spin and message experts.
stlatty's crack about Senator John McCain not attending the briefing by Generals Petraeus and Pace is simply an attempt to throw up a distraction and put Republicans on the defensive as a defense of Pelosi's continued refusal to meet with the Commanders of US forces in Iraq. It ignores the fact that McCain was in Iraq recently and that he had met with Petraeus and other commanders in Iraq.
The real meat of his comment, which was echoed by hellob is the factoid that Pelosi had a 20 to 30 minute phone call with Petraeus. This is meant to be the counterpoint to the OP - the strategy throughout the Leftosphere (and from there to the mainstream media - if they even mention this at all) is to cite this as proof that Pelosi has "met" (in some way) with Petraeus after all.
But of course, those of us here understand that briefings often involve audio and visual aids i.e. maps, videos, pictures, graphs, figures, etc. and basically convey far more information due to the myriad of questions asked by so many people than what can possibly be conveyed in a one-on-one 30 minute phone call.
The Speaker of the House cannot possibly have anything better to do than to attend this meeting, especially since she dodged the last one - a last-minute face-saving thirty minute phone call in order to head off a possibly negative newscycle certainly does not mitigate this failure.
But repeating the stripped of context factoid about the "30 minute phone call" again and again can all too easily make it appear to be far less the spiteful dereliction of duty it actually was. It is a very effective distractionary/disinformation tactic - the casual news watcher would be led to believe that the people complaining about this are making a mountain out of a molehill for partisan reasons.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
They've been doing this with increasing effectiveness since WJC days. We have several disadvantages: few Republicans are in the world of politics qua politics; most have lives and politics is incidental, even officeholders and staffers tend to think of political matters as management problems, not solely as political opportunities. There's no doubt we have people who can generate message; I'm not even good at it and I can put lipstick on most any pig. What very, very few of us have is that list of reporters in our contact list that we cc with our every political thought. We tend not to like reporters, and they tend to hate us, so most of us don't know them and most of them don't want to know us. In four years as a Republican appointee often dealing with very controversial lead story/front page stuff, I could count on my fingers the total number of times I was ever contacted by a reporter even when I sought them out, and when I was, they'd almost always have talked to the opposition first and wanted to ask a bunch of questions that were either leading, assumed facts not in evidence, or both. Sound familiar?
In Vino Veritas
that we will hear over and over from every Democratic mouth.
1. The 30 minute private briefing.
2. She agrees with General P's position that the solution in Iraq is political.
By Sunday night we will have heard that at least 1,000 times. But never fear because the Republican juggernaut will counter with... silence. Or whining.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
A. The only people who can spin what was discussed are General P (who won't) and Speaker P (who isn't a reliable source).
Nancy may be cockeyed, manipulative, and pathologically wrong, but she's only occasionally stupid. The private briefing gives her a political tool that she wouldn't have otherwise enjoyed.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
Elevating a 30 minute phone call to a "private briefing" basically concedes the argument.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
In my state, one of the problems is that most Republican volunteers want to be "captains and colonels" in the county and state party organizations; whereas many of the Democrats will settle for being just "privates." Republican volunteers think that their political power should be based upon their socio-economic status, or campaign contributions, not their real expertise in winning elections.
"Big Shot" Republicans disdain not only the news media, but many routine political jobs. Much of winning elections is statistical analysis, canvassing neighborhoods, telephone banks, media relations, voter feedback, and raising and managing campaign money. In canvassing, the Democrats are better at getting "worker bees" to go to working class neighborhoods, nursing homes, and college campuses.
In my state, the Republicans lost both houses of the legislature, the governorship, and a couple of Congressional seats, due to several factors, but party organization and efficiency was a big one.
Long, long ago in my misspent youth, I worked a stint with the AFL-CIO's Committee on Political Education (COPE). I could staff a boiler room with one phone call to any number of union offices, get signs put out, I even heard stories of crews to take signs down, but I would never have done something like that, lick stamps, stuff envelopes, walk neighborhoods with candidates, handbill, all the unglamorous but vital stuff of politics. If it cost a campaign anything at all, it was no more than pizza and beer - usually the union BA's would buy that too and, of course, just put it on their expense accounts.
You will play Hell getting Republican volunteers to do that sort of thing. In fairness, the union workers and a lot of other Democrat constituencies work wage jobs with regular hours. We don't need to get into all the ways the unions can get them off work yet still paid to do political things. Rs tend to be small business people or independent, non-union trades people and quite literally have to sacrifice their livelihood to spend time with a campaign. That however doesn't really excuse it and there is, as you suggest, more than a little snobbiness in it.
Here in JNU, we have a pretty active Republican Womens' organization, but it is centered on downtown Juneau and Douglas Island. Now downtown JNU and Douglas, District 3, is the very Bluest of Alaska's few Blue districts. Lenin's corpse would win any election down there against any Republican. But do you think you could get them to do much of anything in Juneau's suburban District 4, which is actually Purple leaning Red? Real hard to get them out to the subdivisions with houses that cost less than half a million and God forbid actually walking a trailer park that happens to be full of miners, fishermen, and other real people who will actually vote for a Republican if somebody were to campaign a little. I've chipped my teeth on it more than I care to anymore.
And you're right about the chiefs; everybody who whipped out a checkbook expects to be made a department head whether or not they know anything about what the department does. Shortly after I was appointed by the Murkowski Administration I got pinched real hard to hire the spouse of a high-level appointee in my division. Well, I didn't have any appointee slots; I employed some of the highest level and most skilled professional merit system emplyees in the government and I was pressured to just ignore the rules and put this person in one of my top slots because the money their matched this person's sense of self-worth, but for which he was wholly unqualified. Trying to be a good soldier, I offered to bend the rules a bit and put him in an entry level position. All Hell rained on my head! I had enough swack to say "take it or leave it" and make it stick, but I wasn't the only one to get that sort of pressure and was one of very few to resist it. I know that anecdote isn't data, but I can provide a whole bunch of anecdote.
In Vino Veritas
Congressman Blunt:
Thank you for posting on RS! Would you mind telling us what is so important in her schedule that she can't make the meeting? Would you mind telling us she is really doing during that time?
Thanks