Dear Mr. President

By Erick Posted in Comments (129) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Right now I think I'd rather you keep Mr. Rumsfeld and replace yourself with Mr. Cheney.

This is a spine. You'll also want to find where you put these.

Your base is not happy. We backed you throughout this election. It's a shame to see you start heading down your present path. It's disappointing.

« When Negative Ads BackfireComments (4) | Après Le DelugeComments (43) »
Dear Mr. President 129 Comments (0 topical, 129 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Doesn't seem strong enough...

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan

He did the right thing, but at the completely wrong time. Whether we like it or not, this decision does involve politics. Generally speaking, when members of his cabinet leave after the first term its a good thing because it innoculates the President from some criticism. Mr. Rumsfeld should have been fired a month ago IMO.

You had me for the war, and to make a political decision like this, after signing McCain's 'torture' bill, and showing no inclination to secure our border, shows me you don't really care about the war as much as I do.

I'm done defending you. I'm done supporting you. I look forward to the day you are no longer my party's leader.
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

come now, Neil. You're one of our favorite champions. No giving up for you...champions are not allowed to lose heart (publicly).

WH move with SECDEF is the consequence of the GOP cut 'n run voters staying home at yesterday's polls. Don't go follow them in abandoning an ally due to questionable tactics. Prep for '08. Freshmen Democrats in safe GOP & conservative seats will wash back out after this tide.

As for President Bush & supporting him, 3 names: Roberts, Alito & ?

As for immediate future, where can he & we best redeploy Santorum, Talent, Allen, former Reps Hart & Northrup & others stalwarts from PA to IN? All casualties for standing fast are available for appointed positions or private sector where needed most.

Is that not a horror of a military or political campaign...the best & bravest suffer the most casualties? Once more into the breach, Neil. Where you belong.

As for our fellow (deserting) conservatives angry about insufficient action on borders, illegal immigrants or the temporary issue of the year...spite will now be returned in spades. The President does not share their approach.

But, to express stay-at-home anger, they undercut the 1 group (House conservatives in a GOP majority) preventing the President, Senate & House Democrats from making into law what they fear. I doubt the self-satisfaction derived from witholding their affection & votes will endure though the coming bill ceremony...Calling All Illegals ("Calling ALLI")....AllI, alli in-come-free.

I'm not leaving the party. I'm not leaving the war.

Bush is leaving us though. He just kneecapped us all by tossing Rummy out before the job was done.

Stay the course? Bah, he's turning tail.

Bush needs to buck up.
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

its like locking the barn after the horse has bolted, he should have scrapped him three years ago.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

Chilling is out. Scapegoating the President for what ever reason is in.

When I disagreed with the President, I was called a traitor, a terrorist sympathizer and had my patriotism questioned.

Now that you are disagreeing with the President, I guess that makes one of us. Welcome to the other 60% of the contry.

LONDON 11/7/2006 (AP) - An al-Qaida operative who planned to blow up landmark London hotels using limos packed with gas tanks, napalm and nails, and plotted to attack the New York Stock Exchange and the World Bank, was sentenced Tuesday to life in prison.

Dhiren Barot, a former airline ticket clerk and Muslim convert, pleaded guilty last month to conspiring to commit mass murder on both sides of the Atlantic.

"You have chosen to use your life to bring death and destruction to the Western world," Judge Neil Butterfield said as he passed the sentence. . . "

So the War on terror continues and Americans are oblivious to it.

he made the right decision in offering his resignation and Bush made the right call in accepting it. I'm not buying the "this was in the works" line. The two top reasons given for the losses we've taken are Iraq, and Corruption. Bush can't do much about the second, but he can accept Rummy's resignation. The will of the people is paramount in our electoral system, at least as regards spending and war. They have spoken. I disagree with it, but I will accept it.

It also makes sense on the continuing to fight whatever the Dems will let us. If Rummy stays, he WILL be the focus of many House investigations. With him out of office, the Dems lose a boggie man. Maybe Bush can keep the Pentagon on track without Rummy. It is highly unlikely they could have done so while prepping for multiple investigations.

...but certainly not a surprise. He's been slouching off toward wimp-dom for quite awhile now.

Wouldn't you wilt under the intense level of lies the media shoves every day? W is the only president in the world (that I know of ) that had a major movie made of his own assassination... and the conclusion of the movie was that "he had it coming...".

...but then I have better sense than to want the job in the first place :-), if it came with dictatorial powers and much better pay I might be interested...

seriously, though, yes, I know it sucks being President, but, obvious though this is, I'll say it anyway - no one *made* him run for the office - twice. If being bashed in the liberal media every day and having some nutjob lefty make a disgusting movie about him paralyzes him to the point of turning into a jellyfish, then he needs to resign and let someone tougher take the job. I have all the sympathy in the world for what this guy has had to put up with while in office (it's bad enough for all of them, but it's been worse for him than most if not all), but it's his job to do anyway.

is that Bush will try to salvage his legacy by cooperating too much with the Dems in the Congress and become essentially a D president (especially on spending bills).

As Ben said in the IM we have just witnessed the first day of the end of the Bush Administration.

I never thought I would ever attribute craveness to this president who has been extremely strongwilled but it is clear that Reid and Pelosi have stump trained Bush in just a matter of hours.

Bush needed a scapegoat after yesterday and Rumsfeld is courageous. It would be great if we lost Condi too, but that's asking too much I suppose. Bush should avoid a big fight over Gates and it does put some pressure on Democrats to scale back plans for a Pentagon witchhunt.

I think it will create an incentive for GOP presidential wannabes to articulate their own approach to the war on terrorism.

Whoever the new Republican leadership is will have a two-front war: against the Democrats and a president of their own party at times. I see a lot of names thrown around, but can they tell the president "no?"

I started to go sour on the president some time ago, but never thought his last few years would be adversarial with---us. Whether it is Pence or John Doe, the new Minority Leader will have to salvage what remains of the GOP coalition. It will not be easy.

Incidentally, did the president and Speaker-elect decide exactly how much to raise the minimum wage on their telephone call?

but to compromise with the Democrats. I'm a bit shocked at how quick you folks seem willing to abandon the man after six years.

Rumsfeld should have been let go a long time ago when he first submitted his resignation. His plan for Iraq has been a failure.

The Dems won fair and square. Now we get to see what they bring to the table. I don't think they have the stomach to do what is necessary in this GWOT anymore than the GOP does, however they might surprise us. I would settle for OBL's head on a platter to start with.

Bush must work with the new majority, otherwise he will spend his remaining two years the lamest of lame ducks. His legacy will depend on what he can get done in his remaining time. Now is when he needs our support more than ever.

The President has betrayed all his supporters by using Secretary Rumsfeld as a scapegoat.

Here this morning during my walk I was wondering: what kind of President we'll see when faced with an opposing Congress. I figured it'd take months to find out. But it only took one day: he's a total wimp politically.
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Rumsfeld is not irreplaceable.
If he is, we are in bigger trouble than any of us think.
We were not clearly winning this war.
Are you suggesting that the President does not have the authority or the perogative to do this?

the Dems, Daily Kos, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR and assorted liberal talking heads were attacking your president??? Wouldn't you wilt under the intense level of lies the media shoves every day? W is the only president in the world (that I know of ) that had a major movie made of his own assassination... and the conclusion of the movie was that "he had it coming...".

"The President has betrayed all his supporters by using Secretary Rumsfeld as a scapegoat."

you can say that again.

doesn't want to spend the next two years of his advancing age enduring Democrat-chaired House and Senate committee hearings.

Remember, he tried to quit twice before but the president refused those attempted resignations.

All Gates has to be is an administrator and a communicator. Suely he learned some PR skills by the time he was CIA director.

than a a lap dog.

And while I'm at it: thank you, Donald Rusmfeld. You are a great man.

We've stuck with Bush through NCLB, through prescription drugs, through Harriet Miers, through amnesty with concern for border security.

We didn't comment (much) when he called on the SwiftVets to stop their ads, even though those ads are the only reason JFKerry is not President today.

We held our outrage as government grew in both it's cost and it's reach.

We've supported him on the war, even though he's done nothing much to convince the people we are at war.

We've supported him while we watched the NYT and other liberal media publish top secret information leaked from the CIA, NSA and probably the Senate, and while his administration did NOTHING, repeat, NOTHING!! to stop it or to punish the leakers and the printers.

We've supported him even though he offered no conservative leadership because we understand he's not a conservative.

If he now turns and tries to show a "bipartisan" face and "cooperate" with Democrats in Congress who have done everything in their power over the last six years to stop any sort of conservative agenda (limited as it was), I've got a message for him. Actually, two.

First: don't look to me for support on anything but a more vigorous prosecution of the war in Iraq, ie: there are no civilians in zip codes that fire on US troops.

Second: your legacy as an effective President is either one notch higher or lower than Jimmy Carter.

Be bipartisan, work with the Dem's, good riddance. We won't miss you.

If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

"Be bipartisan, work with the Dem's, good riddance. We won't miss you."

Some patriot you are, pal. God forbid the President TRY to reconcile a divided country and MAYBE attempt to find some common ground with the new majority to get something done for the good of all of us.

you want to keep posting here? Then you might think twice about the "patriot" comment. If you don't want to think twice about it that's fine with me, too.

If you want to ban me for posting that comment, I clearly don't need to be a member of this board.

you won't be.

Now the choice is yours. Stop acting like an ass or leave.

are you threatening iamagentsmith? This is a forum of free expression, is it not? There was no vulgarity in the post, merely a hint of sarcasm. Sheesh.

that Congress can do is remain divided and thus do no harm.
"Reconciling" good and bad to come up with a common ground is not in anyone's best interest.
Gridlock is not all bad - no progress, but at least we won't be traveling in the wrong direction.

It will be interesting in two years if:
-There still haven't been any terrorist attacks on US soil.
-Unemployment is still under 5%.
-Wages and job growth are still high.
-Taxes have not increased.

I wager all the above will be memories of the past - reminding us how good we had it before the Nov 06 temper tandrum.

Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum

when harm is already being done to the body politic. The Islamofascists mean to do us as much harm as possible.

About the two years:
-There will be an attack on American soil, shortly after our troops leave Iraq. They will probably come through where the unfunded fence on the Mexican border was supposed to be built, if not as temporary guest workers on the Bipartisan Bush Immigration Reform Plan.
-The Dems will raise the minimum wage. All economic studies prove this increases unemployment.
-Increasing unemployment will reduce government revenues, driving up borrowing for the short term, which will reduce economic growth.
-Increased borrowing will need to be paid for with increased federal revenues, so taxes, especially on the wealthy (ie, anybody with a job) will go up. Rinse and repeat, starting with raising the minimum wage again so poor working people can maintain a living standard.

> reminding us how good we had it before the Nov 06 temper tandrum.

I certainly agree. We will also learn / remember quickly how much it stinks to be in the minority. Like a lot of the plans people have laid out for the new Republican leadership, unfortunately won't matter because the Democrats are running the show and we don't get a chance to speak.

I think it will be a lot longer than 2 years before we get back in power, and it will be an awful time.

when I miss President Bush

All I must do is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roberts, Alito and a veritable host of appellate and district court judges holding the right flank

for life tenure

for the right to Life

I think we need to be there, we HAVE to win the thing and I don't understand why the administration didn't say something every day about us not being attacked since 2001 because of us fighting the war across the globe. There are also lots of good things going on in Iraq that MSM will not tell anyone. On the other hand, let's be honest that there are some major decisons that need to be made. We have misjudged our enemy and the situation. New blood to me is a good thing and if we just would wipe out a problem province or two, I think the locals would get the message.

Yesterday the American people decided we can't win and they don't want to win. Get out now!

Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

The ouster of Rumsfeld was one of just two things this President could have done to lose my support. Forcing Cheney out, of course, would be the other.

I supported this Administration through thick and thin. I prayed for the President. I believed he was doing the right thing on the Medicaid prescriptions, even. But to force out the best Defense Secretary this nation has ever known, and over a Six Year Itch loss...

George, you lost me.

I bet McCain is thrilled with all this news. Now he looks like the one who was right all along. He better not get the nomination.

If McCain gets the nomination then we might just see Democrats with 240 House seats, 55 Senate seats, and the White House.
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Are you saying McCain IS that future Dem. in the White House or that you think he would lose to one? I guess if you belive him to a Kennedian liberal, it doesn't matter much.

I'm saying he'll lose.
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I think the President is grasping at anything he can to keep us from "cut & run." Rumsfeld has been amazing the way he has transformed the military from cold war to 21st century war, but (rightly or wrongly) he has become a symbol of the media debacle that is Iraq. That fault lies completely with the president.

This defangs the opposition for a while. With a new SecDef we will buy some time. This is but a stopgap, but an important one.

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

I hate to see it happen, but I think this is good analysis. This move may be necessary to prevent an even greater disaster if the Dems pull funding for the war in Iraq. Changing the civilian leadership may be enough to keep the Dems at bay for a final push at getting Iraq done. My one worry is Gates. The president said he is on the Baker Commission. We know that Baker has been kicking around the idea of negotiating with Iran over the future of Iraq. I think Gates may be Baker's man at the Pentagon.

Of course, I agree with Rush that the libs will be loooking for more scalps. If Cheney goes too, I'll be willing to join all those eager to throw the president under the bus.

Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

that was how news about Rummy's resignation was relayed to me at work: "Did you hear Cheney resigned?"

Why the vituperation and vitriol? Disappointment, a lack of consistency and feelings of dismay are all understandable. Perhaps even expressing that our goodwill was betrayed. But the abandonment and disrespect displayed in some of the remarks are somewhat hard to comprehend.

Think of the election last night folks and then ask yourself if we need any additional distractions for Democrats to focus on. I believe you will come to find the intellectual decision is to avoid distractions in order to promote a vision. That entails clarity of purpose that can be articulated to our citizens in a meaningful way. The President know that as does Mr. Rumsfeld, Hastert, et al.

The last race is behind us and the new one begins today. Accordingly, we shall set upon that course and adjust along the way. However, to abandon those leading us to this point puts the ship in uncharted waters. At this point, that would not be a wise or safe place to be.

Please do not think this a rebuke or criticism, for it is meant as a respectful appeal to you intellect.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

He said he'd keep Rumsfeld, and we backed him for it.

He's now gone back on his word.

That's why all the vitriol.
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Your posts reveal an intellectually thoughtful approach. I would therefore appeal to that quality and offer one might wait to hear from Rumsfeld before demurring to emotion.

We all know that Rumsfeld has on occasion offered his resignation to the President. As a casual observation, I am not certain that Mr. Rumsfeld would want to stay around to be the whipping boy and honey pot for every Democrat excuse.

Democrats will of course continue to berate the President. It is an addiction from which they cannot depart. However, how long do you believe the populace will stand for that as an excuse for not governing? I dare say, not long at this current juncture.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

If Rumsfeld had to go, for his health and well being, to avoid the stress of a Democratic Congress grinding him down then maybe there was good reason for this.

But then I think the President should have said that in advance, instead of making a promise he knew he couldn't necessarily keep.
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I don't think that's the case. I do think that Bush sucked out loud in his presser today. Rummy will go down in history with Dubya as the great liberators of the Middle East, and Rummy's strategies achieved more for less cost than any military in history. and
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

On the other hand, I can see him stepping down because he thinks it is what is best for the troops. :)

The Dems were ready to unleash as many investigations of the military as they can come up with. Now that Rummy is gone, they need to re-target their fire. They may still go after Rummy. But he is better positioned to protect the troops by not being in office than by being there. That is a sign of a true leader and I respect him for it.

I am content to take a wait and see approach on the Rumsfeld replacement. Thanks to a convergence of factors, we simply don't have the legislative cooperation on the war that we did two months ago. We can sit in our tears and whine about it, and blame the Republicans for blowing it, but it's done. And GWB knows that, too.

The fact is that victory in the WoT is rightly the most important challenge that the president has to face. The cost of failure cannot be underestimated; certainly it is far higher than the paltry sum of Rumsfeld's head and a minimum wage bill.

we wouldnt have lost that legislative cooperation. wouldn't bump it's ass a-hoppin.

(Translation: true, but... he didn't.)

that your assertion is that the GWoT is too important and ousting Rummy is a small price. OK fine but this ousting was known about a while ago and the GWoT would have been much better served by disarming the Ds BEFORE the election with this.

It is a bad move now. Your first paragraph seems like this loss was based on a bunch of factors, none of which includes the President. He has as much to blame as anyone and if he was going to make a purely political move with this it should have been before the election. Especially since he knew it was going to happen a long time ago.

Now THAT was funny ... first time I've laughed all day. Thanks!

FP Watergil

I think it would have energized the moonbat wing even more. Keeping Rummy where he was drew fire there while Reps tried to hold the fort.

...that the president has to face. The cost of failure cannot be underestimated"

Sorry wrong. The American people said so yesterday. In my lifetime I have never been as disappointed in my fellow countrymen as I am today.

Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

In the end, this undue deference to the Democrats, shown today in various ways, will not produce love OR respect.

If the war was going wrong recently, the needed changes should not have waited til today. If the war was going right, that is, if the President was telling us the truth til now, no changes would have been necessary. And if something other than victory is now the goal, the Commander-in-Chief should have the decency to own up.

Bob Miller
Indianapolis, IN

And no matter how much red meat Bush tosses the Democrats or how many principles (ours, at least) he compromises, it never will be enough. I have nothing further to say on this particular subject because Marcus is partially right above; we should pick when to jump ugly. I submit the firing of Rumsfeld was such a time, but that is done now. I'm sure the next won't be far behind, unfortunately.

Rumsfeld ought to go. He may have been an excellent day to day administrator of the Pentagon, but he has been a terrible Secretary of War. There's a difference and he failed in the second part. He has become the Republican version of Robert McNamera and he has done great harm to our image of strong on defense. He should have left office after the 2004 election, but Bush was stubborn. Since that time, almost 2000 soldiers have died in intesifying violence and combat action. I'm a complete and total supporter of the war, but we're not fighting for total and complete victory. Send in more troops and pacify Baghdad.

You can only create more body bags.

To win the war it must be carried from Iraq into Iran and Syria, and from Afghanistan and controlled Pakistan into uncontrolled Pakistan where we might capture bin Laden. I think W knows this and also knows that the American people aren't willing to accept that. I'm not sure we have enough troops for it. W's been making it up as he goes along, hoping to get the right chance to take out another opponent, but he hasn't gotten it. Yesterday he was hobbled even more. But that doesn't mean we should desert him.

Sad fact is, the president is not a conservative. The dems were as obstructionist as could be when in the minority during this presidency. For Bush to extend the olive branch to them is disgusting. We can only hope our new minority leadership (whoever it will be) will not be so easy to get along with, uh...I mean step on.

Um, in case you haven't realized, our party is no longer in control of the House and probably not the Senate. So we can't do everything exactly as before. People voted for change, and they got it. Bush has to be able to adapt a little. This is one way of doing that. Now you might not agree with the decision, but it's foolish to say that everything should go on as before ... the voters already decided they wouldn't tolerate it. IMO, Bush has been stubborn for too long on some things.

What are they going to do, call for a double whammy election and elect Speaker Pelosi into the Double Speakership?

He's a lame duck. He can do whatever he wants as President, and he's choosing to surrender. He's spitting in the face of everyone who worked to elect him.

It's so ingrateful it's disgusting. It really is.
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I think this is the right discussion for Republicans and for the White House. It may or may not be the best thing for the war, but it is a change in course which is what was demanded by the public.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I don't give a fig about the politics. Wasn't that what many of us have bragged about the last 6 years: that Bush makes war decisions for war reasons, while Clinton would use focus groups to plan each bombing run?
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

that Bush makes war decisions for war reasons

Maybe in his calculus, it was time for him to go.

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

it is nice to steal the thunder from the Dems victory :)

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

I don't give a fig about the politics.

If it's the right move for the war effort, the timing matters little. With a Dem Congress, the right move for the future of the was effort is to try and buy time to finish the job. This, although sad, may just be the price to be paid to reality in order to effect a recognizable victory in Iraq.

Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

What changed on the ground in Iraq in the past 2 days that prompted this, if, of course, it was for war reasons.


But we all know that support here at home is a critical part of the war effort. Bush has done a p*ss-poor job in that area (and I'm being kind there).

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

I think were all just a bit frustrated and cant believe that Bush would decide, HOURS after the election to pull this. ITs almost as if he tried to find a way to tick off the base just a wee bit more.

Oh well. I guess Im done. The past is the past. Time to move on and see the real benefits in the loss:

a. Ds have to produce, and with a baseline of low unemployment, stock highs, low interest rates, declining gas prices (oops thats just halliburton at work), etc. it will be hard to do.
b. Ds have to have a plan in Iraq besides a gradual turnover of power that is currently going on.
c. Rs may actually realize that they need to get back to their principles. Seeing the Shaddegg nomination (and even McCain harping it) give s me hope.

It could end up being great. The Ds have two years to screw everythign up.

I think replacing Rummy is a war decision made for exactly war reasons - Rumsfeld has become too polarizing a figure within the military leadership so it's better to get the Pentagon to refocus on winning the war in Iraq by bringing in 'fresh eyes'.

A factor in the decision has to have been the fact that Rumsfeld has served a whopping (and record) 6-year-term as SecDef all the while transforming the military. As has been pointed out, he has on several occasions offered to step down and must certainly be feeling the strain of the job.

I for one wish him well and look forward to seeing Bob Gates assume the No. 1 position in DOD.

but having him as a lightning rod for the SF-Dems?

Bad war policy I think.

I don't know what all this is about, frankly. I never voted for Rummy for anything - nor was I ever that impressed with the job he did. If Bush came out and said he was pulling out of Iraq, I'd be angry, but that's not the case and Rummy leaving does not mean that he is planning that, either.
I think Bush is way too stuborn - it's not a good thing sometimes. Politics is a contact sport - and like Chess, sometimes you have to sacrifice pieces. Anyone who gets involved in politics understands this - Rummy does for sure. Bush went to the mat for him and for Bolton - it wasn't worth it in terms of the damage done.

Enough with the backstabbing and finger pointing. We lost a battle. Who hasn't?

I thought the President's press conference was wonderful. I wish he had always been so clear. Cooperation among the parties is what the people voted for, IMO. I don't see it happenning: I had to turn off the Pelosi press conference because I found her so distastful; but, I see the President trying, which is want the public wants.

I think Bush is making the best of the hand he has. He has not been perfect, but he is much better than Kerry or Gore would have been. Let Pelosi and her crew gloat and point fingers - that will disgust the public quickly. But if we fall apart, then we risk losing long term.

We need to focus on maintaining low taxes, solving the social security issues (with a retirement age increase) and protecting our borders with enforcement and documentation. I think we'll find more cooperation from moderate/conservative democrats than you guys seem to think. Foreign policy will stay in Bush's hands. I think the public will bore quickly of hearings and recriminations.

Two years from now we elect a new President and new House and Senate. They can be Republican or not. But if Republicans fracture over a small blip of an election, then we risk creating a long-term stay in the wilderness.

I remember 140 seats in the House and fewer than 40 in the Senate after the Goldwater election. That led to very difficult times. For the longest time, I did not believe I'd ever see 190 Republicans in the House. We still have over 200. We still have effective power as long as we don't throw away a good deal because it is not a perfect deal. Reagan knew how to govern with a coalition of Republicans plus conservative Democrats - he reached over the heads of the Democrat leaders. Give Bush a chance.

If you guys cut and run this quickly, how can you credibly accuse the Democrats of doing the same thing?

sure there is some frustration, make that a lot of frustration, but it is perfectly legitimate to look at what appears to be bonehead moves and call Bush on it.

As for give Bush a chance? What do you think the base has been doing for 6 years? THIS is wherein the frustration lies...if anything its cutting and strolling. How many straws does it take to break the camels back, so to speak?

This will all blow over in a few days and people will reinstate their support*, hopefully with a good change of leadership in Congress, but right now people need to vent.

* but as hard as I try, there is still part of me that just has visions of a beaten spouse returning to their abuser. I hope that passes.

As I posted elsewhere, although this loss is heartbreaking to those who lament what a 230-GOP House and 55-GOP Senate and GOP President could have done but didn't, this new Congress won't be able to run roughshod over the GOP.

Anything from the extreme left will be vetoed and sustained, and/or filibustered in the Senate. The Senate Minority Leader can definitely water-down lots of bills in conference committees, essentially telling Pelosi "do this/don't do that or else we filibuster". The new Senate majority includes former Navy Secretary Webb and hawkish Joementum, as well as a few other "persuadables" such as Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Mary Landrieu.

The freshman class in the House ran on moderate or slightly left-of-center campaigns, and won by narrow margins in formerly Republican districts. If they don't want to become one-term wonders, they will stay away from anything hard-left, and Republicans should be willing to negotiate with them, and allow Pelosi&Company nothing better than a stalemate, while passing legislation that has broad bipartisan support.

It's not nearly as good as running the whole show, but let's try to do what Reagan did--reach across the aisle to the moderates and persuadables among the Democrats in Congress. Not only would it be good for the country--we don't have any other choice.

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

Having read this, I'm doubtful.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the moderate conscience of Pennsylvania Republicans, on Wednesday urged the party to re-evaluate its priorities in the wake of nationwide election losses and called for a more progressive agenda that changes the strategy in Iraq and puts more emphasis on education and health care at home.

and the spotlight is turned off of him. BTW, are you sure those weren't White House talking points the senator read?

is the reporter describing him as the "moderate conscience of Pennsylvania Republicans".

It seems to me that a genuine reporter would stick to making factual statements.

genuine reporters stuffed and on display. They are presumed extinct in the wild.

and are trying to keep bad policy out. If you are trying to get good policy into place, filibusters and vetos don't move the ball forward. We need to go forward with funding the Iraq war, the SF-Dems only need to not provide it to win what they want: us out of Iraq. The President can't keep them there unpaid and unsupplied. This was always the risk, and I think part of why Moe was always one note on the upcoming elections: Do you support the GWoT? The SF-Dems don't, no matter what sounds flow out of their mouths when their lips move.

I think the last chance of winning the war came this year with the offensive to secure Baghdad. For whatever reason, it failed. It was followed by unacceptably high casualties in october and Maliki forcing our troops to take down their checkpoints in Baghdad. I think up until then there would have been support for a more aggressive war. There is not the support now in either the country as a whole or in Congress to win the war at any cost.

Bush is turning over the war to the Bush 41 team to liquidate and clean up. For what it's worth. I think the Democrats will go slow in both House and Senate to try to take control of this process. My sense is they will let Baker et al handle it. In spite of everything they don't want to be the ones who lost Iraq. They want to be the ones who got our troops out.

All your whining and finger pointing!!!!

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were behaving like a bunch of Democrats.

We need to be better than that.

I cannot overstate what a spectacular blunder the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld is. He is one of the greatest Defense secretaries that we have ever had.

Dick Cheney would be one of the greatest presidents that we have ever had. I'm all for Dubya resigning and replacing himself with Cheney!

This is what happens when you lose... and when people stay home to teach us all a lesson.

Another source quoted military sources as saying that those ex-generals who complained sometime back about Rumsfeld, saying he should be fired, effectively tied Bush's hands, PREVENTING him from firing Rumsfeld until after the election!

Their argument was that letting Rumsfeld go under the pressure of those ex-generals would have undermined civilian control of the military. In other words, instead of being the elected commander in chief, Bush would have taken a step towards the president being a puppet in a military dictatorship. It would have been a step down the "slippery slope" towards that.

I don't really buy the argument because once the generals opened their mouths, the damage was done. In fact using that same argument it could have been a trick for the military to KEEP Rumsfeld, for fear of undermining civilian control. Either way, retired generals using their uniforms to pressure the President during an election is a form of interference with civilian control.

I forgot to add the end of the argument about civilian control. Once we had the election and the VOTERS wanted Rumsfeld out, then it was OK for Bush to let him go, because it is the President giving in to elections, not the military. and
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Snap out of it, man!
Now, catch your breath.
Do not destroy this blog or yourself over this.
I strongly advised everyone to just take it easy for a day or two. we do not need to descend to killing off our leaders when we need them most.
The war is not Rumsfeld's war. Rumsfeld is serving and served at the President's pleasure.
We were not winning the war in an easily perceptible way.
All Presidents are free to change. Lincoln did and it helped.
I respect this site,a nd I respect you and the other leading posters here too much to see this blow up.
Step back and get some perspective, and realize it is the war, not the Sec. Def.

In the days leading up to the election I personally spent over 100 hours working for local pol's. Many of them were beaten last night, was it because they didn't have the right message?
Not work it hard enough? Ect, ect.......

While I'm disappointed at the end result, in two years I'll be back at it because I'm a believer.

It doesn't help that I live in Connecticut, and before that New York, in the city even.... Living up here you lose more than you win, it's just a fact.

Hey guy's we got routed!!! All over the country we got routed BUT for me that doesn't mean I wasted my time or efforts. Let's face it, this was a tough year, but to abandon Bush?


Sure Rumsfeld did some fantastic things for our country although what matters is getting the job done, results. Those results these days don't look so great. Whether it's an articulation of the results or lack of actual results at this point it's moot.

I actually give Bush credit for not throwing Rumsfeld under the bus for political gain BEFORE the election, although you can be sure that he was pressured to do so. Bush, Rove and Co I'm sure DID see this coming, despite the public face they presented. So even in the face of all that Bush still risked the exposure to try and turn the tide. It seemed to me everywhere he went, huge crowds were there to support him. Can we blame the base that they turned their backs on the big spenders in congress? Those big spenders who instead of standing by Bush when they could have, turned their backs and found other things to do when he went out to support them?

In contrast, I believe he has huge ones and even more I believe and stand with him if that's possible. For me, last night I said a prayer for him as I drifted off to sleep after watching across the country, the defeat of those who abandoned our principals and broke our trust.

God bless our President, we need him more now than ever...

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

...President Bush has abandoned you. He just stuck his finger in the wind, decided that the liberal media wanted Rumsfeld had to go, and dumped him. It's as simple as that. Watch Bush now become Democrat-lite.

In fact, I totally disagree. He hasn't abandoned us at all, he's fought the good fight for what he believes to be the right thing every step of the way. We may not always agree with what he does BUT he does what he believes is the right thing, IMO.

If you look at the spending on education, it's HUGE but it's what he said he would do and in the long run I think it's going to be the right thing for America. Education with accountability, a rather new concept for Washington.

The spending on Medicare? Again, huge, but hugely beneficial to seniors and in the long run it gets more people being treated up front and preventing the larger cost of hospitalization. Of course this is pretty simplified but that's the general idea.

Remember compassionate conservatism? Not exactly the definition of a true conservative I'll agree, yet he has remained true to his beliefs as he has openly presented to us all.

For me, when I voted for him, it wasn't me picking him as a lesser of two evils, it was me voting for a man who I felt would "lead" our country and be true to his beliefs.

I have NO regrets.

He's still the "man" as far as I'm concerned.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Why is everyone standing up for Rummy? What did he do that was so great? From my view, he and Cheney convinced Bush to go to war on a THEORY that the Middle East would stabilize if democracy existed in one of the countries. We have lost almost 3000 lives as a result of the execution of this THEORY. If Bush had fired Rummy earlier this year, say 6 months ago, and actually detailed a different strategy for winning the war (like adding thousands of additional troups), the mid-year elections may have gone differently. Instead, he chose to tell Americans that everything was going just fine--even when any moron could see otherwise. GWB got what he deserved. We all know that we need to ADD thousands of troops to ensure victory. Let's hope that we soon have additional troops in Iraq. Once that is done, conservatives can get back to the basic conservative agenda--small government, tax reduction, pro business, and a strong defense.

If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

With as much respect as I can honestly muster, in a democracy this is what you have to do when you lose. Don't like the look of it? Then see about doing what you can to avoid it in 2008.

Sports anaologies are ridiculously overdone, but that's because they work so well. When a team underperforms or merely SEEMS to underperform, you don't fire the players, and you don't fire the owner. You fire the coach, whether he deserves it or not. Donald Rumsfeld understands this as well as anyone, which is why he took it like the real man he is. Besides, it will be a lot better for the overall war effort if we can get a new SECDEF confirmed by Senate Democrats rather than allow them to monopolize most of Rumsfeld's time for the next two years in hearings batting down every wacky conspiracy theory that the moonbat left can come up with. If allegedly moderate to conservative Senate Democrats are finally willing to try and win the war now that they have their power back, so much the better. If not, attitude adjusted Republicans will clean their clocks in 2008.

However, it WILL be necessary to give Democrats their chance to fail first. THAT is what Bush is doing by being gracious and reaching out to them. If it works, great; we have the time-tested two-party system that won every war prior to Korea back. If it doesn't, Democrats will get the punishment they deserve in 2008.

As for you anti-amnesty absolutionists out there (and you know who you are), you were warned that not making the best possible compromise in the last congress, would likely kick the can down the road to a more pro-amnesty congress. So reap what you have sown and learn something for the future.

I hope a lot of it is just venting.

I understand the frustration.

I was certainly confused watching his press conference today.

Was he being contrite?

I am hoping, that as a practical guy, he is merely putting his best foot forward.

For 2008, I think one of the arguments we need is to show that the Dems are obstructionist. I was hoping the President was sending a message today that if there is gridlock and obstruction it is not him that is causing it. It is the Dems being unwilling to work with him.

Politically I think that was the right thing to do.

The Rumsfeld thing? I don't get it. If he was going to do that, I do think if he would have done it a week or 2 ago it could have helped in some of these really close elections.

On the other hand, the President has much more brilliant political advisors than me and so I have to think he thought this out and this is part of his plan. I don't get the benefit of it now, but hopefully we will understand that in the weeks to come.

But I have to say that I feel President Bush has abandoned the base. By jettisoning Donald Rumsfeld, he's effectively jettisoning the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terror.

Can anyone doubt that Al Qaeda will be encouraged by these actions on the part of President Bush that seem to show quite clearly that he is floundering?

from another newbie.

I'd love to hear the beginnings of a constructive plan to turn this dreadful debacle around...and have it not take forty years.

President Bush is the one that let the conservatives down. I still support and applaud the job that Rumsfeld was attempting to accomplish. Sorry to see him go...

This has nothing to do with capitulation, or charting a new course, or anything of the sort. The new Democratic Congress, once it takes its seats, will have the subpoena power. If Rumsfeld is gone and a new SecDef is alrady in place (even if by recess appointment) then the ability of Dems to run circus hearings gets a big dent put in it.

There's little point in hauling before Congress a man who's already gone; there's little risk to the White House in having the new guy testify since he can honestly say he's just getting his feet wet.

I suspect that the President wanted even more to avoid a Democratic grilling of Rumsfeld than he wanted to have Rumsfeld continue in his post. What that says about the current state of the Pentagon, I'm not sure.

"Every time some nitwit college student burns a flag on camera, that's one less idiot who can ever run for public office." - Crank

in the history books. When a man is hated this much by both sides, he must be doing something right. You are crazy if you think Rumsfeld deserved to stay. He was losing support faster than a sinking ship. If Bush kept him on, we would hear nothing but "fire Rumsfeld, fir Rumsfeld" for the next 2 years. I'm not a Civil War buff but I'm sure Lincoln had to fire people during that war and I know he was hated by pretty much everyone. I think it's silly to stand by Bush after all the crap he's taken and then drop him because we lost an election. It's not his fault! Blame the criminals in our party who were too busy have IM sex and stealing money. I will continue to stand by Bush and the missionin Iraq. Stop crying about the election, we got beat and now we have to work with Dems whether you like it or not!

I feel like I have to weigh in on this.

First of all, take deep, cleansing breaths.

Honestly, I think this is W's first offensive move. Call it a pre-emptive strike if you want.
The dems want to "unite, repair" blah,blah,blah
It is now put up or shut up time. You want to be in charge? It's time to act like adults and work together. Consider this their first test.

Personally, from a military spouse perspective, I'm glad he is going. He has been a good leader for the time, but his time is up. Honestly, we might still have a majority in at least one house had he not held on. And that is just all I can say about this.

The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan and
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

He was in the CIA during the 80s... back when Casey was running stuff. Valerie Plame and Larry Johnson seem to be upset. I call that some good signs.

Indicators seem to be mixed. Instapundit's milguys think it may signal a more vigorous prosecution of the war in Iraq. On the other hand, some of the other commentary I've seem deprecates:
1) his tenure at CIA, doing for the Soviet Union what Allen Pinkerton did for the Army of Northern Virginia
2) his ties with Baker's circle, which seems rather more likely to repeat their policy of '91 and kick the Middle Eastern can down the road for another decade than endorse an increase in tempo.

We'll see, I guess, but I'm interested in hearing from more people.

Is it just me, or did Bush look happier today than he did when he had to sign the Fence Bill. Now he finally gets his way on amnesty. Plus I think he hopes they cut funding for Iraq. That way he can try to blame what goes wrong on someone else. Republicans lost because Bush wasn't on the ballot, so voters took it out on Republicans. Now that Bush has a like-minded Congress, watch the entitlements and the amnesty grow! Bush should do us a favor and switch parties.
Just Say No To Amnesty:

But now I have to wonder if you are right.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

the usual discussion I come to Redstate for. Just reading over the comments once again I'm taken aback. People threatened with being banned for? Let's get a grip here folks, Bush didn't run for office this year but it's all his fault. He didn't waver from his views that we all loved before Tuesday...

What happened to optimism? The key ingredient of conservatism, the thing that mainly seperates us from the kos minded woe is me crowd...

The president needs us, the country needs people like us, rather it needs people like we were before yesterday.

I'm not beaten, our country is not beaten and neither is our president.

I start with the premise that the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers.

Ralph Nader - of all people...

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

This morning all I could think about would be if my home state of Virginia held the Senate....

As the day wore on, all I could think about was that grandfatherly figure of my adolescent youth...the one saying "Mr. Gorbachev...tear down this wall!" and I knew that everything was going to be OK.

It may take some may take some heart-wrenching confession. But I truly believe the Republican party in this great nation will rise from the ashes and refind its roots and come once again to power. And let us hope that once it has reclaimed its position as leader of the free world, that it never, ever, plunges again into the depths of depravity and excesses that have been demonstrated by our fellow so-called bretheren in the last six years. Let the catharsis be over and the healing begin. I do not expect us to win in 2008, yet I have a hope that we will be able to at least base our opposition on a position of principle, rather than convenient issue-grabbing.

Our opponents will field a candidate that is nearly unbeatable. We must, ((MUST)), come to terms with the fact that we will lose handily after yesterdays fiaso. Yet we must also refind the past to continue into the future.

Let us take this as a lesson, rather than a rejection.

I am a Katherine Harris supporter.

Stating this here has the semblance of standing up in an AA meeting.

I lost a lot of respect and favor for this forum when RedState Directors were one of the first conservative groups to call for Katherine Harris' head prior to the GOP primary.

Katherine Harris was one of the most conservative candidates in the 2006 U.S. Senate election. This forum--and the GOP--made a conscious decision to throw Harris under the bus, back up, and leave innumerable skid marks upon her at every opportunity prior to the primary election.

It became much more crucial for you as a group to decapitate Harris because she "couldn't beat Nelson" than to support a conservative candidate with a solid voting record. Nobody who called for Harris' to step down offered an alternative other than the "he's got $2M in the bank" Mark Foley. Yes, Red State Harris bashers suggested Mark Foley for U.S. Senate. It didn't matter that some of us knew the baggage Foley would bring to the table. What would y'all have done if Foley was the primary winner and then his escapades exposed?

So--as you all re-group and re-think your strategies, please know that a very conservative woman who personally knows and campaigned for Katherine Harris is disturbed by your ultra-early decision to abandon a conservative in favor of "anything who can win the race." Thanks for nothing.

You know I love you, BUT...ah, I could analyze that one to knew there was a but heading your way...

it's bad form to call out the President today of all days. It wasn't just the President here. There were a LOT of people in government sitting on their bottoms, not earning their income, and just, in general, not doing what they get paid for: representing their constituents. That's why they didn't get re-elected. There are outlying factors, of course there are. But to place the blame solely on the President is scapegoating and poor showing. I, too, have some feelings of upset with how my Commander-in-Chief has handled recent issues, but today wasn't the day to bring them out. If you want to blame someone, start kicking everyone single one of the ones that were sitting on their laurels in their *AHEM* soccer balls (see picture reference). Attacking President Bush isn't going to bring this election back nor does it explain why we lost elections. Period.

If you need to go after someone, you can include him in the part that's due him, but not ONLY him. You better get your little wooden junior high whack a mole paddle out, because there are a whole lot of targets to blame for the mess that was this election and not just the convenient one sitting in the big, fancy house in DC.

"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"

I think we needed that.

Yesterday I had not one ill word for him. It's only when I found out that Rummy was gone that I got mad at him.

My anger has nothing to do with the election. It has everything to do with Bush's about face after the election.

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, this smells like what Arnold Schwarzenegger did after his initiative slate lost. He went hard left fast, trying to appease the Democrats in the legislature in order to make himself popular again.
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

this particular Cabinet is. If Rummy is gone it's because he wants to be gone. There are a whooooooole mess of things we don't know about. It's probably better that way. I like D.R. and I'm sad to see him go. At the same time, I know that both he and the President are aware of reasons for him leaving that have nothing to do with this election, I'm sure.

"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"

I understand many are demoralized after Tuesday.

But, Rumsfeld had to go. If Bush had done it in the days before the election, he gets pilloried because it looks like he's pandering to Democrats. If he does it after the election, he gets pilloried because he's pandering to Democrats. One thing I think we heard loud and clear on Tuesday is that a majority of the electorate is dissatisfied with the situation in Iraq, and our inability to force this to a conclusion. I think in the last month, Bush had started to realize this himself, and that a serious course correction was necessary. It needed to be demonstrated, and it needed to be dramatic, and so, Rummy had to go. The fact is that the Dems were just going to be dragging him up to the Hill constantly anyway, so it's just as well. He's served admirably and started the process of transformation. He made few friends among the establishment military leaders during that process, and his ability to lead was probably damaged too much to see this through. Now, someone from the ISG will take over Defense, provide a more coniliatory tone, and, hopefully, neutralize the calls for someone's head at Defense. Bush was too loyal to Rumsfeld, but Rumsfeld was loyal to him, and that's his M.O. I doubt letting him go any later than after the 2004 election would have done much to change yesterday's outcome.

We all can find faults with the Bush administration. They have let me down on immigration, social security reform, tax reform, NCLB, prescription drugs, and, I am sure, other areas I can't think of right now. But, he was right, and remains right, on Iraq, GWOT, and judges, and those are issues that dwarf all the rest, IMO.

Given the perceived rottenness of the Iraq aftermath, I suppose this kind of backlash was inevitable. The administration has NOT spent enough time keeping the American informed on top of the GWOT and understanding we are a nation at War. That has allowed the MSM and the Left to lull the American people into thinking that perhaps this war, and it's major front in Iraq, are not really worth the effort - that perhaps the threat isn't that big. We know that is wrong, and we have a responsibility to ourselves and our children to ensure we do a better job keeping the GWOT in the forefront of people's minds.

W gets his share of the blame for not pushing the reasons why the GWOT is important, and that clearly helped motivate D's. But, the loss of the House is largely the House leadership's fault. Dennis Hastert has been largely ineffective and Bill Frist a poor man's Bob Dole. If this teaches our Senators and Representatives anything, let's hope it is a return to the ideals of smaller, less wasteful government, accountability, and conservative ideals. Conservatism wins elections. But, this Congress, perhaps fueled by the President's center-right agenda and the mistaken belief that bringing home the bacon keeps you in office, and particularly its leaders, is mostly responsible for Tuesday's defeat. Liddy Dole should go back to filling her chair from NC and Hastert take a seat back on the bench. Nancy Pelosi promises "the most ethical Congress ever." Let's see if we can hold her to that promise and get oir own house in order.

In two years, we will have the opportunity to win back some of these marginal seats. It is vitally important that the GOP work hard to get attractive and winnable candidates to fill these seats. I fear, though, that the PA and RI senate seats are lost to us forever, and we have lost a good, tough Senator in Rick Santorum, who is really a victim here, and another good Senator in George Allen, but he really brought this on himself by running a truly mediocre campaign.

I'm ready to look forward to 2008, and my key issues will remain the same - the judiciary and the GWOT. I'd like to regain the House and Senate, so I'd like to see a nominee with some carrying power.

Thanks for your time and don't get down. The worst that could happen in our government is a stalemate, and that wouldn't be the worst possible outcome anyway...

The Liberal's definition of torture: Anything that provides useful information from the enemy

There have been a lot of accusations, blame, and name-calling today that remind me of the left attacking the right. We are all still sore from the beating we took yesterday and we need to step back away from this for a little while. We are speaking from our emotions and that is something that libs do.

Did I want to blame President Bush? Yes. Did I do that earlier today in my blog? Yes. But after doing some serious thinking about this I have recanted.

My knee-jerk reaction to President Bush's press conference today was of shock and outrage. I felt like not only had he betrayed the conservative wing of the GOP but that he was handing us all over the to Dems. I was so despondent I turned on Rush because I needed some optimism and encouragement. Big surprise! Rush was hammering the GOP, too.

I thought to myself, "Can this be happening? Is the GOP fracturing before my eyes?"

The resounding answer is "No." I began to seek answers on how we can ensure a victory over the Dems in 2008. Saying we're sorry and championing conservative ideals isn't going to cut it for 2008. It won't be enough. We need help from the Dems. "How can we get it?" you may ask. I'll tell you.

The House is going to be controlled by what is undoubtedly the most liberal group of chairmen in the nation's history. President Bush and the Congressional GOP needs to do everything in their power to force the hand of the Dems. Make them vote against legislation that most Americans are for. Let them pass legislation that has a demonstrably negative effect on the economy and the pocketbooks of Americans. Let them push their anti-family gay marriage agenda.

Those are the kinds of things that put the GOP in power in 1994 and that is exactly the kind of help we need for 2008. We can't do it alone. Let's give the Dems enough rope to hang themselves.

Steve Lockridge

-- Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong. -- Ronald Reagan

Absolutely. We need to focus on knocking the Democrats out of power, like we did in 1994. The same tactics are needed. We can improve on those and borrow tactics the Democrats used as well.

The point is that we win by tearing the Democrats down. Every vote, every word, every action must be directed at trashing the Democrats and winning the Congress back.

I agree - Its not even close - people of strong "timeless" principles can not fall apart - just can't happen - principles guide us, not people. Principles hold ground that people can not touch. The Far right ain't going anywhere, and neither are the Big Tenters.

I only see the DEMS fracturing. Here is why: apart from Oboma and perhaps Webb, the DEM bench is weak - no one is coming up through the ranks - why - because no one joined them during Reagan's decade and no one joined them during the Contract w/ America and no one joined them during the Clinton scandals. The leadership for the DEMS is old and far left. They smell like my grandmother's house. They continue to herd cats (PETA, EMILYS LIST, Black caucus, anti-war-bush-lied-MOveOn (movealong) crowd, labor union, Hollywood) These groups are each kind of small, very loud, and really don't follow similar paths, not to mention they are hardly a group of stand up Americans.

Also, please repeat several times today - "Midterm elections are murderous on the party in power" (especially during war time) the election was actually quite average from that standpoint - plus we won alot of conservative propositions etc.

Lastly, from a top down view, the dems did not win on anything that I could quote you except "Bush Lied." Had we lost TO something (say a DEM plan in Iraq, i.e. cut and run) I would be very concerned. But there really wasn't a challenger, just shadows that could not be explained - Reagan's Party lives and this mis-step is an excellent opportunity to clean out RINO's and watch the dems pull out their 1970's playbook. I can't wait.

President Bush is compromising too much with Pelosi and Reid. He needs to stick to his principles and remember his base. Although the Democratic victory in the midterms is a huge setback for his administration and the country as a whole, he can still have tremendous accomplishments in his last two years if he chooses to stick to his principles. and
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service