Fighting an Enemy Congress

Bill Bennett has a Great Idea

By Mark I Posted in Comments (39) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Last week on his radio show, Morning in America, Bill Bennett proposed that the GOP presidential candidates hold a joint press conference. The purpose of such an event would be for the declared candidates to position themselves firmly beside President Bush and in support of his policies in fighting the Global War on Terror. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the candidates would be placing themselves directly in the path of a Congress hell bent on bringing about a defeat for America in Iraq.

Every candidate for the GOP nomination needs to stand up right now. In fact, I'd urge them to hold a joint press conference and stand up and say a) they support the troops and their mission; b) they believe in giving Petraeus and Lynch and their boys a chance; and c) that they will do everything in their political power to lead us through to victory, rather than retreat. It would be a helluva statement and a necessary corrective to the national debate. They should get together on this and do it next week. It would make the cover of every paper and we think it'd show the American people and the world that while we are divided on some things, we are not divided on war—at least one party in America is not divided. Guys, do this.

This is an idea whose time is now. This week, Congress continues to debate new and exciting plans designed to guarantee failure and humiliation in Iraq. The Republican presidential candidates, who stand to inherit the disaster the Democratic Congress is attempting to engineer, should put their primary rivalry aside for one day and fight back.

Read on…

Bennett fleshes out the rationale for his idea a little more in an article today at National Review Online. He concedes that the media narrative of the presidential campaign thus far has focused on how much daylight there is between an unpopular White House and the Republican candidates. However, Bennett argues that on the issue of the Global War on Terror, which by al-Qaeda’s reckoning includes Iraq, it would be to the candidates’ political advantage to be as close to the president as possible.

Do the candidates need to distance themselves from the president in order to win the presidency? We think not. Americans will not vote for surrender when the stakes are clearly laid out. Does the left that claims they support the troops and want to end their strain have the moral high ground? No, and John McCain (who knows a thing or two about a war that politicians undercut when the military is committed to victory) put this will-o-the-wisp political argument to rest on the Senate floor last week when he said, “The fact is, when you lose a war, the consequences of failure are far, far more severe on the military than the strain that’s put on the military when it’s fighting. It’s a fact.” McCain then reviewed the [loss of the Vietnam War], saying it led not only to a demoralized military that it took a decade to recover from, but it led to “three million people slaughtered in one of the greatest acts of genocide in history…thousands killed in reeducation camps, and thousands more executed,” all while the “liberal Left” argued “Yeah, we cared about American casualties.” [emphasis in original]

We are told over and over by the mainstream press and Democrats that the American people are tiring of the war. This may be the case, but it does not follow then that they want to lose it. I challenge anyone who bases their political calculations on the premise that the country is not signed up for this war. It is definitely not signed up for the violence and the reporting on it, but it is equally not signed up for losing or for leaving a bloody mess behind. If it was, the United States would be a lot closer to being out of Iraq than it is. Democrats know this, and it is why they cannot muster the votes to cut off funds for the war.

Some may argue that not all of the Republican candidates will want to tie themselves so closely to Bush on Iraq. Others may say that not all of the candidates will agree on the best way forward in Iraq. I say that they must. The Republican nominee will not have a shot of winning the presidency if he presents himself as a watered-down Democrat on the war. The American people would rather vote for the real thing. The Republicans must differentiate themselves from the Democrats, and on this issue, the most important of the campaign, those differences must be clear and sharp. Furthermore, the candidates don’t have to agree on a strategy going forward. They only have to agree that Congress’s attempts to undermine the troops and the war are harmful and must be resisted. They must only agree with Bennett’s pledge:

“On this issue, on the war against Islamic terror, in the battle for Iraq, we stand with one voice and one policy: Victory. We support both the troops and the mission and you cannot divide that support. The troops and their generals believe in what they are doing, that they can win if they are given the necessary support. We believe them, we believe in them, and will do everything in our political power to help see them through to victory. On this issue, there is no daylight [between] the president, our servicemen and women in Iraq, and us. We will not support premature withdrawal or surrender.”

This event must happen and it must happen soon. You can help. That’s what the shiny red button at the top of this post is for. Click on it and you will be taken to the Republican National Committee’s contacts web page. From there, you can send an e-mail or place a phone call to the Chairman’s office, the political director, the communications office, member relations, and so on. You can also link to your state party headquarters and send e-mails or place phone calls to them. Let the Republican Party at all levels know that you want to see our candidates unite against Congress on the issue of the Global War on Terror. Let them know that this issue is the defining issue for Republicans in this campaign and that your support is contingent on the Republican nominee standing up to Congress and taking a strong position on prosecuting the war. You lobby members of Congress, you can lobby a political party as well. This event will happen, and change the narrative of the 2008 campaign, if enough Republicans and Conservatives make their voices heard.

Bill Bennett has a good idea. We have only to carry it out.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | McCain outlasts Gilmore, shows staying powerComments (1) »
Fighting an Enemy Congress 39 Comments (0 topical, 39 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

AND we can do it while still distancing ourselves from this failing president. GOPers can say they support the Petraeus plan, which thankfully Bush had the good sense to adopt.

@ Charles Bird
Good point. Get behind General Petraeus' Plan.

This would be a better idea if someone came up with a policy that could produce victory that did not involve taking a "position themselves firmly beside President Bush." No candidate is going to tie themselves to the mast of a sinking ship, and that's exactly what the Bush administration is right now.

But then again, if someone could come up with that policy, they'd run on it, in order to try to win the Presidency. And frankly, if they did, they'd deserve to be elected; there'd be no need for this kind of group show. So either way, I don't get the point of Bennett's proposal.

But if you want to beat the candidates up for not agreeing to something that's so obviously counter-productive and a complete waste of everyone's time besides, have at it.

There is no one policy that will produce victory, save for pledging the determination to see victory achieved. No plan survives contact with the enemy, and constant revisions, changes, and perhaps reversals will be in order. However, that fact is not nearly as important as committing to achieving victory, regardless of the time, resources, or number of plans required to realize the goal.

Some Democrats say they want to win, but an increasing number don't bother to even give victory lip service. It is this contrast that the candidates would be highlighting by appearing together.

The point of this exercise is not to "beat up on the candidates," but to encourage them, by appealing to the Republican electorate, to come out in strong fashion against the Democrat Congress's, and by extension the Democrat presidential candidates', plans to lose the war.

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

Victory in Iraq is not up to us. It is up to the Iraqis. And so far, we have not shown the Iraqis why an American victory would also be their victory.

You will not win over the independents with this strategy. The base will not win the next election without independents. I am not advocating Republicans adopt a more Democratic profile, but this approach is not a winner.

And the Petraeus plan only deals with a limited area in the WOT. A more encompassing plan has to be put forth to get out in front of the Dems with ideas and actions that show an understanding of the global nature of the war.

From your comment, I gather that you would argue that the country wants out of Iraq to the point of accepting defeat, and all of its attendant consequences, there.

I simply couldn't disagree more.

Petraeus's plan to secure the capital of Iraq, combined with the routing of al-Qaeda in Anbar and Diyala provinces, will be decisive in the battle of Iraq. Iraq is al-Qaeda's self declared central front in the war. If successful, the benefits of defeating al-Qaeda on their central battlefield will be realized in Afghanistan, Somalia, and anywhere else al-Qaeda is attempting to set up shop.

I argue that Republicans do understand the global nature of the war. It is the Dems who have to demonstrate that they can think beyond Tora Bora.

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

but the current plans as implemented by this President are what they have doubts about. At least most of America that is not Republican.

Are you privy to the internal deliberations of al-Qaeda? Just because they say Iraq is the central front in the war does not mean THEY believe that. Propaganda is a wonderful wartime tool and costs them nothing. They have been down before and have come back, so a "defeat" might not deal them the blow you hope it will.

It is the Republican focus on Iraq and what is understood to be important that could end up costing us this war. Republicans need to demonstrate they can think beyond Baghdad.

Americans want to win. On that we are agreed.

I choose to believe what al-Qaeda leaders tell us. Like back in the 90's when they said they were going to kill Americans world wide and at home, and then they did. That is unless, of course, you have some internal information you'd like to share.

As for Iraq/Afghanistan, again you have it exactly backwards. It is Democrats who argue that Iraq is a "distraction from the real war on terror." Republicans have always argued that America can walk and chew gum at the same time, and that it must take on al-Qaeda anywhere and everywhere. It is Democrats who first agreed and have since changed their tune as the political winds have changed direction.

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

Dont distance yourself from the Bush Administration. They are fighting the war and if they win, history will forget everything else that went on these last 7 years. Can you name me a major piece of legislation that was passed during the civil war, wwI or WWII? The answer is no.

I like Bill Bennett, but he and the other talk show hosts should put out also. How about all the top 20 conservative talk show hosts hold a press conference and outline a combined effort to combat the perceptions of dems and the msm. In this press conference, they can talk about their joint effort to bring context to the Iraq War. Which the media fails to do. On every one of their shows they can have a twenty minute segment dissecting the daily ap narrative or other msm story. They can use Michael Yon as there reporter on the ground and they can take turns interviewing him on a daily basis. They can take turns interviewing legislators who support the war. All this can be done as an ad hoc network until the war is won. They must have a combined unduplicated audience of over 50 million. Like the immigration debate, they can make a huge difference.

If the surge on the ground fails over the next few months, then it is all a moot point. But if things continue positively, then our goal over the next few months should be to firm up the republican base. Put pressure on waffling republicans with a threat of a primary challenge. Threaten Dems in strong Republican states. Change the narrative from defense to offense. Always talk about winning and the surge in the same breath. But,most of all, build up Gen Petraeus's credibility to Patton like status amongst the American people. If we do this and at the same time tear down the credibility of the msm and the dems, by September his report will be the only voice that counts

Your statement

"regardless of the time, resources, or number of plans required to realize the goal."

resonates with something I heard Bill Kristol saying last week, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

It feels like someone at the Blackjack table that's already lost quite a bit and is now just going to gamble their entire life savings away because they can't walk away with a bit of egg on their face.

William Kristol excoriated a questioner for being concerned with the cost of the Iraq endeavor. According to Bill we have infinite financial resources for Iraq (if necessary). Well excuse me, but I think that a fiscal conservative has to be concerned with cost and has to be able to show a cost / benefit analysis of staying in Iraq. And to me, the amount we can spend there is nowhere near unlimited.

Would that this was a game of black jack, but it's not. I think that the consequences of losing are a bit higher than "walking away with egg on their face."

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

Recall before the War Larry Lindsay (Bush's economic adviser at the time) stated that the war could cost as much as $100-200B. He was soundly beaten by the more hawkish members of the Admin for such a high estimate.

To you, and Bill Kristol, the price doesn't seem to matter. However, it seems that lowballing the price estimate was intrinsic in getting approval for the war, so there is a case to be made that the approval of the war is (in part) related to the financial cost of the war. I'm sure you can agree that Iraq war opposition would be even more severe if we had a specific war tax being subracted from our paychecks (like our medicare tax for instance).

Besides, Iraq is a battle in the GWOT (yes, I'm aware that certain members of AQ have said it's the be all and end all, but forgive me for not believing anything that any member of AQ says). To me, it's a battle and there are much more important battlegrounds for defeating AQ (heroin production, recruiting levels, etc).

I know that nobody likes the idea of leaving with their tail between their legs, but if you tell me can't control heroin production in Afghanistan because we're concentrating on vanquishing AQ from one Baghdad neighborhood for a week before we go to another (and then they come back) I'd say our priorities are not quite right.

This is a nice meme that originated with the left:

I know that nobody likes the idea of leaving with their tail between their legs, but if you tell me can't control heroin production in Afghanistan

You mean the war on drugs works? Seems like we've been trying to end coca production and trafficking for decades now without making a dent in it. I'm sure opium will be totally different. Besides, terrorists have other sources of funding (charities for starters) and they require very little in the way of funds to operate. Terrorism is the cheapest global business you can be in.

Recall before the War Larry Lindsay (Bush's economic adviser at the time) stated that the war could cost as much as $100-200B.

I'm shocked that something is costing more than the government initially expected it to cost. Oh wait, no I'm not. It happens every time the government does anything. If they can't get the cost of a giveaway program right, or accurately predict the tax revenues one year out, how are they supposed to get the cost of an entire war right? Anyway, it is irrelevant. Add me to the "cost doesn't matter" list. Compared to what we are spending on handouts every year, the cost of the war is nothing. And the stakes are great.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

you to the list of not fiscally conservative.

Also, if you think the government boondoggle (affecionately known as the "war on drugs") has/had any intention of crimping overall illegal narcotic movements I've got some bridges to sell you!

Also, the government didn't officially make any Iraq war cost predictions. Hawkish members of the Admin were repeatedly pressed to predict costs and occasionally some of them gave vague referrences to what are now known to be adsurdly low numbers.

Which brings up another issue: If the Admin members believed the numbers....once again we have to question their grasp of reality / middle east affairs / military cost (in short their competency to lead).....but if they didn't believe their own numbers why were they being deliberately deceptive?

By the way, as a fiscal conservative I would like to see ALL major federal government spending groups itemized on my paycheck (why stop at SS and medicare)?

Also, if you think the government boondoggle (affecionately known as the "war on drugs") has/had any intention of crimping overall illegal narcotic movements I've got some bridges to sell you!

We've spent plenty of time and money on Latin America in an attempt to get rid of coca fields. We spend plenty of time and money on interdiction of the finished product. I guess that's not because we wanted to crimp the supply of illegal drugs. So what's your tinfoil hat theory on it's real (no doubt nefarious) purpose? And why would you expect that tinfoil hat theory (whatever it is) to not be operable in opium crop destruction in Afghanistan?

If the Admin members believed the numbers....once again we have to question their grasp of reality / middle east affairs / military cost (in short their competency to lead).....but if they didn't believe their own numbers why were they being deliberately deceptive?

So where were all the accurate numbers? If the administration were trying to run a game, surely there are people who saw through it and came up with their own, much better, estimates, right? I don't think the estimates are that bad, actually, by government standards, and given the totally unpredictable nature of war expenditures. Do you think there has ever been an accurate prediction of what a war would cost before the first battle? What was the initial estimate on WWI? WWII? Korea? Vietnam?

By the way, as a fiscal conservative I would like to see ALL major federal government spending groups itemized on my paycheck (why stop at SS and medicare)?

That would be pretty unworkable, actually. FICA is only itemized because it is taxed in a separate system. That's not a good thing. Taxing everything separately makes the tax burden appear to be more reasonable than it would if they lumped it together. That's why phone companies add a dozen different little line item taxes and fees that add up to 1/3 of your phone bill, while each is insignificant on its own.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

We call a government wealth redistribution system a "war on drugs" because it is a catchy name. It's all about taking more money from taxpayers and accomplishing absolutely nothing (the availability and inflation adjusted price of drugs is cheaper now than when we started). It serves to line the pockets of certain individuals. The federal government can accomplish things when it wants to (Apollo moon landings), but when it just wants to cheat us it can do that brilliantly.

There were much higher (and thus more accurate) war cost estimates....they were pooh poohed by the Administration.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on what we think would look more reasonable on a paycheck.

Well by zuiko

It serves to line the pockets of certain individuals.

If you are going to go all tin-foil hat wearing Ron-Paulite on this one, you should just go full isolationist. Any money we spend on the war on terrorism is also probably just going to line the pockets of certain individuals. Why would it be any different? So why should we be spending any taxpayer money at all on the GWOT?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It's definitely a concern.

Better oversight I guess is the only answer.

It's definitely a concern.

Better oversight I guess is the only answer.

There is much more to fiscal conservatism that wanting to limit the dollars spent by the Federal government. There is the concept of appropriate Federal expenditures. That is, spending on initiatives that the Federal government is empowered by the Constitution to undertake versus spending on those that it is not.

Since "provid[ing] for the common Defense" is the preeminient role for the Federal government envisioned by the Constitution, it is perfectly consistent for someone to claim to be a fiscal conservative and support spending any amount of money necessary to assure that defense.

The same does not go for, say, education, which the Constitution is silent on. Fiscal conservatives do not support Federal spending on No Child Left Behind, for example, not just becuase of the sheer dollar figures, but becuase education is the province of the States, not the Federal government.

Please stop declaring who is and is not a fiscal conservative based on their willingness to spend on the war. It's silly, and it only serves to bring your motives in this thread into question.

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

It's possible to have multiple interpretations of what it means to be fiscally conservative.....your take seems to be much more federal government oriented than my take. I'd simply assert that being fiscally conservative means not wasting money on frivolity.

According to your logic we could have tax rates of 90% and so long as it was all being spent on Iraq we'd still be fiscally conservative.

My point in this whole thread is that I for one am sickened by the financial cost of the Iraq occupation. I think we could more effectively redeploy the funds to other fronts in the war on terror and have that money be more effective in fighting terror.

You see it differently. Fine.

My finer point is that I wonder (aloud) how many of my fellow Americans (who have changed their conviction to the Iraq occupation) have also done so primarily based on a financial cost / benefit standpoint.

My finer point is that I wonder (aloud) how many of my fellow Americans (who have changed their conviction to the Iraq occupation) have also done so primarily based on a financial cost / benefit standpoint.

Yea, I guess that would explain all the outrage over SS and Medicare, since we've spent about ten times times as much on those two programs, since we've been in Iraq, as we have on the Iraq war. Of course those programs will continue their explosive growth on into the future, while spending on Iraq shrinks and eventually ends completely.

It seems pretty odd to be so concerned about the cost of the war in Iraq when there's much bigger fish to fry on the "fiscal conservative" front... enough that I'd say it is more of a convenient excuse than a rationale for opposing Iraq.

You also keep throwing out this cost/benefit analysis stuff. How much did losing Vietnam, and illustrating to the entire hostile world that we are a paper tiger that can be beat, cost us? How much would losing WWII have cost us? These unimaginably massive costs that would need to be taken into account in any real kind of analysis.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

This country once did have top marginal tax rates of 90%. They were brought about to pay, mostly, for a little police action known as World War II. Would you like to venture a cost/benefit analysis of that one?

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

Frankly, the very mention of WW II in the same breath as the Iraq occupation is an insult. We cannot equate a few thousand ill equipped (unless you think IED's are the equivalent of the Japanese Navy or the German airforce), privately funded (mostly via heroin), rag tag idiots to the threats that were faced in the 1940's.

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

That is ridulous. You fight the war to win regardless of the financial cost. There are things that finances become unimportant.

Last week the Defeat Caucus in Congress and their allies in the media launched a major counter-offesive aimed at blocking our massive and successful surge in Iraq.

Week One: First, the media fired a barrage of stories intended to soften up the defenders and cause panic in the ranks (quite successful with a dozen or so Republican pantywaists who ran shrieking for the exit): a story claiming that President Bush was ready to start pulling troops out immediately and start adoting BH recommendations immediately; a story that Sen McCain had changed his mind on Iraq and would make a speech stating he was withdrawing his support; and a story that the Iraq government had failed to meet any of the 18 benchmarks set for review.

All three of these stories were widely hyped and spun and megaphoned for the next week. All three were entirely false. Or as I like to say, lies.

In a remarkably good week for him, the President demonstrated the resilience, determination and -- yes -- confidence that have made him such a fine wartime leader. An unusually introspective speech in Cleveland, a forceful press conference demolishing the Defeat Caucus case and media case on the benchmarks, and a powerful, frank interview with journalists simply destroyed the media lie that the President had been considering withdrawal.

Sen McCain, in the midst of his collapsing Presidential campaign, delivered one of his finest speeches ever on the war and need to continue the surge.

These developments marked a turning point in the countersurge. The Defeat Caucus had intended to present a number of amendments to the Defense Authorization bill --

Webb-Hagel: Murtha's slow bleed strategy of simply cutting off troops by limiting redeployments. Widely hyped to pass.

Feingold: troop withdrawls after 120 days, funding cut off after Mar 31, 2008. A non-starter that got 29 votes last time.

Levin-Reed: Like Feingold but without funding cutoff. Hyped to pass.

Clinton-Byrd: Redo of 2002 Iraq Resolution. Hillary panders to the base. No chance.

Alexander-Salazar: Legislative adaptation of Baker Hamilton Iraq Surrender Group recommendation. Hyped to pass.

Only Webb-Hagel came up for debate, it failed cloture and was withdrawn.

The House meanwhile passed its cut and run bill for the third time. It will die in the Senate or be vetoed.

At the end of the week Sens Lugar and Warner, with their tin ear for the zeitgeist, offered their amandment which appears to be identical to the one Hillary and Sheets offered.

Week two starts out after the Defeat caucus has suffered a few reverses. On one of the Sunday shows Alexander admitted he did not have the votes for his amendment to pass. Sen Levin on another show admitted he did know what the correct number of troops in Iraq should be, if his amendment passed.

The outlook is much less rosy for the Defeat Caucus this week, after a week in which Republicans finally fought back.

The best ammo the media can come up with is a story that Gen Pace stated that the JCS is looking at increasing troops in September in Iraq. Right. That's because that's their job -- to be able to tell the President what he needs to know about keeping troop levels the same, decreasing, or increasing.

The President, according to Rasmussen today, has regained the support among Republicans he lost in the immigration desaster, and is seeing a rebound in his avorable rating.

This is what happens when you stand up and fight back. Will our candidates (except McCain already on board) join this effort?

Hahahaha! I really can't believe you characterized the Webb-Hagel bill as "Murtha's slow bleed strategy of simply cutting off troops by limiting redeployments."

This bill was unarguably supporting the troops being deployed to Iraq by requiring that they recieve leave time equal to overseas deployment time (something that has been promised by the administration in the past). Classifying it as "slow bleed" implies that it is against the troops and is a complete falsity.

I think I'm beginning to see that Republicans (or at least those with the president) think supporting the troops means supporting the commanders, not actually worrying about the men on the ground.

-Thesis

Once gone, forever gone. ISP blocking comes next.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

You said
"Classifying it as "slow bleed" implies that it is against the troops and is a complete falsity."

Your remarks indicate an unfamiliarity with the debate surrounding Webb-hagel and its predecessor in the House, Murtha's bill. Contrary to what you seem to think, the phrase "slow bleed" did not originate with me, nor does its use imply that W-H "is against the troops."

No. "Slow bleed" was an off-the-cuff remark by Okinawa Jack to some group that the purpose of his amendment (similar to Webb's but, I believe, without the waiver for the President to obtain troops if Congress says OK) was not to shorten deployments but to prevent the President from being able to use troops; thus, it was a different way of obtaining a troop withdrawal, and that was the purpose.

I use it here to point out that Webb's amendment is equally designed to force a troop withdrawal. That is certainly why it failed.

Actually I think politico.com coined the term when referring to Murtha's proposal. So far as I know he's never said it, except perhaps in response to a question asking about the politico's characterization.

someone else used the phrase "Slow Bleed" in describing Murtha's policy.

My point was that I used it as shorthand to refer to the policy of cutting off redeployments as a way of forcing troop withdrawals. I think it's well understood that that's what both Murtha and Webb have in mind.

“They won’t be able to continue. They won’t be able to do the deployment. They won’t have the equipment, they don’t have the training and they won’t be able to do the work. There’s no question in my mind.”

--Jack Murtha on the floor of Congress

What will Richard Viguerie say? If all the Republican candidates do that (except for Ron Paul) American Target Marketing will have to produce a billion pieces of direct mail calling them all fake conservatives!

Note to Fred Thompson and all the rest of our candidates:

If American Target doesn't like you any more because you decide to do this, drop me a line. I'd be happy to handle your mailing requirements. Viguerie might have had an IBM mainframe, but I'll bet he never programmed one in Assembly language.

And I take Bill Bennett at face value on this and don't think there's anything underhanded about it, it really strikes me as incongruous that the technological leader of the Conservatives in America who is widely recognized for pioneering the use of direct-mail campaigns to circumvent the MSM is so directly at odds with another Conservative icon, Bill Bennett.

Frankly I think this is a microcosm of what's happening to Republicans and Conservatives in general right now. In spite of what The Economist thinks, George W. Bush has never goverened as a Conservative and he also hasn't been very successful at enacting policies or carrying them through.

I don't know exactly what Viguerie would have to say about this, but an educated guess is that he'd immediately condemn all of the Republican candidates who took part in such an initiative. Maybe he and Bill Bennett could meet for lunch and talk about how their plans for slicing and dicing the Conservatives away from the Republicans are going...

The consequences of losing are too great.

“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan

OK, want to talk dollars & cents? How much will leaving 60% of the world's oil reserves to regional anarchy, AQ, the 12th Imman, or all of the above cost?

sheesh! Sometimes I think this country wants to die. There's no other explanation for why we are all so suicidally dumb.

The Republican futures are rising with their firm stand on Iraq, Rasmussen shows the President now poling at 39%, up 10 points. There is no need to throw the President overboard, as much as lefties would like to see that.

There is no option but victory in Iraq and the GWOT (period) The President is still the Commander in Chief until 2008. Now that North Korea is coming around, Iran awaits.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_update...

“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan

Ref: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070717/D8QE47L02.html

It says he'll hold quorum calls and votes all night. The idea is to debate Reed-Levin etc. embarrass Republicans who support Bush. This is obviously a big waste of time for the purposes of political theater. Why can't the GOP send one person to make sure cloture votes are taken on everything and let the rest enjoy a good night's sleep? The Dems can go there and bluster all they want as long as they can't pass anything.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


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