Redstate

Keep us in power, we're less sucky!

or

Keep us in power, we may be spending like drunken sailors....but we've only been drinking beer!

We will win in November. But we have to get through the long, hot, summer first. No honest polls of 'likely' voters before fall. So they (MSM) will continue to try to discourage us with phony polls and highlighting Republican problems. Then we win! And two years later we will endure the same process and no one will remember. That is what is most amusing.

There is an argument that can be made for divided government. When Clinton was president the conservative congress forced him to cut the budget. When Bush came to power that very same congress did a 180 degree turn and became big spenders. One can blame 9/11 and the war on terror only so many times before conservatives stop listening.

Guess what ? We've stopped listening...

but we will just get a spine-less run Republican Government again.

Lets at least toss one or two of the most spine-less out.

Send out the message, new Republicans (with a spine) needed.

I don't believe those in the media who blindly think the democrats will pick up 40-50 seats this November. The republicans have a big advantage in fund raising and there aren't that many competitive seats. (As there were in 1994)

But having said that, if the Iraq war continues the way its going... if gas prices continue to stay above $3 a gallon... and if the repubs sign an amnesty program for illegals, the dems will pick up between 15-20 seats in November.

I think you are wrong and this issue will not be won or lost on issues, instead the bases will decide this election.

On the Left; the Democratic base is all fired up. The think they are going to get what they want, nae taste,  revenge against President Bush, the war in Iraq, tax cuts and whole range of issues. They are mad, and mad voters vote.

On the Right, other than advancement of social conservative issues, Republicans in the House are just Democrat lites, with a policy of spending and growing government at every turn. What happened to the party that once believed that government was not the answer to our countries problems?

Who knows, if the Democrats take the House, we might even see a Presidental Veto of a spending bill, something that has not been seen in over 6 long years.

We MUST keep the House and Senate if we want the next two Supreme Court appointees to be strict constructionists.

Beyond that, the prospect of Democrats on parade with their hands on the purse strings will be scary.  

I know, Bush can use his veto.  What was the point, though, of gaining a majority if we fail to hold on to it?

Voting this cycle is critical.  We MUST continue to vote conservatively and hold our representatives' feet to the fire.

Anything less is unacceptable to me.  So should the prospect of Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid, or Supreme Court Justice Moderate McSquishy.

G.W. Bush have vetoed 0 bills of any kind during his term in office, a modern record.

The last President to have no vetos was President James A. Garfield.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801767.html

The borders must be secured, immigration laws must be enforced, and spending has to be cut in some expeditious manner. We don't have the luxury of the old "they don't pay attention until Labor Day" cliche this time, either. Last week's psychotic episode in the United States Senate and this week's William Jefferson defense rally has attention focused now. If those three things are not underway by the long Fourth of July weekend, look for a very vengeful electorate this autumn.

Oddly, Iraq has become background noise in this election. For that we should be thankful.

Better than President Clinton, since Clinton would be a two-term president...

Look, sometimes it pays to lose. The Republicans aren't going to have any incentive to clean up their act if they don't get a jolt. Ah, you'll respond, but they're getting that jolt right now, given the conservative base's rage over illegal immigration, spending, and numerous other Republican failures! Well, obviously not. If they had gotten the message, they'd stop just being scared and do a 180 on every issue where the base is saying, "Stop doing that." But they're not doing that now, are they? So they're not going to learn, just by reading that conservatives are angry. Even AFTER the base exploded in fury at the GOP's plan to give legal status to illegal aliens, Mike Pence came out with a plan... to give legal status to illegal aliens! Or do guest workers not count as legal? Even AFTER the base registered its contempt for Bush's immigration policy, Bush pushed harder and harder to get illegals legalized. Even AFTER the base registered countless complaints about spending, Congress said, "Let's raise the debt ceiling. An $8 trillion national debt doesn't matter. After all, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Etc., etc., etc.

Okay, so Republicans are incapable of getting the message from hearing the base complain. Even as they get the message in that mild way, they're continuing to do the same things that got conservatives so hot under the collar in the first place. The Senate and White House aren't reversing themselves; indeed, the Senate gave us an immigration bill that pardons illegals who stole people's identities and ruined their credit ratings. I vividly remember Jean-Jacques McCain's passionate defense of his pro-identity-theft legislation. Okay, so the House isn't as contemptuous of the will of its base. But the White House and the upper chamber of Congress are. Why not send them a message? For those who aren't prepared to jump the ship, I propose a compromise. Dump your RINO Senator and vote to reward your Congressman--unless the latter is J. Dennis Hastert, of course, in which case just don't vote for Congressional Republicans at all this year.

Notice a pattern. In 2002 the conventional wisdom was that the GOP would lose seats in the House and Senate. Instead, it gained seats in both the House and the Senate. And the Republicans breathed a sigh of relief. Then in 2004 the conventional wisdom was that the GOP would lose seats in the House and Senate. Instead, it gained seats in both the House and the Senate. And again the Republicans breathed a sigh of relief. Now in 2006 the conventional wisdom is that the GOP will lose seats in the House and Senate. And you know what's going to happen if fortune saves the Republicans again. Don't think for one minute that they won't learn a very bad lesson if the same thing happens three election cycles in a row: the lesson that no matter how angry the base (or the general public) is with the Republican leadership, the Republicans can do whatever is making the people angry--and still not get a kick in the crotch on Election Day. Whenever you cast a vote, you're voting to reward the behavior of whichever candidate got your vote. And just what does that mean?

The Republicans have been getting consistently more liberal over the last couple of decades, and far more so in the last few years. If you keep voting Republican no matter how far to the left they move, then they'll never learn that in order to stay in office they'll have to stop moving left, and therefore they'll keep on moving left. Anyone who votes Republican this year will be ineligible to complain the next time the Republicans do something ultraliberal.

I'm quite prepared to live with Democrats in control of Congress. The GOP needs an intervention. The Party needs to be told in very harsh terms--harsh enough that it will finally understand--that it had better mend its evil ways, or else. But that threat will be empty if it's not backed up with action. And if electing Republicans is necessary to keep the Democrats from destroying this country... what on earth do we elect Republicans for?! George W. Bush and the Republican Congress have pushed through more of the liberal agenda that Bill Clinton ever could have. We need to stop the Democrats so that we can do what--get Harriet Miers and Consuelo Callahan on the Court? Create huge new welfare programs? Sign campaign finance reform into law? Expand federal control over education? Continue to coddle--and send our wealth to--Red China while she builds up her armed forces in preparation for you-know-what? Lose another war in the Middle East? Keep the borders open in the age of terrorism and suitcase nukes? Nominate McCain in 2008? Is this what the party of Coolidge, Taft, and Goldwater has been reduced to?

The 1976 loss was the best thing that ever happened to the GOP: It paved the way for Reagan. The way needs to be paved again. Today's GOP is even worse than the GOP of 1976. It needs some time to think. I say we should give them that time.

about the Supreme Court. First of all, Blanton warns of the danger of a Justice Gonzales, but who was it who so desperately wanted Gonzales on the Court? Oh, right--it was George W. Bush. And Orrin Hatch himself would've voted to confirm him. I've heard what Hatch said about Gonzo. In fact, the whole GOP, except maybe Coburn, would've voted yes on Gonzales, since it would be political suicide to vote against a Hispanic nominee.

My second point is historical. What do all these Justices have in common: Earl Warren, William J. Brennan Jr., Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter? Well, two things. One, they were ultra-left. Two, they were Republican appointees.

Now, Bush himself nominated Roberts, Miers, and Alito. For Alito, he deserves no credit, since he nominated Alito practically at gunpoint. Miers's favorite Justice was Warren; enough said. Admittedly, Roberts is good so far, but he's had less than one year on the Court, and he hasn't yet been called on to overturn a precedent, so don't get complacent; even Souter was conservative for a year, and Kennedy for four years. If Roberts turns out to be consistently good, which I don't believe he will, then he'll be the only stealth nominee in history who was. We could've had Luttig, and instead we got Roberts. I never talked to a liberal who didn't breathe a sigh of relief when it was Roberts instead of Alito. Doesn't that say something?

And Bush's next nominee will probably be Consuelo Callahan. If that happens, I'd like to know what the Save-the-Court Republicans will say then.

Stay home if you want, that's not what I mean.

Just don't think you'll be sending a message.  The only thing the Republicans will learn from a Democrat win is that they should be more like Democrats.

That's how the system works.  Winners get emulated.

As your loyal opposition, I want to encourage that sort of thinking.  Sure, you're gonna win.  Just sit tight, it'll all be okay. Reee-lax.

<grin>

Do you think that just because people are pissed off at the leadership of the party they are going to stay home? If you ask me if all you have to vote for is hate and more hate, with a ting of revenge, you are more likely to stay home.

I am voting ... in the primaries and in the general election.

And yes, immigration is the issue.

I disagree that Iraq will be decisive this election cycle, and gasoline prices seem headed down. These will be background problems mostly beyond anyone's control. The immediate issues that must get attention are illegal immigration and runaway spending. The public in general and the base in particular are focused on both. If the president were to seriously crackdown on employers of illegal aliens, and if he would veto a spending bill or at least demand Congress tighten its belt, and do those things before the next summer holiday, we could hold on.

Otherwise, the wave it would take to have 15 or more House seats and six or more Senate seats change hands will come ashore. The odd thing about the issues the politicians can control are their popularity with both the base and the general public. Unfortunately, the party elites seem obstinate in their positions.

George W. Bush got almost 60 million votes, that sent a message loud and clear: Keep the borders open, spend money we don't have, lose a war you started--we'll support you no matter what you do.

It seems he got the message loud and clear. And now Republicans complain that his policies aren't what they wanted. Now if that's true, why'd they vote for him?

It's the same with Congress. If it's known, as it will be, that the base stayed home, then that can't possibly encourage the Republicans to turn farther to the left, because they'll know that that's what made the base stay home.

...but this Dem, and most of the ones I know, aren't actually interested in impeachment.  For one thing, we saw how well it worked for your side.

By all means, let us know which one we've lost; I can't think of one more recent than our contemptible betrayal of South Vietnam, but then the two major ones that we've had recently - Afghanistan and Iraq - must be obscuring the one that you're apparently concerned about.

Unless you meant Kosovo?  No, Bush had nothing to do with that one.

Really, I am at a loss.

Which we haven't lost yet, but which I think we're losing. It's a difference of opinion that I don't think we'll bridge here. What I think is much less controversial is that this war is not going well at all. Certainly that's the opinion of the vast majority in this country, who (like me) want us out of there tout-suite.

Seems to me that you guys are the ones on a losing streak. Other than polls, which you always win, I'll grant, you don't have much else to show. Keep readin' 'em. But until you really win something, remarks like this are hard to take serious.

end your posting with a French phrase.

Only Republicans can turn on each other with such vengeance... the Democrats, even when things are going badly, are far better at staying united (or appearing so anyway).

I think Hugh Hewitt asked (badly remembered): Do you want the Republicans to be a governing party or a party that intermittently has power?

Vague, random thought: I wonder if this may be the flip side to the fact that conservatives are more principled than, well, non-conservatives. In essence, principles held are seen as equal to or more important than that of party unity. Or simply party power.

I guess that means that your hypothetical message wasn't as 'loud and clear' as you originally asserted, then.

I don't think we have either won or lost in Iraq, but I think the clock is counting down.

The Mid Terms will mark two years remaining in President Bush time in office, and one year until the '08 presidental race starts.

Consider what happens to any Republican running for President in '08 if we have not reduced troop deployments in Iraq by say the summer of '07. They either have to back the President, and continued deployment of troops, or back away from the President's policies and call for reductions.

Hillary is pretty bullet proof on Iraq, she supported the war, took heat from the Left of her party, but will be free to beat on who ever is on the Republican side supporting Bush.

So politically speaking, the clock is counting down, President Bush has about a year to move one way or the other.

constitute a phrase. Assume they do. I hate the French, but I'm not going to cross out "tout-suite" and "rendezvous" and all those other French words from the dictionary.

I'll say one thing and one thing only in defense of the French: They don't get into wars that aren't in their interest to fight. Of course, they don't fight anyway, which makes them worthless. But even a stopped watch is right twice a day. They were right not to get into Iraq. They considered their own interests, and decided to stay out of the war.

Maybe we should consider our own interests (as the French did) the next time Bush talks about making the world a freer place. Is X contemptible if the French do X? If the French think that two plus two equals four, does that make the mathematical equation wrong?

It does NOT pay to lose when our lives are on the line.

It does NOT pay to lose when the winners have made it clear they will use their power to impeach our president and vice-president, pull out of a war we MUST continue, and block every decent thing the conservatives are fighting for.

You mock those of us who say, better who we have than who we could have.  Is it worth your safety, the safety of our children, and the slow steady erasure of years of building just to "teach a lesson"?

This is a perfect representation of what "teach a lesson" means.

If a small child acts up, you can pull him/her out of the game and make him stand in the corner for a few minutes.  The difference?  If you pull the republicans out of the game and put them in the corner, then by the time they have a chance to go back in, the game may be LOST, or worse...destroyed.

Yes, I do believe that can happen between 2006 and  2008.  bin Laden has had years to plan in his little cave (assuming he is still alive).  I seem to remember that bin Laden has a fondness for things happening every x years (I want to say it's 7, but can't find a link to back me up).  Who do you want in power, working to prevent another terrorist attack?  Who do you want in power if, heaven forbid, something happens?

it will feel soooooo good to impeach Bush. And liberals are, if anything, all about the feelings.

I thought the same about Roberts at first, but his first few opinions have made me think he'll have no problems whatsoever sticking the fork in precedents.  This is far from scholarly analysis, but he writes like Rehnquist: short, very little citation of other opinions (compared to any other justice on the court, that is).  That makes me think precedent just isn't at the fore of his interests.  

Switching gears: we could do worse than Kerry on the small business committee.  He's done a lot in that area.  Just sayin', is all.

I'm pretty sure that the percentage of Americans who think this war was a dreadful idea and is going badly is much higher than it was in 2004. Of course, about half of Americans were against that war by that point and plenty of them thought that the war was going badly, but far fewer of them than today.

Additionally, the almost-60-million who voted Bush in 2004 aren't the same as the great majority who oppose the war today. There's some overlap, but presumably just about everyone who still supported that war voted for Bush. Bush got a very slim majority of the popular vote; just about everyone who voted against Bush was against the war. I think that most Bush voters in 2004 still supported the war, though plenty of them didn't.

But even forgetting those points, I think that the message to which I referred (and I didn't say it was hypothetical, you did, so don't call it "[my] hypothetical message") was still loud and clear. There's nothing inconsistent in voting for someone though you can't stand what they're doing. Are you arguing that it's inconsistent to (1) oppose the war and (2) support someone who supported the war?

Conservatives voted for Bush, and Bush disagrees with the vast majority of conservatives on spending and immigration, among other issues. Anti-war liberals voted for Kerry, and Kerry supported the war. So I don't see what sense your response makes. "Fascinating," if I may steal your word of condescension.

Do you always let the opinion polls do your thinking for you, or is it just when it comes to war?

The [French] don't get into wars that aren't in their interest to fight.

No, of course not, the modern day French have their wars imposed on them whether they like it or not. To actively prevent conflicts, to prevent them, to stand up for principles... it is so, so gauche, non?

I've got no right to talk the way I do.  Everyone loves their Republican congressmen, in fact I bet you guys are gonna gain seats in both houses this year.

Sleep well, my friend.

If there's another 9/11, the blood will be on Bush's hands. Every drop. Immigration is a national security issue today, and he's asleep at the switch on immigration. If we'd enforced our visa laws, 9/11 would have had a much harder time happening. And Bush isn't in favor of enforcing our visa laws--or any other immigration laws. He's the one who's in the best position to enforce those laws, and he hasn't done it in 6 years and he WON'T EVER DO IT.

Mahmud Abouhalima, one of the 1993 WTC bombers, got permanent resident status as an agricultural worker under the 1986 amnesty.  Mohammed Salameh, another illegal alien who took part in that terrorist attack, also applied for the amnesty, was rejected, but stayed in the US anyway. Dozens of illegal aliens took part in terrorist acts or attempted terrorist acts in this country. Bush doesn't care. McCain doesn't care. Specter doesn't care. They'll be responsible when it happens again.

You say, "It does NOT pay to lose when our lives are on the line." The Republicans are the one's who're PUTTING our lives on the line! They're the ones who control both houses of Congress and the White House! They could put a stop to all this madness, and they're the ones who're keeping it going on! And yet you invoke the safety of this country as a reason for keeping these bozos in power?! They're the ones who started an unnecessary war that's bleeding our military to death in Iraq!

You wrote, "Who [sic] do you want in power, working to prevent another terrorist attack?  Who [sic] do you want in power if, heaven forbid, something happens?" My answer? Not the Republicans who're running this country today. They're the ones who're making it ever more certain that we'll get these attacks over and over again. And I don't think it takes much foresight to know that the impending (albeit not quite imminent) war with Iran, which the Republicans want, will produce a lot more terrorism--in the United States--than we otherwise would've had. And clearly today's Republicans can't be trusted to stop Red China from becoming the threat it'll soon be... I don't know whom I want in power, but definitely not these idiots.

I will vote straight R in November...and they all suck.

Help me and help everybody else here get conservatism back in the party, or I withdraw my submission to the aristocracy for '08.

I will do whatever it takes between now and '08, and take one AGAIN for the team in '06...but tell me how I get a big capital C next to the lowercase r's going forward.

but Bush and the Senate have no interest in enforcement of immigration.  Bush and the Senate just want to wave the magic wand and make all the illegal to be not illegal.  Aside from that, we all know there will be millions more in illegals flooding in every year because Bush and the Senate was more illegals.

The House is much better with the illegals but only a little better with spending.

I almost feel that the Republican leadership is trying to blow this election.  They seem to do everything possible to tick off the base and keep them home.  Do they poll to see where the base stands and they take a different position?  The latest example is them defending William Jefferson's claim to untouchable/unsearchable congressional offices.  Even if they have legitimate concerns, they should do it quietly and behind the scenes, don't run to the cameras like Hastert did with Doe eyed Pelosi right night to him.

everything the French do is wrong. Right?

So, let's invade another country because the French won't do it. Let's see... I don't think the French would invade Canada, so let's bomb Canada.

...it was because they got suckered into it and never stopped to think for a minute that they might lose. Bismarck took their culottes down and whipped 'em black and blue. Now the French will never get into a war because they never stop to think for a minute that they might win.

Ominously, plenty of Americans feel the same way.

then I'm letting them do my thinking for me? Is that your logic here?

And that meaning, in the context of war, necessitates that there be a winner.  Pray tell, who's the winner (that is, which identifiable armed group) and what is it that said winner will have won?  

In my opinion there has already been one war, against Saddam.  We won that.  

Now, we are involved with another military conflict entirely--against myriad groups of insurgents.  

We should note that not one of this groups could be called a winner if we left tomorrow, because in all likelihood they'd still be involved in their guerilla brand of fighting, only then solely against Iraqis.  I wouldn't call that a victory, only a shift of targets.

If anything we're failing to achieve objectives in Iraq, not losing a war.  And failing to achieve objectives is really what government does best, when you think about it.  If our gov't thought we were still at war there, trust me when I say that we'd be winning.  As it stands, however, we're merely stewards of what we're calling a burgeoning democracy.

The democracy may or may not be successful.  But if the democracy never takes shape, it won't be because we lost the war, it will be because we failed to achieve an objective.  Call it sophistry if you will, but at least there's no French ;)

Oh yes, if it feels good do it.  You've got us pegged...

Yep, that's liberals - we're just a buncha free-lovin' high and far out hippies.  Man, I can hardly breath for the reek of patchouli and body odor in here.

Seriously, comments like this make me think you all know us about as well as the typical kossack knows you - i.e. not at all.  Seems like everyone on the left and right lives in their own echo chambers and eventually all they can imagine of the other side is the self reinforcing stereotypes.

I do respect this site that I can identify as someone who drinks a different flavored cool-aid than the rest of you without getting my account deleted.  Perhaps there might even be a basis for respectful communication.

Again, if it rallies you to announce Dems will hold impeachement headings on Feb 1, 2007, feel free to do so.  But you're just fooling yourself if you think that's the agenda of the majority of the party.

Personally I'm much more interested in control of runaway spending, meaningful oversight of the administrative branch, supporting the middle class and seeing our troops come home than I am in impeachment.

Stopping the Democrates from taking control (powerful as that reason may be)-- otherwise we may end up following the failed Democrat electioneering model of basing a campaign mainly on the position that one should vote for their candidate because they are against the Republican (without offering reasons why one should for for them.)

The Republicans need to offer clear reasons why voters should elect or re-elect them come November.  And right now they are not doing a very good job on that front at all - and in fact, seem to be doing  just the opposite - especially where their base is concerned.

I wish I could say that I'm definitely voting for my Republican congressional candidate in November but......  

of a war's success or failure have to do with whether it succeeded or not?  

Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a publicity stunt.  

in the current republican government but that does not mean I will stay home. Apathy is never the answer. We are republicans/conservatives because of our ideology, because of our beliefs and convictions. What good will it do to let people with a horribly harmful neo-socialist amoral ideology win? Sure it might teach republicans a lesson but in the long run our country will get hurt more than under current (somewhat incompetent) congress.

So if some of you guys don't mind having losers like Obey, Slaughter, Pelosi, and Barney Frank laughing at us from the majority side, sure stay home.

Folks, we are at a tremendous crossroads here within the Party.  But I for one am well prepared to do everything possible to make sure that the Republicans maintain the majority.  Even with them acting like the Diet Cola of Liberalism, they are much more trusted in my book in handling the one issue that seems to be flying under the radar:  terrorism.

Believe me, if there weren't a bunch of Islamofacists running around the Globe wishing to nuke one of our major cities--my family lives in Dallas--then I would be all for sitting this one out and working to purify the Party.  But we cannot allow a bunch of people who look at GW Bush with more fear than they do Osama bin Laden.  The Left WILL NOT fight this war, and I don't care what they say in front of a TV camera.  Ladies and gentlement, if we do not do everything we can to erradicate this enemy, we won't have to worry about how the Republican Party doesn't listen to the base because we won't have a Country, at least one without fallout scattered through it.

Whoever is talking about sitting this one out needs to think about this.  The one area where the Party has done an excellent job is the Global War on Terror.  I can say this with a bit of authority because I am helping in the fight.  I am stationed at Ft. Meade Maryland and if you have been following any of those "wiretapping" stories then you know where I am.  Please, for the good of the Republic don't let the Leftists have power.

Hell, even John McCain would fight the damn War.

I think that the loser is whoever backs down first. Even if the combatants fight amongst themselves afterwards, they didn't throw up their hands and leave the conflict altogether. That doesn't make them good; it means they beat the combatant who left, and now have to resolve the conflict between themselves.

We're losing the war against the terrorists in Iraq; they can blow each other all to smithereens after we leave, so that none of them prevails over the land in which they fought, and we'd still have lost, because they'd have pushed us out first.

And consider that we've sacrificed thousands of our best men and women, and hundreds of billions of dollars for Iraq, and it's bearing no benefit for us that I can see--but it is exposing our weakness to the rest of the world, and our enemies, I'm sure, are taking notes. And a benefit for the Iraqis? They've got their liberty, but they have no order, and order is more important. They're living like the Israelis during the intifada, with terrorism omnipresent. Even if that's not a military loss for us, and I think it is, it's still a colossal waste.

The French s**k, but they got one thing right: The second Gulf War was a horrific mistake.

I don't know if the party is over the cliff yet, though.  It hasn't been that long.  If this same debate is happening in, say, 8 years, then it's time to ditch the party.  But that's a ways off.

I'll call your response a nonresponse.

And I thought Thrasymachus was supposed to be the sophist?

the French won't ever win again. But I think that war should be avoided unless we've been attacked or are sure we're right about to be. That wasn't the case with Iraq, and it won't be the case with Iran, if we get out of the Middle East.

The thing that bothers me most about Hastert is the out of control spending (though there are others).  I have to ask myself if that will change if he is re-elected.  Wouldn't it be better to try to bring in a fresh face, someone who values fiscal conservatism?  Or would it just make things worse?

why don't you step off that high horse of yours and talk to, oh, I don't know, 100 soldiers who have been to Iraq...then come back and talk about your stinking poll numbers.

It is very easy to pontificate about war, and quite another to fight in one.

It really doesn't matter who is for against just about anything in a stinking poll.  We did what we did and we are who we are.  Don't like it? Move to France.

"No, I don't belong to an organized party. I'm a Democrat."

We Dems are famously fractious.

nor is it any logic at all.

The only evidence you gave to advance your position was their apparent popularity, as indicated in opinion polls.

So I rephrase what I asked below: is the opinion poll the arbiter of success of the war?

To prove that you've done what you insist I do (an insistence that's a lot easier to make than actually to make a substantive defense of this disaster of a war), why don't you name the 100 soldiers you've talked to?

You imply that the people, and I, are wrong because we haven't talked to 100 soldiers. So you argue that we're argument wrong, not because of anything substantive that we said, but because we didn't do X before saying it.

That's a new one on me: The argument is not to be judged on its own merits, but rather is to be judged by the circumstances of the speaker's experience.

So a civilian who offers ANY opinion on this war is unqualified... which includes the civilians who support this war--who obviously disagree with the Iraq veterans who think the war a mistake. Wow, looks like your logic led somewhere you wouldn't want it to.

Now, what if someone talks to 100 soldiers and remains convinced that the war was a mistake?

Get off your high horse and learn some logic. Lack of experience doesn't bring discredit on the inexperienced person's argument. Do you have to be a veteran of the Kosovo war to oppose that war? Fool.

You said the vast majority of this country doesn't believe the Iraq war is going well.  The vast majority of this country has no idea what is going on b/c of the media's spin of the situation.  This just adds to the ignorance of the ignorance in general on most national security issues.  People just don't know what is happening and that significant progress (economically, security) have been made.  It's kinda sad.

but I am sure there wasn't one spending item that we could live without. LOL

The whole point of our being in Iraq is to keep the terrorists over there.  I think it is kind of hard for bin Laden to devise another 9/11 style of attack while he is having to duck and cover from our Spec. Ops.  I do, however, think that staying in Iraq puts pressure on those in the region who would be willing to help those who wish to develop a plan to get a nuke into our country.  The terrorists are more sophisticated in that they don't need to walk across our southern border.  Plus, every attempt that they have made in coming across the border, both north and south, they have been caught.  (Tells me something about how we guard our southern border, but that's for another day.)  Do a google and I guarantee you will find stories of how we mananged to thwart attempts by the Islamos crossing the border as though they were Hispanics.  Way off base, man.

"Pelosi supports investigations into such issues as prewar intelligence about Iraq and contracts awarded in Iraq to Halliburton Corp. and other companies."

src

And what would be the purpose of these? You truly think that Democrats like Pelosi - who lived through the Clinton impeachment - aren't interested in a little payback? In spite of what you claim to think they should be doing?

C'mon... there's a huge emotional component to politics. It's often what prevents the one side from understanding the other. I have run through a lists of issues with lots of Democrats who choose on an issue by issue basis traditionally Republican viewpoints. But they cannot vote Republican.

You may be above the fray, but others are not so.

It's not even close.

where they would have US Constitutional protections, the ACLU defending them, the Left worshipping them, the Media worshipping them, but I repeat myself, a policeman with at most a .40 cal hanggun opposing them ... OR we can fight them over there with well-trained, well-armed soldiers and marines  and no US Constitution and no ACLU.  You pick it!

Yes, I understand that straw men are easier to oppose than real men.  However, you are delusional if you think that your statement is true of even 1% of Democrats.

I speak only for myself, of course, but one of the biggest reasons I oppose Bush is because of the way he's botched the fight with Al-Qaeda.  Right after 9/11 he talked tough, and started in the right direction (Afghanistan), but when pursuing Mullah Omar and UBL turned out to be kinda hard, and with the mid-terms coming up, he gave up on that fight and started talking up Iraq.

Now we've got another election coming up and the spotlight is on Iran.  But I digress.

My point is that I don't hate or fear Bush, I just think he's dangerously incompetent, especially when he's given no meaningful oversight by Congress. Defeating Al-Qaeda is not going to be easy, and the current team doesn't even look like they have their eye on the ball.

Didn't Republicans used to be the party of competence and individual responsibility? How can you support the team you've got representing you in DC now?

If you are interested in runaway spending and the middle class, then you either need to put the kool-aid down a little bit or check out the Congressional record.  Granted the Republicans are spending like mad, but if go and look at the proposals and bill amendments that the Democrats have put forward you will see that they have offered MORE spending than what was passed.  As far as helping the middle class, big government, socialism does nothing for the middle class except make them lower middle class.  The facts prove that.  There's no other way around it.  

Impeachment, no.

Why is congressional oversight of the executive a bad thing?  Remember checks and balances?

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go get back to worshipping terrorists.  <snicker>

you hang together. Clinton may've been a corrupt SOB, but he was a Democrat and regardless the accusation, the Democrats stuck with him.

But it sure is fun to pretend you're fractious...

... OK, unless one is an anti-abortion Democrat, then all bets are off ;-)

has produced more terrorism than would otherwise exist. It's radicalized the Muslim world and been a recruiting dream for al-Qaeda. There will be more attacks. There are now more terrorists to carry them out. And I really don't like the idea of using our military as bait. Sure, they signed up to defend our country. But there's got to be a better way to destroy all the terrorists than to use our military as a target for the suicide bombers.

You write that "every attempt that they have made in coming across the border, both north and south, they have been caught." There's no way to know that just from the premise that no terrorist attacks have occurred since 9/11. The terrorists could be waiting to do their murderous work. We simply don't know when it's going to happen, but we know that it will. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney themselves have told us so, and have told us that it's a question of WHEN, not IF, the terrorists will use nukes against us.

That, I'm sure, is because of our libertine border policy.

At all events, the fact that no terrorist attacks have occurred here since the Iraq war began is pointless. Correlation doesn't mean causation.

Yes, and the time to bring in a fresh face is in the 2008 Presidential Primary.

A Republican defeat in 2006 won't help anything.  Wait for 2008.

do you claim the war is lost, or soon to be so?

It's radicalized the Muslim world

I guess flying planes into buildings killing thousands is moderate for the Muslim world?

...but check out this here straw man.

Oh yes, I'm sure the Repubs have been a model of fiscal rectitude compared to what might've been.  I'm sure the Dems would have managed to pump even more borrowed money into Big Pharma's pockets if they had written the prescription drug bill.

Speaking of the Congressional Record, why is it that the Republicans shot down the Democratic amendment to the bankruptcy bill that would have exempted Iraq veterans from its provisions?  Perhaps "support the troops" is a great slogan, up until the corporations express their opinions.

Did the 1976 defeat help? I'd say it did. The primary gave us Ford over Reagan. Ford lost anyway, thank goodness. The economy got worse under Carter and we faced international crises in which Carter proved his incompetence. The Dems were tarred by their association with a jaw-droppingly bad president, and not only did the people turn to Reagan, they even threw out the Democratic majority in the Senate.

With Ford, we would've had a Democratic Senate until Hell froze over, liberal policies from a Republican president, and then eventually a Democrat president enacting more liberal policies. As the great political scientist Sideshow Bob pointed out, "You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever." Let's punish the RINOs and give the GOP a message (with some teeth in it) that they'd better shape up or ship out forever.

Sometimes, it definitely pays big to lose.

And did I just catch you saying that the 9/11 hijackers were representative of the Muslim world?

Oddly, Iraq has become background noise in this election. For that we should be thankful.

Oh, but what about Hadiiiiiiitha.  The MSM are going to see to it that at least the Murtherer gets reelected.

Actually, I think the reason for the relative quiet about Iraq is that there is no bad news to report.  We won the war, the Iraqi people are still behind us, and now they have a government.

One is the damage the terrorists have inflicted on Iraq itself.

The other is the losses, human and economic, that America has sustained so far--without any demonstrable benefit. Unless you're going to use the correlation-equals-causation logic, whereby it's good that we're using our military as a punching bag (or rather, bombing target) for terrorists... even though, as I see it, there are more terrorists now because of our presence in Iraq. Whatever the polls say at the moment, this is simply unsustainable.

Are there any fiscal conservatives in here, or are you do you all drink the social flavored stuff?

I'm sure somebody here might approve if Bush were to spend a couple years vetoing a bunch of Dem legislation, rather than having the Repubs just dutifully take dictation for him, and dole out more truckloads of our grandchildren's pay.  Anyone?

So, what does congressional oversight in this context mean?

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go get back to worshipping terrorists.  <snicker>

Can't you people write even three sentences without being snarky?

Is if we send American troops into Tora Bora and killed him, instead of outsourcing the job to a bunch of Afghans who had been collaborating with the Taliban two months earlier.

Try some of this on for size.   "Various other members of the Al Qaeda high command who helped to arrange it have been killed. But others, including Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, the purported mastermind of the operation, have been captured."

Found here:  http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=85823
&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26

And then there's this:  "Mustapha Ahmed al-Hawsawi, a man who officials say sent cash to lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta through bank accounts in Dubai and the United Arab Emirates, was captured along with a Pakistani man said to be of little importance during the raid that netted Mohammed , al Qaeda's operations chief."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/03/pakistan.arrests/

"[A] US-Pakistani sting netted operations chief Abu Zubaydah, whom US intelligence officials decreed the next No. 3, tucked away in one of Pakistan's sprawling metropolises. A year later, a slumbering Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - the third No. 3 - was abducted in a dawn raid. More recently, the last known No. 3, spiritual counselor and operations coordinator Saif Al-Adel, was put under house arrest in Iran."

 http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0909/p03s01-usfp.html

I can go on like this all night long finding you different sources detailing how we are destroying al Qaeda's leadership while being in Iraq.  That arguement of you and the other Leftists out there does not hold water under scrutiny.

I believe we've lost as many soldiers in Iraq as civilians on 9/11. True, we need soldiers to defend us, and that means going into combat. But are we safer because of it? Is there more or less hatred of the United States in terrorism-exporting countries than there was on 9/11? I'd have to say way more now. And more or fewer terrorist incidents? Again, I'd have to say way more now. And we're not done. I think that this war caused a lot more terrorism than it could ever hope to prevent. Then again, you're not even defending it on the ground that it's helping us prevent terrorism--you're only saying let's redirect the terrorists onto our military. And boy, has that worked. Not that there's any evidence we're safer here as a result. We waited 8 years between the 1993 WTC bombing and 9/11, didn't we? Yet now we expect that either there's terrorism here every day or else the problem is solved? Give me a break.

So if the soldiers support the war so much, why are so many Iraq veterans running for congress as Democrats?

Enough of this!

And I'm through with the GOP.

I am not saying that no action is a result of us being in Iraq.  What I am saying is that with us being there, the terrorists' first goal is to get us out, one way or another.  They can't do it militarily so the get the MSM over here to get people like you to think that we are destroying an innocent country and ourselves.  I am telling you, we are not losing this battle.  

And "using our military as bait"!!!  Are you kidding.  It's called declaration of war on 9/11!!  What is the military good for, fight one!!!  We would not be over there doing any of this if we didn't have to contend with a bunch of stone-throwing reporbates from centuries past.  I don't understand why they can't worship Allah without flying planes into buildings and blowing up Jews in pizzarias.  Give me a break.  You want us to wall up the borders and burry our heads in the sand and pray that it goes away, while we fight over entitlement programs and government spending?  You just don't get it.

Is there more or less hatred of the United States in terrorism-exporting countries than there was on 9/11?

Just stop it with that, willya? Bin Laden's gripes about the West go back to the "tragedy of Andalusia" in the 15th century. The Wahhabis want us dead because we're infidels and in their version of Qu'ran infidels must submit or die. The Iranian mullahs are nuts. Stop pretending that current events are driving the jihadis. These guys are still fighting the Crusades. It has little or nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy. The jihadis have called for the destruction of Denmark, of France, of Britain... they are equal-opportunity nutcases.

We understand your side's penchant for rolling over and dying, but we're not going for it, OK? Don't try to sell us suicide; we're not buying.

I am probably more snarky than I need to be, much of the time.

I was reacting to the thoughtful, entirely reasonable and not at all snarky commenter who stated quite plainly that liberals worship terrorists.

I could get all hot and bothered by such vile slander, or I can joke about it.  It's not really in my constitution to ignore it, though.

As for oversight, I think the prewar intelligence is water under the bridge, but the contracting nonsense is still going on.  The CPA lost $8 billion dollars, and the congress didn't say peep.  KBR provides unsafe food and water to our soldiers, and congress keeps signing the checks.  Do you really see no point in investigating these things?

Why should we keep borrowing money from China and handing it to Bush's corporate backers just because congress doesn't have the stones to even notice?

then, what are you gonna do now? Not much point hanging around Redstate, right? I mean it's defined as a "Republican community blog"... unless you're trolling.

So that bit about 9/11 is a straw man.

You're the one who doesn't get it if you think that our policy vis-a-vis the Middle East isn't pissing them off even more, and making them more likely to attack us. Why don't we just have our military bomb Mecca and publish obscene caricatures of Muhammad while we're at it? That'll really draw the terrorists out. Which you say is good. So let's do that, too!

And I don't understand why the terrorist attacks in Israel always manage to slip their way into this discussion. Should we expose ourselves to more terrorist attacks for Israel's sake? I don't like what's happening to Israel, and I don't at all side with the Palestinians, but we should look out for our own interests first.

Finally, I think that isolation does work. It's worth a shot. The terrorists themselves say that they're attacking us because of our involvement in the Middle East. Without excusing what they do, I must ask: Why would terrorists lie? I had thought that terrorists are explicit about what they want, and attack us with threats to attack again if they don't get what they want.

Isolation and closed borders will do the trick. While I support a strong military defense, I don't support invading countries to draw terrorists out. We'll produce more of them that way. The invasion of Iraq, whatever the intentions behind it, is easily dressed up to look like Western imperialism against the Muslim world. That affects us because it produces more terrorists. It already has, and will continue to do so.

Did you say that to the self-identified Democrat? I think I missed that. Wasn't reading carefully, perhaps.

I'm not an agent of the Great Dem Machine, and I don't have a script to work from.  I'm sure I'd be less incoherent if I did.

For some baffling reason I felt the urge to come here for some dialogue with you guys.  I'm letting you know how things look from where I stand, and I'm trying to understand how things look from where you stand.  If I'm a little snarky as I do that, well that's just my nature.

KBR doesn't supply the military with the materials that it needs to press on.  That would be the Inspector General of the Army.  But what would I know I am only serving in the military?

number far more than the one thing you cited from the 15th century. Not that you'd care to let that be known... True, the Islamofascists want all infidels dead, but they don't simply rely on the fact that we're infidels; they point to a lot of specific things, such as our presence on Saudi soil. I won't list the others, as I can imagine the reaction being worse than what I usually provoke. Heaven forfend you approach this subject without covering your eyes to the subjects that you yourself bring up (e.g., bin Laden's gripes... no way you'll actually say what all of those are).

You refer to "[my] side's penchant for rolling over and dying." First of all, what's my side? Second of all, if we'd followed the policies I've been advocating (shut the borders, stop interfering with the affairs of the Middle East...), we'd have a lot fewer dead. This war has cost us dearly. There's no evidence that we've avoided more 9/11s because of it, but there's obvious evidence that we've lost thousands of our best Americans, and this in a country that never attacked us.

Why don't we invade Saudi Arabia if we're so tough?

trolls come from?

Are you a magnet and have they been drawn back here for you to whack?

What gives?  I think it is time to get the bulldozer out again.

And these aren't even funny.

You show up at a Republican community blog armed to the teeth with the usual Talking Points and Snark...

Nah, never mind. You win.

Some people (especially the left) just LOVE to say we're "losing" in Iraq.

Can we get some PERSPECTIVE here?

We've been in Iraq for what - 3 or 4 years now? We've lost about 3000 people. WWII lasted about as long and we lost 400,000.

Iraq has a democratically-elected government.

Yes, they have their ocassional car bombs and that's ALL the MSM focuses on. Soldiers talk of success in Iraq and they get NO air time.

Some recent stats I saw showed that Washington DC is more dangerous a place to live than Iraq!

But we're just "bogged-down in a quagmire" some say. I say, "let them drink kool-aid!"

Thank you for your service.

A word on procedure: This is the web site of a Republican PAC. We are not here to debate with you, or to be insulted by you. We are here to organize to beat you at the polls.

You have been indulged enough. Blam.

Did Tunisia declare war on us in World War II?  How about the Island Nations of the South Pacific?  No, they did not, but that was where the enemy was.  Your Iraq argument is tired and worn out.

Didn't declare war on us on 9/11.  Okay, I will let that little bit of ignorance go, but look at this from 1998.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/19/terror.tape.main/index.html

of "Charmed " to watch?...

Who wants to sustain it? The goal, ever since (after over a year of foot-dragging and patty-fingers with the U.N.) we invaded Iraq, has been to leave with Iraq in the hands of its own people.  Daily, we are ever closer to achieving that goal.

Have we sustained casualties?  Yes. There are a lot of dead terrorists, too.

Saying there are more terrorists now because we went to Iraq glosses a series of hypothethicals: what if we had stayed home and pretended it all away, or attacked some other place?  

Perhaps you would feel better about things if an American city or two were in need of rebuilding, instead of Baghdad and Falujia?

I'm guessing you're referring to me, Sil.

I'll confess I enjoy a little light teasing, but I'm actually enjoying the conversation rather than trying to start a flamewar.

Sorry, I don't watch much teevee.

I can give you that list of 100 if it will make you feel better.  Before I do, though, take this sample from 2 that I got today:

"The anger is reading about things that I have seen, understood and been unable to affect as to the degree that my sense of "nobless oblige' " would have me affect, stop or change.

Joy when I recall the small successes granted to me by God's gracious hand during my time in Iraq. A chance to provide a living witness(since proselyting is illegal) of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Frustration at the the myopic view of what seems to be 99% of the American press and public, and the hatred that serves no purpose but to poison the minds and intentions of people.

I am about to retire after nearly 32 years of service. I am proud to have played a bit part in perhaps making a difference in world history. I have changed. I am no longer the young idealist, reality has taken its' toll.

Haystack, I see you as a great American, strongly rooted in the values and ideals upon which this country was founded. It is no longer what it was, I salute you and your efforts, and consider you a brother in arms in the eternal struggle for justice, righteousness and peace.

and then there's this:

President Bush came to visit the wounded in the hospital. He told Mike that when he could run a mile that they would go on a run together. True to his word, he called Mike every month or so to see how he was doing. Well, last week they went on the run, 1 mile with the President. Not something you'll see in the news, but seeing the President taking the time to say thank you to the wounded and to give hope to one of my best friends was one of the greatest/best things I have seen in my life. God bless him.

Want more "fool"?

You and your ilk see the pile on mentality of bad poll numbers as the out for justifying your hogwash about pro-troop, anti-war rhetoric.  You don't know diddly about the war itself except what you read about in the news or analyze from the poll numbers.  I have, in fact interviewed soldiers back from theater, I have family in theater now...I can tell you that if you aren't in some way attached physically or emotionally to a Soldier in theater you DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.  These men and women are pissed when they get injured and are told they are no longer eligible to go back.  The men and women I have interviewd awaiting deployment CAN'T WAIT to get to business.  They understand that what they are doing for the People of Iraq and Afghanistan is righteous and just, and they believe it is their calling from God.  Got an anti-religion return volley?

You are in fact a fool, and you do not know what the (expletive removed in deference to the posting guidelines)you are talking about.

Anyone who uses this site to try to sway people NOT to vote Republican probably ought to be warned, then banned if they persist.

Fair enough.

I wish there were a neutral ground where we could have these conversations, but you're right that I'm intruding in your community and I'm obviously not welcome.

I clicked into this particular thread out of curiosity and I saw a number of places where people seemed to me to be misleading themselves about who liberals are and what we want.  I thought I'd offer some alternative points of view, since non-troll Dems probably don't show up here too often.  Seems that's not what this place is for, however.  I'll probably lurk from time to time, but I will refrain from interfering in the echo chamber.

Time to slink off to the left end of the fever swamps...  <wave>

to remove the parental controls.

Tell that to the Iranian hostages and their families.

Why would terrorists lie?

Comeon now. That was funny!

and all you've offered in whining, crap.  Pack your backpack, make your lunch, and get to bed!

Here's some dialogue for you......

You want to know where I stand, at least?  Here's where I stand.  Why can't the Left put politics aside when it comes to the War on Terror.  Everytime one of them talks about it, it is always Halliburton, Bush lied and we're losing.  How come you guys can't come out and say, "Ya' know, we don't agree on domestic things, but the President is doing the best job he can in fighting the terrorists, and here's some proof."  If all it takes is a little time on google to find some of the captured terrorists--and if you scroll down you will see the little bit that I found--then why is it so hard for you guys on the Left to do the same?  Why is so hard for you guys to look at this stuff without thinking of 2000 or the fact that you have been out of power for a decade and you want it back?  Can't you just for one day stand up for your country without having to bring in this rot-gut about the poor getting poorer while the rich get richer?  Can't you just for once in my lifetime, see an enemy that doesn't have an "R" next to his name on the ballot?

And thank you for the instruction in "respectful communication".  No wonder I was no good at it, I thought those words meant something else.

In an open forum, you can't have any kind of pretense of editorial control.  All you can do is clean up the mess afterward.  I've shouted myself hoarse over this, and I'm not going to do it any more.  Republican/Conservative blogs, RedState in particular, are a target.  And frankly the policies of this website don't make much sense to me -- they let anyone in, they let anyone post.  Which is why I'm really getting a bit tired when people complain about the trolls.  If the Directors want to change the focus of the blog, they could do so instantly.  But in the meantime, lots of people are left doing the dirty work of identifying trolls and catching the "gate crashers."  

Blogging isn't that big a deal.  Even open blogs aren't that big a deal.  I don't know why RedState hasn't required a user fee for contributors and posters.  If it keeps up, it's about time they did, because one of the reasons I'm basically less engaged with this blog over the past months is simply that they can't figure out how to keep the gate closed.  

...was talking about Iraq; the Hussein regime has not yet been reliably confirmed as being involved with planning/operations wrt 9/11, and honestly I don't really think that it ever will be.  

Of course, SilSpark was one of those, ah, interesting people who seem to think that the war started in 2003, so he was wrong anyway...

But think about this:  al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Pakistan, Maylasia, and even Florida, how could it be that the one place where they weren't is Iraq?  You should get this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00073HH92/qid=1149131156/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bb
s_b_2_1/102-2260493-0122518?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

You may disagree with the policies, but that doesn't mean they can't be enforced.

Those of us who agree with the policies, and came here because of them, will root for them to continue.

The solution to the United States' immigration problem is the mirror image of what happens here at RedState, it's just that RedState is a microcosm:  If you want to stop the flow, you have to economically disincentivize it.  You can't rely on the internet pipedream model, whereby a free and easy access to things will lead to a more equitable solution.  That's garbage.  My time is too valuable to sit here and help a free website police its trolls.  I'm not going to give any more citizen blams and I'm absolutely not going to waste any time identifying people here who decide to come in and have their fun.  

If we want to control the border with Mexico, and if RedState wants to control its trolls, the only solution is to make the undesirable behavior much more costly. That's it, that's basic economics.

It's known - although not often addressed, for some reason - that the Hussein regime was involved in state-sponsored terrorism; he made no secret about the checks he cut for suicide bombers' families, after all.  A formal link with al-Queda and other Islamist terrorist groups wouldn't surprise me in the least.  I just don't expect to find conclusive evidence that Iraq was actively involved in planning the 9/11 attacks.

I understand this to be a "Conservative" arena of ideas...we only have the Republican party to affiliate with because in our pathetic current system this is our lone choice...I am all for Conservative, and as long as Rebublican doesn't equate, I will welcome banning if my disagreement with the PARTY is unwelcome.  I believe RS continues to maintain a Conservative ideology over all else...we are lately debating how far from Conservatism the Republican party has drifted I'm afraid.

I'm in favor of some kind of housecleaning.  I'm not sure what kind.

If you go read the mission statement for the site, it says that RedState is a community dedicated to advancing Republican issues.  Works for me; if I'm in somebody's house, I'll follow their rules.

The problem is that we've seen multiple frontpaged stories talking about what effective strategies to use to get conservative ideas back on the agenda for this year; at least some frontpage posters explicitly feel that the current set of Republicans are doing a poor job of representing "them.

On the other hand, dKos doesn't have this problem.  They explicitly say "progressive issues" as a euphemism for liberal, which means they have no problem at all backing Lamont.  For them, forcing confrontations in primaries is not just about finding the most electable Democrat; it's about an agenda independent of party.

At some point I feel that RS is going to have to to take a stand on this: whether it is primarily a party political site, or whether it is based on a core set of policy beliefs.  I think that what the core of those beliefs would be has been adequately explained.  The question is self-definitional: does RS back those beliefs regardless of party or incumbency?

Not my problem.  I just post here.  I'd prefer the "we're about policy" answer, since I value reading the strongest arguments as a counterweight to what I see elsewhere.  But unilateral party backing would useful as well, and it would clearly mark which posts we should send off to the pile.

(practising with the quotes here, I may screw this up)

Why can't the Left put politics aside when it comes to the War on Terror.

I'm sure the members of the Republican Community Blog (tm) would love it if the Dems cede such an important issue to your side.  However, if you think my opposition to the way the GWOT has been prosecuted is just because I wanna bring down the Repubs so that the Dems will force through socialized medicine or whatever, you are misreading me.

I will not say "gee Bush is doing great vs Al-Qaeda" because he isn't.

I hope you will agree that the enemy is Al-Qaeda, or the islamofascists if you prefer the term.  Terror is an emotion, you can't blow that up.  Terrorism is a tactic of asymmetric warfare and targeting civilians - you can't blow that up either.

There are people trained and committed to the destruction of western civilization and the reestablishment of an islamic caliphate.  Them you can blow up, fine with me.  We were on the right track when we went to Afghanistan and did just that.

In addition to blowing up the people who want to kill us, victory in this particular effort requires non-military efforts as well. Intercept communications, disrupt financial networks, support non-proliferation efforts, and shut down the centers of education and recruitment.

Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator.  Invading and occupying Iraq produced a lot of nice fireworks and killed a lot of folks, but they weren't Al-Qaeda.  Sure, there's an insurgency now - people are often irrationally ungrateful to foreign armies patrolling their cities.  But we had Iraq contained before we invaded.

The international non-proliferation efforts were working - witness the fact that the inspectors were allowed in (yes, after the threat of force) and then didn't find the weapons that weren't there.

Zarqawi operated freely in Kurdistan, under the no-fly zone where Saddam had very limited control.  It's been reported that the administration turned down the chance to assassinate him because they didn't want to weaken this tenuous "Iraq = Al-Qaeda" link.  Now who's playing politics with the war on terror?

Meanwhile Afghanistan is a tinder-keg of resentment (see this week's events), Saudi Arabia still teaches unreformed Wahabbism in their textbooks, and Bin Laden is still alive. Some of these things can only be resolved through the use of diplomacy, economic development assistance and international organizations - all things the adminstration has barely disguised contempt for.

And speaking of rot-gut, please don't belittle my patriotism.  My wife and daughter marched in the memorial day parade while my son and I waved flags.  I support the troops quite tangibly in my day job, where I advise the DoD and NSA on ways to improve the security of the IT products used support network-centric warfighting strategies.

I don't speak for all Dems. Maybe there's some that think the way you describe. But I love this country, and I just don't think the R team has been doing a very good job at national defense lately.

But the point to the invasion--liberation in my eyes--was not to avenge 9/11.  The point was to take out a man with asperations of aquiring WMD, democratize the region of evil and, in my humble opinion, to surround the real target:  Iran.  I still can't believe that clear thinking people do not see the strategic genius behind us being in Iraq.  Having a 130 thousand-plus force right in the middle of the Islamofacist world has been a great move in our effort to defeat al Qaeda and terrorism in general.  If the Nation would unite behind the effort and show the terrorists and the MSM that we were not going to be deterred, then there is no doubt in my mind that the terrorists would pick up shop and move on to safer grounds, i.e. Iran.  As they see it though, the American People are not united in this effort and they think that they can do another Mogadishu or Vietnam.  That would be a disaster in the War on Terror.

And, no, the media won't let useful tool Murtha go lightly. The war likely will be background noise for the next several election cycles or until the troops are withdrawn, whichever occurs first. Only if a Beirut-type debacle happens around October will the war have any impact this time around, or the next.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with trying to change the Republican Party's agenda.

The problem is when people start claiming that "This site is conservative, and Bush/Frist/Hastert aren't conservative, therefore it's time to root against them."  Becuase that's not the case.

This site is partisan, not ideological.  Those who want an ideological site should go start their own, rather than stinking up this one with their negativity.

immediately before the invasion. Saddam and al-Qaeda were briefly allied and coordinated the Somali debacle; soon thereafter they fell out. There was no relationship between them, at least in the public record, at the time of September 11th.

The primary motives behind the invasion were to depose Saddam and cleanse Iraq of WMD. One out of two wasn't bad in this instance.

They're heading down recently as the saber rattling with Iran has lessoned slightly among other things.

But one good hurricane streaming into the gulf or some other production interuption and they'll be surging back upwards again.

But KSM was captured 3/1/2003, prior to the invasion.  I agree with you that ground has been gained, but there's been no net gain in the "central front" - we're worse off as a nation than if we had continued to contain Saddam after having forced the weapons inspectors back in.

No doubt we could keep this up all night, but I'm tired.  Have a good one...

We all know what my side would/is doing.  We have frozen assets set aside for terrorism--and the enemy IS terrorism--and we continue to do so.  We have captured the majority of al Qaeda's leadership--see my post below, an answer to one of your early ones--and we continue to do so.  Furthermore, we murdering these wacked-out stone-throwers by the bucshel in Iraq and Afghanistan, while rebuilding both countries at the same time.  So what would a President-Take-Your-Pick-of-Your-Favorite-Liberal do?  Would you just stay in Afghanistan until bin Laden's body showed up and then come home?  You and your side don't get the big picture here.  We are having tremendous success in both countries, despite the violence that is still apparent in them.  

I do challenge your patriotism because you have not given me any reason not to--and waving flags and marching in parades in between repeating things that have been repeated for four years doesn't cut it with me.  You can be a Liberal, I don't care.  That's part of the Great Debate--DOMESTICLY--but when it comes to this issue, you and your kind can't/don't give any credit when warranted.  All you do is look at this explosion or Abu Ghraib or this latest ALLEDGED episode in Haditha and tell the American People that the US is to blame.  Answer me this--and I am asking this with sincerity--how would be any LESS patriotic if you were OPENLY rooting for the terrorists to win?

What standard do you use to determine we're losing?  

Consider the conflict from their perspective.  If you were the Paper of Record for the terrorists in Iaq, focusing primarily on terrorist casualties and the continued progress toward a government, would your editorial page encourage more fighting or retreat?

One of the primary reasons for places like RS to exist is for activists to feed back local information on policies and strategies up into the party mechanism.  So I think I agree with your core point.

However, it does make some discussions more difficult to have.  For example, the avenues we have to discuss RINOs are substantially limited by being purely partisan rather than ideological.  My feeling is that if we strictly held a non-ideological stance, RINOs would be defined as people who failed to advance the party platform, seriously hurt others in their attempts to do so, or substantially damaged the electability of real Republicans.

That's not really what I'm seeing lately, even in frontpagers.

Again, I have a very non-normative stance here.  I don't know what the best thing for RS to do is, but I'm getting contradictory feedback on mission from all sides.

memory hole.  I won't bother to review the actual FACTS that were available prior to the Iraq invasion.  The reason I won't is because you are too willfully blind or too stupid to understand them.

I never ceased to be amazed at the presumptions of fools.  Or their prominance in history.  So, spawn of Mr. Chamberlain, thank you for your wisdom.  Just remember that because Chamberlain lacked the wisdom, forsight and courage to confront an enemy about fifty million people died.  An inconvenient fact for fools who may remember but fail to understand history.

...your central thesis, and you played dodgeball by going to the calendar, as if that was supposed to be relevant to the issue of competence.

Please, the last time you people were in power you specialized in blowing up empty tents with multimillion dollar cruise missiles.

Bin Laden is not scared of you, nor dearest me, is he scared of Hillary.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

that one because I had already quit reading by that point.  But, it is funny.

The fighting dems concept is an extension of Democrat affirmative action idea. Instead of trying to find the best qualified candidate, democrats identified a group of people that they wanted to get through based on one, unrelated to merit, factor and sent them in.

If republicans wanted a bunch of veterans running for congress, trust me, they would've had a much larger pool of people to pick from than dems. But republicans don't work like that and try to find the best possible candidate for each district based on their ideology, electability, and whatever other factors make up a great republican candidate.

Nick got this one.  Finally!!!

No Rinos, No Jeffords independants

No bridges to nowhere letting you drive to the railroad that used to be. No leadership whining about voters being upset about being robbed by our government.

And Maybe just Maybe

We can get republicans that will stand on their hind legs and do something when Murtha or Durbin go around accusing our fighting men of every crime imaginable.

And just maybe we can get a "Conservative" congress that feels property rights don't belong only to the  well connected and actually does something about Kelo.

And just perhaps we could have a republican congress that remembers they were given a majority because nobody cared to listen to the democrats and neither should they.

If you've been downrange, you would of course know who runs the chowhalls in the places you've been.  For the purposes of this discussion, it might be enlightening for these folks for you to describe who's spooning out the scrambled eggs in the morning.  Are they:

• Active duty personnel from the Army, Marines, Navy, or Air Force




• Reserves or National Guard




• Army or Marine civilians




• US nationals under contract




• Foreign nationals under contract?

If the latter two, you get bonus points for knowing which contracting entity owns the contract.

I get the feeling a good portion of the base not only wants to punish Hastert, Bush, Frist, Lewis, et al, but they seem willing to pull the whole house down (no pun intended). The phrase that "to make an omelete, you must break a few eggs" is in play here. Many on the base probably feel bad that while Shaddegg will also suffer, it's necessary for a few innocents to be caught up in the wave.

So sad. When will people realize that the only people who can implement change are the winners? Being out in the political wilderness for 12-16 years won't help. By then, blogs, cable news and talk radio will be victims of the revived Fairness Doctrine (Hello public subsidies for David Brock and Al Franken!), School Choice and Home Schooling will be dead, Iran will have taken over Israel and Iraq and N Korea will have conquered Seoul. But boy, the base still feels good, for they sent a message!

I never forget the line from Herm Edwards of the Jets, "You play to win the game!" Too bad members of our team are trying to spike the Gatorade.

and I was just starting to lower my bp with this bozo.  (Sorry Bozo)

Sorry, but you're worried about Dems w/ their hands on the purse strings?

Are you a conservative? A fiscal conservative?

Because it sure as heck wasn't the Dems who have now twice raised the debt level to $10 trillion, w/ a T.

That would be Republicans with their hands on the purse strings, throwing around money like, well, like they were Old-Tyme Democrats.

You need to re-examine the cliches you're bandying about.

You lost a leg? Or two? Fighting for your country?

No? Then I suggest you shut your hole.

Because if you had, I seriously doubt you would be saying all this chickenhawk crap about people who were there. You may not agree w/ their politics, but it just makes you a sad, pathetic little coward to criticize from your safe little keyboard.

Have I gone? No. But, then, I'm not talking trash about troops, whatever they believe. They're there to protect all of us, numbnuts, not just people whose opinion they agree with.

But my sources tell me that Nixon is not going to be running in 2008. I suppose you can always write him in.

By the way:  The right to educate kids at home or at a private school has LONG been held to be a fundamental right via substantive due process (which most conservatives don't even believe in, for the most part).  

Whether NK can conquer Seoul is not dependant upon who controls the House.

Do you really think Iran could take over Israel?  Really?  No, really?  Furthermore, Jews make up an important part of the Democratic base.  I read once, (this is just an aside), that of all demographics, Jews are the only demographic more likely to be self identified Democrats as their wealth increases.  Other whites, blacks, hispanics, etc. are all more likely to be Republican the wealthier they get.  That doesn't really mean anything, just illustrating the point that a Democratic House wouldn't permit Iran taking over Israel.

I'm a young guy and all, but I read somewhere that during the spread of Communism we had a few Democratic presidents, and Dems dominated the House, yet the world still turns.  

I'm voting this fall, and I'm voting straight R.  But I'm not going to freak out if we lose.  Now go have an adult beverage and get to sleep.

Blue Chip, I'm not so optimistic as you.

There are very few non wingbat dems at the present moment. Even those who supported invading Iraq have for the most part dissembled or did a turnaround or speak out of both sides of their mouths.

We have people like Kucinich, Conyers, Boxer, Murtha (groan), Kerry. I wouldn't trust any of them were the Dems in charge to steer the congress or senate in any responsible way. The few who actually have stuck to their guns are guys like Lieberman. And the wackos are trying to drive him out of office. The democratic hawk is the equivalent of  the RINO to the repubs. Because the lunatic fringe has taken over the democratic party and hawks need not apply.

My fear is not only would the dems pull out of Iraq and afghanistan, they will kowtow to Iran because their base demands it, not to mention undo the NSA programs, reerect the wall between intelligence agencies, and go back to fighting terrorism as a law enforcement issue.

Because their base demands it.

Sorry, but I will hold my nose and pull the lever for straight republican. If I get an overspender with no backbone, so be it.

Hey, if you're up for barging across the Durand Line and maybe starting a civil war in Pakistan, say the word, but that's what it'll take to root these guys out. It would be nice to have a pledge of fidelity, though, lest your party prove trimmers again should things not work out entirely as hoped.

Garfield served less than 4 months before being shot. I think that adequately explains why Garfield never vetoed a single bill.

I think the only president prior to Bush to serve a full term and never veto a single bill was John Quincy Adams, which is another thing John Quincy Adams and George W. Bush have in common.

I believe two full terms without a single veto is unprecedented.

We should think twice about whether they will ever cut spending.  Too many congressmen are in the habit of brining home the bacon.  In fact, many of our Southern Republicans have brought that talent with them in the mold of their Democrat ancestors.  

In fact, if we cut spending and all the pork, it would make old style Dems viable again in the south.

"Some recent stats I saw showed that Washington DC is more dangerous a place to live than Iraq!"

That is total BS.

Political Science

by Randy Newman

No one likes us-I don't know why

We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try

But all around, even our old friends put us down

Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?

No, they're spiteful and they're hateful

They don't respect us-so let's surprise them

We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old

Africa is far too hot

And Canada's too cold

And South America stole our name

Let's drop the big one

There'll be no one left to blame us

...

Sorry for the joke; I just couldn't resist given the way this conversation is going.

Keep THEM in power, so in 2008 we can send someone new up there to take charge and clean up.

Because if the Democrats take control, then the next Republican president will have no sway over them at all.

Peddle the fascism somewhere else; we're pretty big on that entire civilian control of the government thing here.

Blam.

What's my plan?  I'm not a military strategist.  The veterans you guys love to slime, e.g. Murtha and Kerry, have offered strategic alternatives to the current approach. Rather than engage them in a discussion, their proposals have been misrepresented for political purposes.

we murdering these wacked-out stone-throwers by the bushel in Iraq and Afghanistan

And you say this as if it's a good thing. How does murder advance our strategic goals?  Are you guys really so terrified that one of these stone-throwers was gonna hurl a rock from Kabul to Peoria?  Disgruntled civilians are not the enemy.  Calling for their murder (to me) is very unpatriotic - our goal should be an honorable victory, not sinking to the level of the terrorists.

Answer me this--and I am asking this with sincerity--how would be any LESS patriotic if you were OPENLY rooting for the terrorists to win?

Wow.  Because I support American politicians whose strategic approach is different from that of the ones you support, I'm morally equivalent to wanting the terrorists to win.  I'm speechless (which is probably the okay with most of the folks around here <grin>).  There's a huge difference between thinking there's a better way to defeat the enemy and supporting the enemy, and if you guys can't see that, then you will lack the strategic flexibility to succeed in this difficult fight.

At least David Obey's ridiculous earmarks would likely be vetoed, which is more than we're getting today.  We'd actually see our first veto on out of control spending if the Dems were the cause, rather than Republicans living off other people's money.

I think the impeachment argument in general is a panic argument with little merit.  One, there's no way the House would even get their 2/3rds vote in the Senate.  Two, it would backfire on them in the upcoming elections and three, even if they went down to Cheney, which is not going to happen, it would come after Bush while Cheney was President with a new VP.  In your doomsday scenario Condi Rice becomes President.

I respect everyone out there soldiering on for the right candidates for the right reasons.  I'll be there in November, holding my nose, to vote for Mike DeWine.  Since Gov Taft insisted Cleveland's lovely Westshore be kept in Kucinich's district to avoid drawing Brown out of his district and into the 2002 Governor's race, I have no influence on the House.

Your post election coup is another fantasy that isn't going to happen.  If this leadership prevails in November it will only be emboldened and strengthened.  Mike Pence and the good guys will be less powerful than they are now.  I do believe the only way we get to the Mike Pence majority we need is through a trip in the wilderness.  If it takes four years later, so what?  Between now and then, I'm not going to get real tax reform, real Social Security reform, real energy policy, real restraints on government spending.....,   Should I keep going?  

The House can't do anything of consequence without going through the Senate or President.  Speaker Hastert, good bye and good riddance!  

that plant bombs and support terror are the enemy..in Peoria or Paris

a concept you refuse to get.

War sucks. But it's better than bondage.

You make your choice, and I'll make mine.

As bad as the GOP has been, if you listen to any Democrat the answer seems to be "We're not spending enough on X" (as long as X is not part of Dept of Defense).

No Child Left Behind? Not funded enough

New Medicare boondoggle? Not funded enough

Welfare for immigrants oops I mean for currently undocumented soon to be citizens? Not funded enough

Cargo ship container inspections? Not funded enough

Anyone here could probably list a dozen of these.

I saw Russert or someone interviewing Nancy Pelosi recently. She was of course talking like she's a fiscal conservative about balancing the budget, reducing the deficit, etc. She was asked to name some programs she would cut and the only thing she could name was "Star Wars ... and lots of others".

The Dems will raise taxes and spending will go even higher unless the Flakes and Pences and company can get control of the House.

So as bad as the GOP has been, it could get much much worse.

But didn't he also say that we needed to work with our allies instead of going everything alone?

So which is it? Was he for working with our allies before he was against it?

is our pulling out and Israel reducing the rest of the middle east to melted silicone.

Bin Laden is not scared of you, nor dearest me, is he scared of Hillary.

say "murder" I do not speak of Haditha or any other massacre that you guys portray the US Military committing everyday.  What I mean by that is when the bad guys meat us in a fire fight, we win!!  And Murtha and Kerry are the ones using their own military service for political gain.  Just because they spent some time in a war 40 years ago, we should listen to them as though they were Ike or McArthur?  I don't think so.  These two are opportunistic and deserve the scrutiny that they get when ever they speak of re-redeploying our troops (Murtha) or an all out pull out.  And you still haven't answered my question.  What would you do?  I am not a military stategist either, just a SIGINT guy, but at least I can see the strategic advantage behind being smack dab in the middle of the cespool of evil that is the Middle East.

And before dismissing it as Right Wing propaganda, try reading this with the "all knowing open mind of a Liberal."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWUyOThiYjkxNDgwMmVmZDgyMDMzNjg2MGYwYT
k3MDI=

he didn't veto a bill?

is not enough to win the mid-terms. There has to be a very visible attempt to curtail illegal immigration (a few National Guard troops won't do it) and something concrete to prove sincerity about fiscal restraint. The White House could throw Congress a bone and simply crackdown on a few flagrant employers of illegal aliens and send a strong message about pork-laden legislation. Mid-terms are about the bases, and both of these actions would motivate GOP voters to go to the polls for the right reasons.

Yes, it would be worse if the Democrats controlled Congress, and it is only that reality that has kept the GOP competitive up until this point. Even with that reality in my mind, the temptation to punish--particularly the Senate--continues to have resonance with even my meaner angels. Those with less restraint need to see there are concrete reasons not to give in to bad and ultimately self-destructive impulses.

And frankly the policies of this website don't make much sense to me -- they let anyone in, they let anyone post.  Which is why I'm really getting a bit tired when people complain about the trolls.  If the Directors want to change the focus of the blog, they could do so instantly.  But in the meantime, lots of people are left doing the dirty work of identifying trolls and catching the "gate crashers."

Personally, I like the stupid trolls :)  Sorry, had to sneak that in.

I would fully support a plan that requires payment to be part of this site.  I am not a diarist (is that a word?) and will never be, but I do comment and participate.  Given how often I reference, use, and participate in this site, it would be worth it to "join" even if a fee were required.

For long-range planning, the Directors might even consider a "Rush-like" leveled site....you see and can participate at a certain level for free, but if you are a paid member your login opens up other areas.

I said "SUPPLY" not serve.  The accusation was that KBR was supplying bad items to the fighting men and women.  KBR doesn't supply, they may serve, but they have no authority to supply the military with food and water.  Now, they be giving soldiers items from their own supply that are substandard, but then that's not quite the same because the soldier is not getting his three squares from them.  SUPPLY, SUPPLY, that's the key word.  Try again.

where I was talking trash about our troops. I was only making a statement about the Democrats. But I guess there is no need to argue with you anymore :)

bringing out the angry libs :)

you are pretty much advocating our retreat -- Kerry and Murtha definitely are -- and our enemies are advocating our retreat I don't see where it takes much of a leap to come to the conclusion that you both want the same outcome.

Whether or not that places you on the same moral plane we can probably discuss but the idea that you want the same outcome is indisputable.

by staying home.

Vote in your primary, vote in your general election. Choose the best candidate that is on the ballot. Period.

A vote is an opportunity to have influence on the most powerful country on Earth. It is a great privilege, and you do a disservice to your country not to excercise that privilege. A no vote is a choice not to wield power and influence that thousands have given their life for you to have. Do not throw this gift away by staying home.

...that still thinks Kerry won because there is no way all of those exit polls could have been so wrong?  You keep believing the polls, and we'll continue to look at them with a gimlet eye.  

If so, why?

My goal is for our troops to come home from Iraq one day.  Murtha and Kerry have advanced plans to do that, nobody on your side seems to have one. As far as I can tell, leaving equals losing in Bush's mind.

If we have made so much progress in Iraq, and they have a government now, why do we need to stay?  The only real danger of us leaving is if there's a failed state in our wake, but everything's so much more peachy than the MSM will tell us, so why do we need to stick around.  

Is it to protect our troops from the dangerous neighborhoods of the United States (since y'all choose to believe Rep King's interpretation of the data that the US is more dangerous than Iraq...)?  

The enemies I'm concerned with want to kill Americans.  Apparantly you're more concerned with the ones who want our troops out of Iraq.  They are not the same thing - the vast majority of the Iraqi insurgency (according to Pentagon statistics) are not jihadists.

If you guys think that winning the war and coming home is actually losing, then I guess our goals are so fundamentally different that this discussion is pointless. If I'm misrepresenting your position, please correct me.

Take Jefferson - we happily threw him off under the bus when it became obvious what a crook he is.

Since I grew up in New Orleans I'm well aware that most elected officials in LA are crooks and cronies, so I've suspected it considerably longer than it's been in the news - I thought he looked guilty as hell when he had the Nat'l Guard ferry him home right after Katrina so he could hide the evidence.

I don't recall similar treatment of the Dukestir by the Republican side, but I may be mistaken.

and trolling.

Murtha, for instance, has called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops to an "over the horizon" presence in freakin Guam. That is not winning that is running away.

I want our troops to come home one day, too. Just like I'd like for them to come home from Germany. But doing it on the jihadists' schedule is simply advocating defeat.

The only reason you can say that no plan has been offered by our side is because you just don't want to read it (provided here for your convenience) and as to where we stand in accomplishing our goals you can read it here.

But this is some nice sophistry, Kerryesque in its audacity and Michael Moore would be proud of its reckless disregard for the truth.

is a background issue. Gas prices aren't. People pay them every day and (quite unjustifiably) they blame the people running the country. That's what sunk Carter back in 1980 (along with the rest of the awful economy); the Iran business was just icing on the Reagan inaugural cake. As others have noted elsewhere Bush's popularity ratings have correlated with the price of gasoline more than anything else.

Re: Nothing good comes from being in the minority

Well, maybe not: being #2 makes you to try harder, acknowledge and correct your mistakes and come up with ideas to get you to number one. Competition is just as healthy in politics as it is in economics.

Re: We MUST keep the House and Senate if we want the next two Supreme Court appointees to be strict constructionists.

Only the Senate matters for judicial nominations and there's only a remote chance that the Dems will take back the Senate.

The Congressional Black Caucus is totally behind him.

Pelosi said maybe he should drop off Ways and Means. (Nothing said about Budget Committee.) He told her to pound sand.

And in the meantime the real issue is we need to check out those bad guys at the FBI.

Did I miss the part where he was thrown under the bus?

Compare the handling of Jefferson and Mollohan to that of DeLay and Cunningham. DeLay dropped out of leadership after getting indicted under questionable circumstances and will not run again. Cunningham's in the slammer for not doing much different than Jefferson did. Mollohan gave up some committees but is trying to get re-elected in November, as is Jefferson.

The Senate has some influence (treaties and that), but by and large it's the president who will conduct our foreign and military operations. As long as there's a president committed to stopping terrorism, who cares what the peanut gallery in the House bloviates about. (I am assuming of course that a Dem House would not be so off the wall as to bring an impeachment, something that does concern, although I cannot see the Senate convicting)

but if you hop in the WayBack Machine to our Southeast Asian adventure you will find that it was the House cutting off funding for US operations in SE Asia that prevented US airpower from stopping the North Vietnamese in 1975.

And you will find that it was the Boland Amendment, introduced in the House, that forbid US aid to the contras and was the underlying legal predicate for the whole Iran-Contra investigation.

So to say they don't set foreign policy is only true so long as that foreign policy doesn't require the expenditure of funds.

I keep hearing all the bilge about how the Republicans have forgotten their base. Lets first remember some of the 'Natives' in D.C. have no base, they have been their so long they only remember their "BASE" when they need to be re-elected. Today, the have been smoked out. With that being said, the spending, immigration, energy prices, the courts and taxes have there place, BUT, (this is a huge BUT) these issues lack what the war (yes WAR!!) holds for this nation.

Staying home just to prove, "i'm mad at you, you darn Republican becaues....", and allow the Democratic National Socialist to warm their butts in the Majority seats, will be a victory for our enemy. You don't think Osama isn't watching satellite T.V. and monitoring Al Gore's internet. Have you forgotten how many died in Viet Nam and Cambodia after Congress fell too the Anti-America protester of the 60's, did you loose count after a million.

The DNS (democratic Nationalist Socialist)will dance in the streets to enact the 'Murtha' rule, or better the Kennedy rule and just up and run from the WAR (yes, I said War again). What will you see on your Plasma T.V. in Iraq, Gaza and all over the Iron-fist controlled Islamic world, who's flag will they burn, who will have a 'new video' on television.

Whom eles is hoping for Conservitives to stay home. Thats correct, the Drive-by Media. I believe Chris Mattews might mess his shorts. Will the media blame the Democrats for the Islamic take over of Iraq. Will those in Iran who pray for freedom in Iraq still have faith, that America can stand up against a bunch if miss-fit terrorist.

Ask youself, how soon will the radical islam put forward the next attack on our nation. When that happens will John Kerry call for a summit inorder to surrender. Will Mr. Kerry ask France to barrow their nations falg ie. the white flag.

I've laughed a lot in the last year, at just what the Senate Republicans are thinking. Yes, a lot of them need too be tossed out with the garbage. Sure, don't vote for that Senator or Congress'person (PC), with that in your head and looking beyond that five inch space between your ears, help find a conservative too run against that block-head making law.

Living in Michigan, I have too put up with Carl Levin, Deddie Stabenow and Komrade John Conyer. How much freaking fun is that. Just Think who will chair the Judicial Committee. I have begun working too find a strong conservative too run against some of Michigans Socialist leaders in Washington.  

I will be their in November voting for freedom and our troops in harms way, if we regain the majority I will embark on the changes that matter next on the check list. Winning the WAR is First (sure I said it again).

No offence to those staying home, hope you enjoy watching the exit polls.

Regards

HK40cal

God Bless America, Land of the Free, BECAUSE of THE BRAVE!!!!

....of everyone is the Democrats', not the Republicans' game plan. " I cannot give you the formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure - which is: Try to please everybody".  Herbert B. Swope (1882-1958). Remaining in the weeds on the sidelines are always the mighty "Undecided" demanding from the candidates ,political tailor-made instead of off-the-rack new suits. Playing "hard to get" before every election, they are no longer taken seriously by Republicans who continue to win without them

If by some miracle the Demorats take the House and Senate in 2006, they would never be able to muster the 2/3 vote in the Senate to impeach Bush or Cheney. Southern Senators and Congressman such as John Spratt(D-SC) would never vote for impeachment, they would voted out the next election.

that issue will be background noise. If prices escalate, the issue will be easy to exploit, as you point out. I assumed the current situation would hold, but also acknowledged this is an issue that cannot really be controlled by the political classes.

Enforcement of immigration laws is something that can be done now. Cutting back spending or making a credible plan to do so is something that can be done now. And to prevent a wave, both must occur, and soon.

Incidentally, I think any wave that is big enough to take out 15 or more MoCs is big enough to take out six senators. Our current fury is justified, but we need to be smart and channel it so that we don't get an opposition that is even worse than what we now endure.

is an issue-from-Hades and experience teaches that serious attempts to cut spending tend to fail at the ballot box. While most people criticize run-away government spending and favor cuts in principle, the devil is very much in the details and we end up with everyone and his brother defending his share of pork as vital and necessary. Farmers, for example, may be the salt of the earth and a rock-ribbed conservative constituency, but just try to cut back on their subsidies.

Worse, the three largest components of the federal budget consist of something that can't be cut (interest on the debt), shouldn't be cut (defense) and won't be cut (middle class entitlements which, as we have seen, remain the sacred cows they have always been)

...storyline for 24, how Jack Bauer saves us from all the Gitmo inmates that Pres. Pelosi pardons.

I could actually live with Joe Biden at Foreign Relations -- he's like Tom Friedman in that he's a blowhard but every so often gets it.  Plus he has a nice tan and great teeth.  

Or at Judiciary -- he'd talk so much without asking a question that he'd use up all of the Demo's question time.

--furious

...America, Jr.?  Their cheapo-dollar makes ours look valuable.

--furious.

Do I think disgruntled voters should stay home? No way.

Would any impeachment trial of either Bush or Cheney (short of video of them giving Osama a ride in Air Force One) win the two-thirds vote necessary for conviction? Bigger no way.

...for bin Laden if we'd zapped him in 2000 when we had him in a Predator's gunsights,

...or picked him in 1996, when Sudan offered to hand over to the US, via Saudi Arabia, an unwelcome guest.

Would have spared us all the Tora Bora unpleasantness, maybe even the unpleasantness that preceded it.

But, wait, that was before Bush...never mind, no story there.  Hopefull Sandy "Pants" Berger managed to stuff those notes into his socks along with all the other incriminating documents.

Besides, in '04 Kerry was always going on about how we needed to get our allies to shoulder more of the fighting burdens, so in Afghanistan we get them to, and then Kerry said we were outsourcing!

C'mon, shorter, time for you and Kerry to make up your minds -- you can't have it both ways.

--furious

Let me know how that's working for the Dems.

...over ten years, based upon linear revenue projections from the stock market boom that ended before Bush took office.

--furious

...I just have to outrun you."

--furious

...all died in a matter of hours, whereas our casualties in Irag have accumulated over three years of active combat.

As to hatred, I'm sure the Japanese hated us more after the Doolittle Raid, and the Germans after we started sinking their U-boats.

But then that's what happens when one fights back, one's tormentors become even angrier.  You must have been one of the weiners who just handed over his lunch money.

--furious

An excellent distinction, which I failed to see.  Makes more sense now.

For the folks playing along at home, what I think is going on is that KBR in this capacity is primarily a logistics company.  They aren't directly contracted to deliver raw foodstuffs to the DoD, nor do they subcontract this.  What he's saying is that those suppliers are all under completely separate contract vehicles directly to DoD.  This seems a good way to structure the contracts.

There's an independent question of once those foodstuffs are delivered to the DoD, which entity transports, warehouses, and serves all those cans of Kuwaiti Diet Coke, and who is responsible for spoilage.  But KBR should not be labeled as a supplier, as that really is incorrect terminology.

I'm really not that interested in KBR bashing; those folks are doing a good job.  If I really cared to track down the details of this I suppose I could go read published contracts; I'm sure they have lots of clauses that mean "don't screw up our stuff in transit".  KBR probably gets unfairly blamed for lots of things, because everything one would see at the point of delivery has a KBR sticker, even though things upstream are just not their fault.

KBR runs dining facilities in Iraq, in Kuwait, and in Kosovo. It runs them directly. Just like it did in Vietnam.

KBR is a good company but let's not misrepresent what they do.

this isn't correct.

KBR provides food, water, and fuel to US forces in Iraq. Some it buys and delivers on its own. Some it subcontracts. But KBR is the prime contractor for most of the Class I, II, VI and X supplies in theater.

but the Inspector General is on the personal staff of a commanding general and they don't supply anyone with anything... other than grief. As a former IG investigator I say this without fear of contradiction.

KBR runs the chowhall, but can it take the initiative to subcontract to foodstuff suppliers?  If we really want to get down into these weeds somebody's going to have to read a lot more contracts than this jetlagged poster reasonably can.

It really is weeds, I think, because the problems alleged by the poster 37 layers up are difficult for hobbyists like us to distinguish between failures of contracted suppliers and failures to maintain quality in transit.  The GAO or service IG is in a much better position than I am to evaluate this.  Assuming these problems actually exist; I'm keeping an open mind either way.

Should the contracts with KBR require them to safely deliver the food they're supplied? Or should the contracts require KBR to supply safe and quality food and water?

Those really aren't rhetorical questions.  I honestly have no idea what the best way to structure the contracts is.

The way the Republicans have been spending is troublesome.  That Bush never vetoes anything is also troublesome.

However, it pales in comparison to the Socialist policies that will become front-page news if the lefties control Congress.  

What do we do, then?

I believe we fight hard to retain control of both houses, followed by demanding new leadership in both Houses.

Hastert's rant about the Jefferson raid was the last straw for me.  The Republicans in the Senate need a new leader YESTERDAY.

New leadership that will curtail pork and act tough on immigration (talking is NOT enough) will help energize the base so that we can govern effectively and nominate a solid leader for President in 2008 (My pick is Giuliani, although it will be difficult for me to nominate anyone who is that tone deaf on the abortion issue).

Staying home won't send the message we want to send.  Continuing to pressure our leaders to behave the way they did in order to get elected will, I believe, be a more effective use of our energy.

dutifully traipse down to the elementary school that is my polling place in November.  Too many people have died over the centuries to preserve my right participate in self-governance.

However, I will, in all likelihood, NOT make a selection in at least one race on that ballot -- which is a form of participation itself.  When the number of votes cast for GreaterEvil#1 and for LesserEvil#2 add up to less than the number of people who signed in at the front desk...that's a message.  And I think it might be a message that needs sending, in a least one and maybe more races in my district.

When you vote for the LesserEvil, you're still voting for evil.  You're complicit.  This is true even if we switch to less moralistic terms: if your choice is between a big spender and a bigger spender -- voting for either one is a mark in favor of big spending.  If your choice is between amnesty for all illegals NOW, and amnesty for 99.9% of all illegals next Tuesday -- you're still voting in favor of amnesty.  If your choice is between McCain-Feingold-didn't-go-far-enough and McCain-Feingold-is-okay-just-needs-a-little-tweaking, you're still voting to repeal the First Amendment as it relates to political speech during the pivotal two months before any election.

I could go on, but I won't.  I'll show up to the polls -- forgoing a lovely round of golf, I'm sure -- but I will not be bamboozled, fearmongered, or 'blammed' into complicity with the "Lesser Of Two Evils".

And if the Neal Stevens moderate types want to rally MY vote, how about supporting MY ideals once in a while?  How about, instead of always pummelling us "extremists" to compromise with you oh-so-superior center-of-the-roaders as ALWAYS happens once the sausage gets made -- how about YOU GUYS compromising with US for a change?  A little Contract-With-America-1994 style conservative ACTION could undo a lot of this fractiousness in the base...

But maybe that's not important to the moderates.  Maybe they'd RATHER see us conservatives stay home -- because a few of 'em have already let the cat out of the bag: they see a conservative walkout as the chance to move the Republican Party further to the Left (oops.  I mean "center", of course).

When you choose to abstain and not vote for anyone, you are giving more power and influence to those that choose not to abstain, power that is rightfully yours.

If you don't like the candidates on the ballot, write one in.

But showing up without voting does not qualify as participating in an election.

KBR buys food (A-rations, though I imagine the military provides B-rations), transports the food, and cooks the food.

This isn't radical. Army dining facilities for non-deployable organizations (like basic training) have been run under contract for nearly 40 years. The contractor is required to buy (ususally required to purchase it from the installation Commissary), transport, and prepare the food.

You are right about that.  I do forget what the title is for the gentleman/office that does all of the inspecting for what is supplied to the armed forces.  For some reason, I always thought it was the "Inspector General".

just fine for the GOP back 1994. Of course some new leadership is needed, as none of the current standard-bearers seem up to the task. Maybe Newt should come back?