Conservative Bloggers are in a mind-boggling state of denial, IMHO.
I keep reading that the GOP debacle Nov 7 was attributable to “earmarks”, or to “No Child Left Behind”, or to various scandals (Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Robert Ney), or some other such nonsense.
It’s the Iraq War, stupid.
Yes, the factors mentioned in paragraph 2 were not helpful to the GOP, but they were only secondary (and relatively minor) causes of the disaster on Nov 7.
Bush’s decision to go to war, supported by GOPers in Congress, was a humungous blunder for lots of reasons, but most importantly for one specific reason:
Bush simply could not predict, let alone control, what the post-war fallout would be.
Iraq was a war of choice, and despite this high degree of uncertainty over the likely outcome, Bush chose to buy a pig in a poke - Not surprisingly, the pig he got was a lot different from the pig he hoped to get.
And now Bush & his GOP team are stuck in a disasterous quagmire of their own making.
And on Nov 7, not surprisingly, Bush and his GOP team paid for their blunder.
It certainly is true that Bush made mistakes in the execution and implementation of the war, but it was the decision to go to war itself that was the most horrific mistake.
Bottom Line: The only way the GOP wins anything in 2008 IMHO is if the war is over & the troops are home by then.
curmudgeon777.........you are silly to think that we don’t know the Iraq war was the major influence in this election........we do know that..STUPID
But there’s nothing we can do about that because we support the war and are not likely to change our opinion. So we are discussing the other things in hopes of coming up with politicians we can get behind next time.
“War of choice”....wow, there’s a real smart comment. So was WW2 and Korea
The Iraq War was simply an easy tool for the MSM and the Democrats to use with an ill-informed electorate. Years of spin, disregard for the influence and role of foreign Islamists allowed the sale of the idea that the war was the issue. This is our generations WWII and the democrats and the MSM have sold us out for power.
senorlechero: With all due respect, you’re talking about re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Your concern over which pols to support is important only if (& after) the GOP gets the Iraq War behind them, & gets the troops home, by Nov 2008.
curmudgeon........no respect taken (since none was really intended)
troops home.......you mean like the troops in Serbia or Kosovo? Korea? Japan? Germany? Is it ok for troops to stay in Afghanistan? Can you name more than two nations that the GWOT is being fought in?
I’m so tired of people who are ignorant about the war telling the rest of us what we should think
I’ve been talking pure politics: If the Iraq War is not behind us, and the troops have not been brought home by Nov 2008, GOP loses BIGTIME at the polls. This is true regardless of whether or not the Bush initiative is good policy.
As a matter of policy, I disagreed with Iraq war from the gitgo, but I can understand the pro-War position. But politics, not policy, is what I am addressing.
I’ve been talking pure politics: If the Iraq War is not behind us, and the troops have not been brought home by Nov 2008, GOP loses BIGTIME at the polls. This is true regardless of whether or not the Bush initiative is good policy.
As a matter of policy, I disagreed with Iraq war from the gitgo, but I can understand the pro-War position. But politics, not policy, is what I am addressing.
Curmudgeon.......what I (and alot of other republicans here) am saying is that I’m sick and tired of “politics” overshadowing policy. If I have to give up my standards to get a president then the democrats may as well be in control
Republicans believe that policy is important, and when politics becomes more important things get screwed up (like Bush’s prescription drug plan.....WAJ....the biggest ever expansion of govt.....from a republican...because he wanted the old folks vote)
I’m not confusing anything. I know exactly what this discussion is about. As long as Bush continues to prosecute the war in Iraq the way his military advisers tell him to I will support him, even if the troops are still there when until kingdom come
I’ve been talking pure politics: If the Iraq War is not behind us, and the troops have not been brought home by Nov 2008, GOP loses BIGTIME at the polls. This is true regardless of whether or not the Bush initiative is good policy.
So, the president should… what? Leave Iraq to fall into a civil war where millions will die so that McCain or Giuliani can win the White House?
Some things, believe it or not, are more important than Red vs Blue.
C-777, Obviously they don’t like the common-sense truth of what you are saying. Since they BELIEVE so strongly, they want the situation to be other than what it is. Since they agreed with GWB’s bad decision, and still passionately BELIEVE in it, they are hoping that the mustard seed of their faith will move this mountain. Praise the Lord and pass the war pipe! :-)
And isn’t it exciting that this “war” is the WWII of our time? From what I’ve heard, that was a war when a whole generation went off to fight under a relatively unified cause against two superpower enemies. I knew WWII, if only from the books and the survivors, and this isn’t it...another crushing disappointment to some. Hell, we went into Vietnam with a lot more consensus than when we went into this one.
I’ve been talking pure politics: If the Iraq War is not behind us, and the troops have not been brought home by Nov 2008, GOP loses BIGTIME at the polls. This is true regardless of whether or not the Bush initiative is good policy.
As a matter of policy, I disagreed with Iraq war from the gitgo, but I can understand the pro-War position. But politics, not policy, is what I am addressing.
I think this premise is flawed. Case in point, an AP/IPSOS poll taken one week after the election was rather revealing.
52% said the situation in Iraq and terrorism should be congresses highest priority over the next two years.
57% of the people polled said the Democrats had no plan for Iraq.
So what, you might say. What startled me was that 49% of the respondents were ranked as total Democrat.
Based on that, I think it may be Democrats who stand to loose bigtime if things do not happen satisfactorily.
Curmudgeon777 - 17 November 2006 06:08 PM
Conservative Bloggers are in a mind-boggling state of denial, IMHO.
I keep reading that the GOP debacle Nov 7 was attributable to “earmarks”, or to “No Child Left Behind”, or to various scandals (Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Robert Ney), or some other such nonsense.
It’s the Iraq War, stupid.
Yes, the factors mentioned in paragraph 2 were not helpful to the GOP, but they were only secondary (and relatively minor) causes of the disaster on Nov 7.
Again, I will disagree. If there were an MSM (which really is the only thing that reaches the masses) that actually reported all the good (along with the bad) that has come out of Iraq, people most likely would have voted differently. I will take that one step further, when was the last time you read an article in the MSM that actually complemented the Republicans for anything?
Bush’s decision to go to war, supported by GOPers in Congress, was a humungous blunder for lots of reasons, but most importantly for one specific reason:
Bush simply could not predict, let alone control, what the post-war fallout would be.
Iraq was a war of choice, and despite this high degree of uncertainty over the likely outcome, Bush chose to buy a pig in a poke - Not surprisingly, the pig he got was a lot different from the pig he hoped to get.
So that fact that leaders from BOTH parties were shown the intelligence available at the time and BOTH parties, almost unanimously signed the resolution supporting the war is fiction?
And now Bush & his GOP team are stuck in a disasterous quagmire of their own making.
No, the quagmire, and there is one, is due in large to slanted, if not outright erroneous reporting of the MSM and with the added boost of the MSM publishing classified information which largely gutted some of the most successful programs we had in combating terrorism.
The war between Western Civilization and Islamic Fascism exists, whether we recognize it or not. The Islamists will be happy to concentrate on Southeast Asia and Africa while Europe commits demographic suicide and the U.S. pretends all is hunky-dory. 9/11 should have been a wake-up call, the slaughter of Christians in Africa should have been a wake-up call, the isolation of Israel should have been a wake-up call, the impending Islamization of nations from Egypt to Turkey should be a wake-up call. World War II did not start with Pearl Harbor, it started when Europe began its policy of appeasement towards Germany. It’s 1938 and Europe is once again formulating another Munich Agreement, this time for Israel. And just as before the cost of not engaging the enemy in their time of weakness, but waiting until they are strong will cost millions of lives in the name of peace. The only difference is this time we live in the nuclear age.
“So, the president should… what? Leave Iraq to fall into a civil war where millions will die so that McCain or Giuliani can win the White House?
Some things, believe it or not, are more important than Red vs Blue.”
Jennifer, I agree.
President Bush & his GOP team have a moral obligation do what they think is right, even if it outrages the voters, and even if it costs the GOP bigtime at the ballot box, which it will.
What I’m saying is that Conservative Hawks are in denial, bigtime, if they think the GOP can win anything at the ballot box in 2008 if there still are troops in Iraq, and if the War is not behind us. IMO the 2008 election losses will be just as big, if not more so, than the Nov 2006 losses. (NB: In 2008 GOP has a lot more Senate seats to defend than the Dems.)
President Bush & his GOP team have a moral obligation do what they think is right, even if it outrages the voters, and even if it costs the GOP bigtime at the ballot box, which it will.
What I’m saying is that Conservative Hawks are in denial, bigtime, if they think the GOP can win anything at the ballot box in 2008 if there still are troops in Iraq, and if the War is not behind us. IMO the 2008 election losses will be just as big, if not more so, than the Nov 2006 losses. (NB: In 2008 GOP has a lot more Senate seats to defend than the Dems.)
Curmudgeon777 - I would like for you to answer a question. If the MSM were to start reporting our victories in Iraq with the enthusiasm they report our defeats, do you think all the troops would need to be out by 2008 in order for the GOP to win at the ballot box?
There are any number of events that could lead to a victory in 2008. We could see a drastic improvement in Iraq and actually hear from Iraqi citizens who appreciate what we’ve done. A major scandal involving democratic congressmen could unfold. A(nother) lousy democratic presidential candidate would help tremendously. We might confront a social issue that attracts a substantial number of minority voters.
On the other hand, I don’t think an “Oops! Maybe those naysayers were right all along… Let’s get outta’ here, boys” is going to be quite as effective… you know what I’m saying?
Well, being somewhat conservative, and a blogger, it was not the Iraq war that kept me at home.
It is the fiscal irresponsibility, the lack of entitlement reform, building that stupid fence, and general scandalous behavior that keeps me away from the GOP.
The Dems are in control due to moderates being fed up with the GOP. If the Dems ignore this then it will be at their own peril. I think they realize this enough to at least publicly say that they will not defund the war. Murtha not getting the leadership position is also a small indication but there were other reasons for the Dems not to go with him.
The big indicator here is Lieberman’s thumping of Lamont.
Well, being somewhat conservative, and a blogger, it was not the Iraq war that kept me at home.
It is the fiscal irresponsibility, the lack of entitlement reform, building that stupid fence, and general scandalous behavior that keeps me away from the GOP.
The Dems are in control due to moderates being fed up with the GOP. If the Dems ignore this then it will be at their own peril. I think they realize this enough to at least publicly say that they will not defund the war. Murtha not getting the leadership position is also a small indication but there were other reasons for the Dems not to go with him.
The big indicator here is Lieberman’s thumping of Lamont.
tkc1,
I think you make a valid point about the reason for the GOP losses, but I disagree with your Lieberman/Lamont conclusion.
In CT, the occupation in Iraq is unpopular. If it weren’t for Joe’s support of the war in Iraq, we would never have heard of Ned Lamont (unless you own cable TV stations ;>)
The fact that Joe lost his primary was enough for him realise that he had a race on his hands. It hasn’t happened for a while and I think it’s good for democracy.
