Sep 05 2006

Democrats’ Useless Proposal, GOP Achilles’ Heel

Published by at 6:26 am under 2006 Elections,All General Discussions

The Democrats are once again playing to their base, wasting time and not making an effort to connect with the broader American electorate in their call for Rumsfeld’s departure. Changing office name plates in the Pentagon is not addressing the supposed premiere issue: Iraq. That is because (a) the democrats have no answer and (b) there are no quick and easy solutions to Iraq. It is not ‘stay and die’ as the whimps on the left call it. And it is not ‘do nothing’, it is simply keep working to a successful set of conditions. The challenges in Iraq are manifold, they have been from day one. Each region has its combination of cultural, economic and religious drivers with a national issue dealing with Al Qaeda and Iranian-Syrian insurgents. The Democrats are once again presenting a non sequitur proposal which only emphasizes either their lack of intelligence or their belief America lacks much intelligence. If Iraq is another Titanic, they are clearly proposing to re-arrance the deck chairs.

And Republicans are showing off their political Achilles’ Heel as they show total lack of vision and seriousness by ignoring illegal immigration. This is where the shrill far right is killing off interest with going to the election booth and salvaging the conservative majorities. While government spending is supposed to be an issue, the portion of the budget that Congress actually controls annualy is the discretionary spending and that has been limited outside of defense spending on the war on terror. We have heard year after year after year that to contain spending requires overhauling the benefit programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. But the Reps are not addressing this, they are proposing to make cuts that cannot even be detected in the round-off error in the Federal Budget. To paraphrase a hemorroid commercial, if hundreds of billions are your problem, tens of millions is not answer.

But the lack of compromise on immigration will be the killer. Here in Virginia the Democrats got control of the Governorship primarily because the GOP kept fighting amongst itself and not able to compromise. Bad policies are definitely a problem in politics, but a dysfunctional government which is paralyzed is worse – and that has not sunk in with politicians yet. It should have after the Federal government shutdown took out a lot of Reps in the 1990’s, and the Dems were demolished in Texas as their representatives shutdown government by running away. So too the GOP will take a pounding as people will have no reason to go to the polls. Why take time out to vote if our leaders cannot get anything done?

I have to admit, with what I am seeing from both parties I am rapidly losing interest myself. If they continue to only offer faux, useless platitudes there is no reason to pay attention to them. Why do I still stand behind President Bush? He doesn’t offer weasley, water downed, slogans. He takes bold moves and sticks to his plan until he squeezes all the success he can get out of it. And if it keeps working he never backs down. Instead of following the polls he works to shape the opinion of the electorate. For all the BDS out there, people have to admit Bush is the one being bold and committed and making things happen. We hired him because he was not a Washington Career Pol, and the one area he has delivered is in not becoming one during his time in DC. I wish we had more leaders like him.

18 responses so far

18 Responses to “Democrats’ Useless Proposal, GOP Achilles’ Heel”

  1. HaroldHutchison says:

    At least the 2008 field features Romney, Giuliani, and McCain – all of whom are Bush-style leaders.

  2. For Enforcement says:

    The projections for the House and Senate, see link:

    on C-SPAN’s site sure don’t look promising(thank goodness) for the Dems. I’m sure the Dems don’t agree. But I think this is a reasonable assessment of the races.

  3. MerlinOS2 says:

    For all the BDS out there, people have to admit Bush is the one being bold and committed and making things happen. We hired him because he was not a Washington Career Pol, and the one area he has delivered is in not becoming one during his time in DC.

    That’s because he was an ownership member of a baseball team and he had experience dealing with overpaid, egotistical prima donnas with all their temper tantrums….good prep for washington politics

    hmmmmmmmmm gotta start looking around for any republican team owners for the 2008 draft!

  4. opinionsarefree says:

    Insufficient information on Guliani or Romney, but the only way Mcain gets my vote is if the Dem’s come up with an alternative that is so repugnant that choosing the lesser evil becomes imperative.

    To MerlinOS2’s theory,..Jerry Richardson for Pres. Don’t know his political affiliation, but the man exemplifies leadership.

  5. corydon says:

    Dude, it’s “Achilles’ heel”, not “Achille’s heel”. That is, the Greek hero’s name was Achilles, not Achille.

    And it’s “non sequitur”, not “non sequitor”. Similarly, I’m not sure what “fuax” platitudes are: do you mean “faux” platitudes?

    I don’t blame you for unfamiliarity with a literary reference, or not knowing foreign languages. But “water downed slogans”? That doesn’t mean anything. Surely you mean “watered down slogans”.

    If you’re going to insult the intelligence of others, it’s probably worth doing it in intellible English, no?

  6. For Enforcement says:

    Jerry Richardson for Pres.
    The owner of Carolina Panthers? You may have a good point there.

  7. AJStrata says:


    LOL at myself. You know, it is actually a possessive and I went back to fix it in a rush and F’ed it up then! You got me. But folks will tell you that finding typos here is liking shooting dead fish in the bottom of an empty barrel. Have at it, easy points.

    If you cannot grasp meanings beyond typos, you are in for a tough time here.

    Cheers, AJStrata

  8. propensity says:

    if iraq is another titanic, then demanding rumsfeld’s resignation is not rearranging the deckchairs, it’s firing the navigator which seems perfectly appropriate…and necessary when you think about the other ice berg we hit, afghanistan, and the one looming on the horizon, iran.

    as in viet nam, civilian leadership has failed our soldiers. i think it’s time for a warrior to lead.

  9. AJStrata says:


    The Navigator? Why do people deal with complex subjects in such simplistic terms. If it was that simple even you could solve the problem. The truth is Iraq is not sinking back into totalitarian hands. It is still emergig from it. Iraqi leaders want the US to stay and help them finish the job. There is no civil war, their are violent factions.

    But in any event, if there is a new course to set then dems better come out and say what it is (other than beating a full retreat). I know the answer from the left is to throw up their hands and say it is all too hard. They don’t know how to deal with it. That is my point.

    The left saying we cannot win in Iraq is like an teacher saying they canno0t treat a brain tumor. The left has no idea how to deal with national security in the same way a teacher is not a brain surgeon. Lack of knowing by one party doesn’t mean it cannot be accomplished by others who do have a way forward. It is not an easy path and blood will spill. You spill blood and damage tissues in surgery too. The left is just full of squeamish people without a clue how to handle the situation. If Iraq is the Titanic, it is being refloated 3 decades of damage, And right now it is a dedicated US ally. Sadly, the same cannot be said from the Iraqi viewpoint. They see a fickled and scared ally in the US.

    Is that impressing anyone? No, not really.

  10. ivehadit says:

    “Is that impressing anyone?”

    It is truly shameful, AJ. I despise those in our country who are causing destruction to us, not because of their principles, but because of their raw, political power grab…disgusting.

  11. Terrye says:

    Yes, the Republicans should have come up with a compromise, the ususal supsects would have grumbled but at least they would look like they were trying.

    As for Iraq, this will take time. You can not force it or hurry it. These people have lived under a tyrant for years. Democracy will not solve all their problems but in time it can give them the tools to deal with some of those problems that are not all about violence.

    The left would have been more than happy to look the other way while the Hussein clan wiped out half the population of Iraq, but now they want the place to be Luxembourg overnight. That won’t happen. This is the Arab world and nothing is easy here.

    The United States had its own issues for a very long time. We had the KKK and a civil war and race riots and they called the wild west wid for a reason. And we did not have Iran and Syria breathing our necks.

  12. DubiousD says:

    It’s also bears mentioning (repeating?) that Rumsfield *has* resigned as Defense secretary… twice.


    Both times Bush refused to accept Rumsfield’s resignation. So calling upon Rumsfield to fall upon his own sword makes no sense; Bush repeatedly kicks it out from under him.

  13. propensity says:


    the overly simplistic outlook is that iraq is just going to take time and patience. rumsfeld’s record as a war secretary is pretty poor. if anybody has over simplified this extremely complex situation, it was and is donald rumsfeld and the result is that we’ll be in iraq far longer.

    a serious change in leadership is not rearranging the deckchairs or changing the nameplates unless, of course, rumsfeld is replaced with another civilian politico. replacing rumsfeld (note, dubious, that your are correct, rumsfeld resignations have not done the trick) with a respected soldier would send the appropriate message to our troops, the amercian people and our allies that we are determined to get this right.

  14. AJStrata says:


    Don’t be foolish. Rumsfeld and Bush knew and said this would be hard and take time. Only fools got the idea this would be done in three years or less. One look at Bosnia should have clued most sentient beings in.

  15. Ken says:

    Bush decisive, Strata? On Iraq more like repetitively insane,
    doing what doesn’t work…On immigration, I heard Rove was
    kowtowing to the racist revanchist La Raza this past weekend,
    lauding amnesty.

    Rummy being truthful about Iraq’s longterm challenge?
    Only AFTER the unplanned on, unexpected insurgency.
    Did Rummy ever correct Cheney, Wolfowitz and a flock
    of other Bushites who said Iraq’s pacifification was a “weeks”
    maybe “months” long project, with oil proceeds paying the
    war off by 2004? And I just love Rummy’s forthrightness in
    correcting Cheney’s 2004 utterances that the insurgency
    was in “its last throes.”

    Iraq an ally? Bwahahaha! With pro-Iranians praising
    Hezbollah in charge? Of course they don’t operate
    much except behind the Green Zone. About as
    powerful an ally,currently, as the Lebanese Army was
    in protecting that nation from the Israeli incursion….

  16. AJStrata says:


    With folks like you on the left November will be a celebration for me again!

  17. Ken says:

    Hope your intell gathering was more thorough, AJ. Have already identified myself as an “America Firster”. By the way, recommend
    the conservative Prof.Andrew Bacevich’s “New American Militarism”
    an antidote to liberal Wilsonian Empire-interventionism, masquerading as conservatism.

  18. propensity says:


    how did the real military evaluate iraq?

    what Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2003 was that “something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers” would probably be required for “post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems.” Shinseki added, rather presciently: “It takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.”

    rumsfeld fired him for this and proceeded to:
    1) do virtually no post war planning
    2) short staff the occupation
    3) make extrememly minimal provisions for arming and training security forces
    4) fail to recongnize the insurgency and hence…
    5) fail to implement counter insurgency warfare doctrine
    6) sanction prisoner abuse that fueled anti-americanism and multiplied threat to our soldiers

    you can blame the CPA for some big blunders as well, but security was all rumsfeld and it has been an unmitigated disaster. worse, all these problems were foreseeable. indeed, they were foreseen by military planning experts.

    the root of the problem is rumsfeld’s aherence to a military philosophy/doctrine that de-emphasizes the importance ground troops-in iraq’s case, tragically for the poeple in iraq and our soldiers.

    again, he deserves to be fired and that action would be in everyone’s best interest. sadly, the dems are beating the president to the punch. by not acting earlier, the president faces a necessary action that will have to wait until after the mid-terms.

    politics is killing our soldiers.