I woke up this morning to find that the Republicans had lost control of the House and possibly the Senate. I should care, but, oddly, I do not. I devoted hundreds of hours, and dollars, to do my small part to elect and re-elect George Bush in 2000 and 2004 and help push the G.O.P. agenda, but I could barely muster the enthusiasm to drive three blocks to make my way into the voting both yesterday.
I know the precise moment when my indifference to the G.O.P. crystallized–the date the RINOs prevented the Senate from exercising the “nuclear option” in regard to judicial appointments. For me and many others, that was the key issue in the 2004 election–the one thing they had to get right and were in a position to get right. Yet, oddly, the G.O.Platitudians pushed it aside after one half-hearted attempt.
But my contempt for the G.O.P. has roots deeper than that. Any one remember the Contract with America back in 1994, when the G.O.P swept into power largely on the basis of promises to restore fiscal responsibility? I barely do, and the G.O.Platitudians certainly don’t seem to. Fiscal responsibility? The G.O.P. offers bald, empty platitudes on the subject, and then spends our tax dollars like drunken sailors on shore leave. One of the largest entitlements in history, the prescription drug plan, was brought into being on the watch of the G.O.Platitudians–not the Democrats. Indeed, I suspect that if the House and Senate were in Democratic control when that measure was passed, our President might have dusted off the veto pen that has sat unused in his desk drawer. And don’t even get me started with “line item veto”–anyone remember that issue? The one what would give the President the power to cripple pork barrel spending? The G.O.Platitudians do not.
Also of concern, there is the matter of the Iraq war. Sadly, after the 2004 election, President Bush and the administration returned to the White House and didn’t bother to make any more proactive efforts to explain exactly why our troops continue to be there. I understand that in the first few years we definitely needed a military presence to maintain order, and I strongly supported that. But now four years have passed, and I do not know why we are there. Sure, I know the party platitude–“maintain order” and “stay the course.” But I would like to know, and think I am entitled to know, a little more detail than that. Why aren’t the Iraqis in a position to patrol and maintain order in their own country? I have no idea–if there is a good reason, I would love to hear it. Why are dozens of young Americans being picked off there every month? What are we doing to rectify that situation? Why is it that we continue to send National Guard and Army Reserve members to Iraq–after four years, can’t we train active duty people to do these jobs? I need more than platitudes to stand behind a “stay the course” policy. I place this failure to communicate squarely on President Bush. When President Clinton was in office, it seemed like he was on t.v. every single day saying something I didn’t agree with. Where is President Bush? When I do see him, all I hear is the same stumbling platitudes I have heard 100 times before. Starved of meaningful content, I’m not listening anymore, and it seems that the rest of the “middle” isn’t either.
I recently heard someone say that the G.O.P. stands for and wins on Gays, Guns and God. I think you can throw in border security, a strong military, national security, judicial reform and fiscal responsibility. The national party has done a pathetic job of pushing these issues to the forefront. The independents out there will follow us on most of these issues–if we offer them.
Where is our leadership? Dennis Hastert has done a pretty lousy job in my humble opinion. He has maintained one of the most powerful positions in the world for years, and how many independents out there would recognize him if they saw him. Newt Gingrich is instantly recognizable. I know his face, I know what he stands for, I know he believes what he is saying. Who is Dennis Hastert? What agenda has he pushed? Speaker Hastert may be a brilliant administrator, but I want a leader in that position who can push the G.O.P. agenda. He has not done that, and as guardian of the purse-strings, he has done a pathetic job. Good riddance. I would rather have that nut job Nancy Pelosi out there, defining our agenda by contrast than have a complete vacuum as existed when Hastert was in control. I would rather have the House completely gridlocked, as it almost certainly will be, than have them burning my tax dollars in the furnace of their self-aggrandizement. And border security? Pathetic.
I might argue that the G.O.P. has been “all hat and no cattle” on most of these core issues. However, I’m not even certain there is a hat. I’m not sure they have defined an agenda well enough to warrant the label hypocrite. Hopefully in the coming months, some form of leadership will emerge in the Senate and House, though who that could possibly be I do not know. McCain (who, based on the results last night) will be our next President, certainly isn’t going to push our agenda in any meaningful way. Who knows what alternatives we have in the House. I can name more House members from the late 1990s who were legitimate leaders and captured national attention, than I can name current leaders in the House (or Senate for that matter).
The G.O.Platitududians deserved the spanking they got last night. I seriously wonder if it would have been better if it had been worse. I would rather be aligned with a a consistent, forthright, loyal opposition, than the G.O.Platitudians we have been stuck with for nearly 10 years. If the G.O.Platitudians can’t inspire me, arguably a “party hack,” what hope do they have of inspring the “middle”?
As a former drunken sailor, I resent being compared to the irresponsible profligacy of the US Government!
Nothing like kicking the party while it’s down. You might have waited until the dust settled.
Love the photoshops, but it’s great to see you write something. Spot on.
“Why is it that we continue to send National Guard and Army Reserve members to Iraq–after four years, can’t we train active duty people to do these jobs?”
I may be misunderstanding your question here, but are you saying that you think that NG and Reserve soldiers are doing something that Active Duty people are not? From what I understand, they are doing the same job. And Iraq isn’t some little task that can be done with minimal personnel.
Personally, I do not agree with the National Guard being sent over. That aside… the Army Reserve is there for when more troops are needed. The Active Duty forces are pretty much tapped out. We can’t pull just about every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine off of their posts and bases from various spots around the world to send them to Iraq and Afghanistan, and so the Reserves (look that one up in the dictionary) are pulled in.
As the wife of an active duty soldier who recently deployed to Iraq for the 2nd time, I can say that I am thankful for the Reservists who go over. I’m grateful for the National Guard being there too, though, as I said, I don’t think it’s right. That gives my husband and a whole hell of a lot of other active duty soldiers somewhat of a break between tours of duty.
Last week my husband told me, via IM, of his frustrations about how the military is not allowed to do what they need to do to get the job done over there. He got there at the end of October and already he is beyond frustrated. Now, if the Democrats have some kind of plan for letting our troops do their job so that Iraq can stand on its own two feet and our men & women can come, I can’t wait to hear it!
It’s pretty bad when the only reason you have to vote for a party is that they’re slightly less bad than the other one.
i agree. they deserved what they got. i only hope that as a result, we’ll see new leaders pop up in the place of the GOB club that’s been in power in the GOP. and by new leaders, i mean young conservatives who aren’t going to play the game and who are actually going to washington to get things done. i want actual real people in washington, not phony politicians! is that even possible?
and SkyeChild, bullcrap. they deserve to be kicked while they’re down. they did it to themselves by trying to distract the base with flagburning and gay marriage while they went on a rampage spending out of control (can you imagine the economy we would have if they would have stopped spending like that? our revenues are insanely good!), refusing to fix the borders, refusing to really let our troops fight the war on terror and train the Iraqi forces so we can get out of Iraq, refusing to let our forces kill Taliban when we have the chance, and refusing to take the threat of Islam seriously. they let our enemies use our media against us, and it is their own fault that they didn’t use it back. so they deserve any kicking they get today.
Well said, Cadet Happy. (Maybe we’ll promote you to 2nd Lieutenant) The problem is, all these bozo non-conservative RINOS were there lurking behind the Contract with America back in 1994. They knew that all they had to do was gut it out for the first 100 days of the new congress, then the good times would roll. It’s not the leadership that is the problem nearly so much as it is the “rank-and-file” congressmen and senators. I’d personally like to see strong conservatives challenging all these sissies in the primaries. The problem is, the Democrat party has perfected its bush league, and the Republicans have a hodgepodge state by state, county by county incoherent system that only really works if the candidate is already personally wealthy. The Democrat Party owns local governments and state houses across the country, and is training up more politicians who better know how to be loyal to the party. Republicans are a rabble by comparison. Let’s get a coherent national, state, and local strategy to have a decent farm system that trains the next generation of pols.
They deserve WORSE than they got. The failure of the House and Senate Republican “leadership” to actually LEAD has been a disgusting spectacle for the past several years. Hastert/Frist have stood for what? …bigger and fatter hogs at the trough? On the bright side, I never have to hold my nose and vote for Mike DeWine (full-time sell-out, part-time pansy) ever again. I’m looking forward to never having to vote for crybaby Voinavich again too! Nope, I’ll do a write-in for pie next time.
Conservatives are disillusioned with the GOP because they’re acting like Democrats. When (if) that changes, Conservatives will flock back. In the meantime, I’ll be using up Hoppes No.9 by the gallon, and Hogdon 110 by the pound. Anyone care to join me, drop me a note.
THE REASON THE IRAQI’S CAN NOT PROVIDE THE AMOUNT OF SECURITY NESSESARY IS THAT THE IRAQI ARMY WAS DISBANDED AND ALLOWED TO MELT AWAY BY RUMSFELD AND THE CIVILIANS AT DEFENSE. THE JOINT CHIEFS & THE REST OF THE MILITARY WANTED TO STAND THEM DOWN, VET THEM, PUT THEM ON THE US PAYROLL. HAVE THEM WORKING FOR US. SAME WITH THE IRAQI POLICE.
THE CIVILIANS DIDN’T SEE THE NESCESSITY. AND DIDN’T WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY (A FEW MILLION)
SO THE BASIC MILITARY OBJECTIVE AFTER A VICTORY IS SECURITY AND RUMSFELD DIDN’T THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT.
OF COURSE THE IRAQI MILITARY REAPPEARED. THEY ARE THE BIGGING OF THE INSURGENCECY.
WE ARE SPENDING BILLIONS TO SAVE MILLIONS AND OUR TROOPS ARE IN AN UNTENABLE POSITION.
Rajuur. You may have a good point or two in there. But it is lost in a mass of capital letters.
The shift key is there for a reason. You gotta use it.
Otherwise it looks and reads like incoherent gibberish.
Even if it isn’t.
Mike Pence of Indiana. He’s the standout Rep to get the GOP back on track.
Fearful of militarism in post-war Japan and Germany, we kept troops there for their defense, so they wouldn’t have cause to re-arm before they were well pacified and had been brought back into the family of respectable nations. What’s it been now, 60 years?
In Iraq, disbanding the army was a tough call. It’s nice to think that had we not, a sense of common mission would have impelled Saddam’s former soldiers to stand side by side with us in establishing order. On the other hand, we could have wound up with insurgents using our own weapons and tactics against us as we found out who was loyal to Iraq and who was loyal to Saddam.
Our biggest mistake in Iraq was winning too fast and too easily. It telegraphed to the American people that this was easy stuff. And it telegraphed to the insurgents that we wanted to do this now and cheap – signalling a lack of will.
You are right on one crucial point: if there’s a reason for us to still be there, the President ought to tell us.
In most wars, the process of pacification starts while the war is still being fought. Cities fall after weeks or months, not hours. This gives those who would fight a chance to lose morale and those who would surrender a chance to become acquainted with the nature and tactics of their conquerors so that they can rationalize their surrender.
In Iraq, we declared victory before the average Iraqi had a chance to understand they were being conquered, and before the average would be defender had a chance to take a first shot. Iraq provides the answer to the old bit about “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” The answer is that the real war comes after.
We talk about winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. But this requires winning a measure of fearful respect, not just building a better water plant. Our soldiers in Iraq are winning that fearful respect, bit by bit, by venturing out though they’re shot at, by killing attackers as readily as they help ordinary folks, by cleaning out insurgent strongholds as well as street gutters. But we fail to understand how much blood will have to be shed, and how many wills will have to be shattered before this is done. Because, semantically, we think of this as post-war, we get highly upset about what we would understand as unfortunate but necessary if we would only acknowledge that we are, in fact, still at war in certain sectors.
So there’s the answer to why we’re still in Iraq: The war is not quite over and the pacification process is actually just beginning.
I’m sure we’ll be out of Iraq in less time than it took us to start pulling out of Germany, but we’ve got a ways to go yet. President Bush should have told us that in clearer terms, especially at those times when it was tempting to be triumphal. He didn’t. That he didn’t is one reason why his party lost a lot of seats over a war that is actually quite successful if judged other than against the sunny picture of it that was first presented.
Hey I aint going to lie it really was all I could do to show up and vote and even that hurt my side all day.
The republicans mistakes are long forgeting what we sent them to do in the first place. going native and on a all out graft spree full of pork, earmarks, bribes, theives, hell they even let a fckin known flake who turned out to not only like young boys but evenn the ones NOT of AGE YET. I mean talk about a disaster waiting to happen. ERRRRRR All of the above people should have been called out and ran out publicly banned from the party pernamently and made example of BEFORE THEY WERE COUGHT IF POSSIBLE.
And truefullly I think they could have probably pulled out 06′ if like IMO mentioned had allowed thier balls to swing back when the Dems went all out attack. I mean in 04′ they actually ran on the fact that they needed a super majority and got it then lost thier nerve and the Dems ran the roost. WTF
You wanta talk about hearing I still am trying to figure out why NSA, EU prisons, leak after leak and we get what one low level clinton analyst holdover Retired with Benefits ERRRRRRRRRR and before this we had to accept a whitch hunt over Plame a supposed CIA super secret undercover spy who did photo Shoots in newsweek WTFFFF how can you take that and still not dish nothing back WHEN YOU HAVE THE ADVANTAGE….
On Iraq this I lay at the feet of Bush. Iraq is so misunderstood it sickens me. Iraq is nothing more than a battlefield (OF OUR CHOICE ya know that used to be what generals called picking the field to our advantage and was appluaded if they could force our enemy to fight on it) in the greater WOT remember that thing yea the one our side finally realized was raging not after our first attack sometime back in the 70’s or even the first WT 93′ but 9-11-01 were 3k CIVILIANS died in a matter of hours with HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF LOST REVENUE. WOT a war of survival and Bush forgot what a presidents job is RALLY the PEOPLE. Bush never should have sat the Bullhorn down after his speech at 9-11 and the population should be so damm rallied up that the Muslims should be sereously worried about their radicals not for fear of them but becuase they should FEAR OUR RETRIBUTION AND ALL OUT FOAMING POPULATION READY TO ROLL & DO WHATEVER. A president in a time of war don’t choose how to fight that is for generals all he is to do is rally the people and make sure the nation is behind the effort.
and HELL YEA WE SHOULD QUESTION THE LLL’S PATRIOTISM I am so tired of the I served in the nam military how dare you question my patriotism MFkr Benedict Arnold Traitorist dog how about that name better. Yea that was for Murtha, Kerry ect… ashats that is slaming a active WAR effort at the cost of our troops hell outright slamming THE TROOPS.
Bush unfortunatley just can’t or wont speak to the people i mean he couldn’t sell a free bar of 10k gold.
Now we find ourselves were we are and hopefully someone will rise Newt, Pence, Shadeg I like but someone will pop up and take the helm and steer this ship through the reef called Dem controlled legaslature and beyond. Make US the good guys again (the adult, uncorruptable, problem solvers)not just the Not so Horrible guys.