Republican Pity Party

The nail on the head, direct hit, say no more.

Well when anyone can clearly state exactly WHERE Obama stands on his issues and explain how the Blueprint for Change is not circular and problematic or how Hillary is by any means a clear winner (or truthful), Pelosi intelligent, and Kennedy honest I'll lend an ear to the Democratic party with 1/5 less the cynicism and sarcasm.

It will fall on deaf ears because the Republicans have stopped providing what they promised they would when they came to power: good ideas and good governance.

people need to remember, as upset we are aginst the gop, there was a reason they got their monopoly(and no it wasn't diebold) it was 40years of dem corruption.

Yep, after 40 years the Dem speaker of the house started stealing furniture from congress.

But after less than 8, the reps managed stole a country's sovereignty.

Joules:
Ditto.
You need an honorable opposition to keep you in line. Without someone reminding you that there is at least an alternative view, you start to believe your own propaganda. Then, you are doomed.
They're not dead, though. They may suffer horrific losses this year, but you recall Nixon was supposed to have killed off the Republican party after the slaughter of '76. And it was equally manifest that McGovern had done it to the democrats 4 years before.
Even without the shifting fortunes that gave Dubya both the highest and lowest approval ratings in history, the system is set up to accommodate two parties. Unfortunately, for me and a few dozen million others, no more than two.

Gosh I voted a lot on this thread :) Wonderful points, Scott, and I totally agree. I'm 40 and will be voting Dem for the first time in many years. (Not that it matters but I'm a white, conservative, religious--I've never voted straight ticket, but the Repubs have definitely counted on my vote in the past).

I'm still waiting to hear what issues, other than war/threat of war/wars between other countries, that are of interest to McCain. While Republican officials have been busy patting themselves on their backs and praising each other the last 8 years, their base is shifting away.

It will take a concerted effort to get Obama into office, and those wanting a change must get out and vote. I don't want us letting up, because the remaining Republican supporters and people voting against Obama will show up election day.

ann:
I, too, am conservative in many respects. I am religious, pro-gun, and pro-life.

The election is within our grasp, but we Democrats have to remember the great necessity of forcefully reaching for it and seizing the victory to carry the day.

I'm with you. Let's make it happen.

Ann:
I've got a plan for the election that could have nationwide implications. It's called "Operation Guillotine". I'm going to write an article about it soon and I'll be relying on good Democrats like you to not only help it succeed but bring other Democrats into the fold to help it. Can I count on you?

If you are a Republican, find a safe place to hide on Election Day because, thanks to the President and your unwillingness to stand up to him when he destroyed a party I used to revere, Republican blood is going to run in the streets knee deep.

I disagree Scott. A single person making some bad choices isn't definitive of the party whole. I hear a lot of ex republicans claim that Bush is horrible, and I agree to some extent that he's a D-bag (on some things). What always gets me though is that Dems bring up 9/11 and the repeated debacle(s). They say that Bush handled it wrong, but per usual, the Dems offer up no solution or alternative.

What is it a Democrat President would have done. Stating what he wouldn't have done is both conjecture and usually only contradictory to what did happen (and sometimes I get contradicting responses - "The Dem president would: have gathered more intel / would have acted faster")

In the parenthetic statement Scott, you and I have agreed that Intel is extremely important and that Intel takes time... Now, I'm not saying that the parenthetic responses are what you'd say, but it is what I've heard... My response? Shut down the borders completely... figure out who, what, where and go to work. Why was logistically, strategically and tactically irrelevant (it was only relevant to the public), and When was known.

One of the things I liked about Bush was that he didn't let the Democrats play their little games in Congress with him. He stood by his choices whether they were right or wrong... and it's really easy for all of us to sit here and be that 'armchair general', but what is it we'd do in Bush's position - bearing in mind that after we choose, a portion of the country will think it's wrong, the media will play down good ideas and play up bad ones, the global community will scorn it regardless, and Congress will try to write in a line or two that gets them pocket change - after all of that... what is it you'd do as President, and you'll need an answer in a very short time span.

Shawn:
I happen to be to the right of Bush. I would have instituted a draft after 9-11 (as I believe the country would have given anything the president asked for) and then conducted the Afghanistan operation. After that, I can't really say what I would have done as president because it would largely depend on the effects of what had happened. However, I do know that I would have enlarged the military substantially through a draft and if Bin Laden escaped to Pakistan I would have asked Musharraf to extradite him. If Musharraf refused to do so, I would have used the army we had in Afghanistan to cross the border and seize or kill Bin Laden and every other Al Qaeda or Taliban member we located. There are people I've talked to like Bill Harrison that believe the FATA (NW Pakistan) is some kind of magic fairyland that has never been ruled since Alexander the Great's time and that it's unconquerable. I disagree. I don't seek to keep the place, just destroy the madrassas and anything else there with the capability to contribute to its well-deserved reputation as a terrorist factory. After that I would move the military back into Afghanistan and begin an intensive rebuilding project in the country while building permanent U.S. military bases there so that if trouble were to break out there again and another fellow styles himself the next Bin Laden we would have the force in the area to find and kill him as well. For my taste, Bush has been far too conciliatory and he has been played for a fool by Musharraf who has taken $10B in aid since 2001 and by 2008 he has a full truce with Al Qaeda and the Taliban to not bother him as long as he doesn't bother them.

Scott,

Well... what about Pakistan's disinclination to allow US troops to conduct operations through them to Afghanistan? You also have overlooked the long history Afghanistan mountains have of eating up large armies... Your draft would piss off and incite many otherwise willing Americans, and going into the mountains of Afghnistan would kill them. Granted this is conjecture, but it's based on historical evidence. You'[ll also have the blowback from the global community and left leaning press throwing up anti-humanist campaigns. In many aspects, your disregard for what other nations think, inaction or inability to actually gather intel and listen to seasoned experts in their field (something Reagan did right), and total disregard for the innocent people in other countries is EXACTLY what ruined the Republican party, the 'value' of this nation on a global level, and tarnish the idea that the citizenry have. Your ONLY hope is to have been right... and we'll never know if what you've planned would have been successful and cheaper in both money or lives.

I agree with you... sort of, but I also see the huge caveats of staging the operation such as that.

Shawn:
Obviously those were simply the broad strokes of what I wanted to do. Down to the more minute details I would simply want to create the govt we currently have in Afghanistan but have enough force to hold the Taliban at bay while a strong, democratic govt took root in Afghanistan. I don't disagree with Bush's goals, I disagree with the tactics he used to try to achieve them.

Also, our ties with our main allies, besides Britain, were burned over Iraq and not Afghanistan. The world had by and large granted us carte blanche to do what we wished to the Taliban. So, I don't think the operation that I outlined focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan would have done much damage to our alliances. In fact, a huge American presence next door to Pakistan may have moved Musharraf to be far more cooperative than he has been thus far. 9/11 was like Pearl Harbor so the response, in my mind, should be similar to our response to the Axis powers in size and desire to completely obliterate the cultures from which those attacks emanated and totally rebuild them in the postwar world.

Scott, save for the Canadians, Dutch, Danes and UK, the Europeans were backsliding on Afghanistan before the embers from the WTCs were even extinguished. Fortunately, despite European unwillingness to do much of anything helpful in the troublesome south and east of the country, US forces are adopting the same tried and true COIN strategy and tactics that have been paying off in Iraq albeit tardily. The problem remains the FATAs of Pakistan wherein the Taliban and al Qaeda take haven. And now that the PPP and Muslim-N Party of Sharif have split there's little likelihood of anything good coming out of that quarter either regardless of who becomes president come next year. We will agree to disagree as to the extent that any unilateral NATO military operations can succeed without active and effective (i.e., training the Frontiers Corps in classic COIN tactics and allying that with aid projects that currently languish due to corruption) Pakistani participation in the FATAs.

Bill:
I think that our NATO allies are burnt out because of the time it is taking to accomplish the mission. Like Sun Tzi said (and I'm paraphrasing): a military operation is like a fire, if it goes on too long it will burn itself out.

9/11 was like Pearl Harbor so the response, in my mind, should be similar to our response to the Axis powers in size and desire to completely obliterate the cultures from which those attacks emanated and totally rebuild them in the postwar world.

I don't think that the point was to obliterate the Japanese, German or Italian culture. Think what Italy would be like is we replace Hiroshima with Rome, or what Germany would be like if we replaced Nagasaki with Munich. To obliterate a strain of ideology within a culture... I can go along with that. Far left would love to see far right eradicated in this country (but then people who see things one sided are literally stupid anyway). This however, ties into my next point...

I don't disagree with Bush's goals, I disagree with the tactics he used to try to achieve them.

I agree with this completely. While obliterating a culture is bad, fast and hard action I think was needed. A sort of @!$%# smack with iron gloves as it were.

I think that our NATO allies are burnt out because of the time it is taking to accomplish the mission.

I'd lean more towards that idea that NATO really isn't responsive to much anything becuase it's disorganized - no one agrees on @!$%# anymore.

Shawn:

I don't think that the point was to obliterate the Japanese, German or Italian culture. Think what Italy would be like is we replace Hiroshima with Rome, or what Germany would be like if we replaced Nagasaki with Munich. To obliterate a strain of ideology within a culture... I can go along with that. Far left would love to see far right eradicated in this country (but then people who see things one sided are literally stupid anyway). This however, ties into my next point...

Italy's people and core culture were not really changed by Mussolini so much as bullied by him and the Catholic Church was the strongest entity in postwar Italy which is why I think that so little was done to change Italy by the Allies after the war. However, if we look at Germany and Japan they were totally and unconditionally defeated. We then preceded to erase their governments, insert democracy and rebuild them through the Marshall Plan. Japan was changed the most because it was turned from an Eastern country into a Western country. Highly industrialized and governed by reason rather than mysticism. With each passing generation Japan becomes more a part of the West a testament to which is their increasing rivalry with China. We also totally and completely disarmed both countries and later allowed them to have "defense forces." We only let the Germans out of their cage for the Persian Gulf war and now we have them participating more fully in NATO. I think that America fundamentally changed both countries and cultures. Perhaps we didn't obliterate their cultures, but we changed 80-90% of them.

I agree with this completely. While obliterating a culture is bad, fast and hard action I think was needed. A sort of @!$%# smack with iron gloves as it were.

Yes, play rough to get their attention.

I'd lean more towards that idea that NATO really isn't responsive to much anything becuase it's disorganized - no one agrees on @!$%# anymore.

That is part of the problem too. However, we are also having to rely on a number of countries that have gotten used to American military protection rather than fighting for themselves and, thus, they are resistant to sending combat troops. I have to tip my hat to the Canadians as they have done one hell of a job in Afghanistan leading the NATO contingent. Unfortunately they aren't getting nearly the help they need.

Scott

I think that our NATO allies are burnt out because of the time it is taking to accomplish the mission.

Good heavens, Scott. Did you honestly think that the mission in Afghanistan, a country more in name only that has been ravaged by war for thirty years, would be over in a few years? That would be a repeat of the same mistakes we made there a generation ago. Staying power and commitment is always a problem with liberal democracies. That is the advantage that our opponents hold over us.

Had the president followed the advise of the assembled "wise" men and women of Baker-Hamilton and the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid instead of doubling down with Petraeus we'd know be well on our way to utter defeat in Iraq.

Bill:

Good heavens, Scott. Did you honestly think that the mission in Afghanistan, a country more in name only that has been ravaged by war for thirty years, would be over in a few years? That would be a repeat of the same mistakes we made there a generation ago. Staying power and commitment is always a problem with liberal democracies. That is the advantage that our opponents hold over us.

No, certainly not. But on the same token, I hadn't expected the manpower black hole of Iraq when we first invaded Afghanistan either. We had things moving in a pretty positive direction until we diverted resources to Iraq. Just an observation, not a complaint.

As for liberal democracies, Britain and America exhibited stronger wills than Germany and Italy, both dictatorships. My CO and I had a discussion about homefront morale when I studied as a civvie with the Marines at Miami. He said that we had scrap drives and people not allowed to buy tires until the war was over not because there wasn't the capacity to supply both the military and the commercial sectors but to keep the public involved with the war and sacrificing something so they could feel a part of it. He said there were many a man who proudly said in 1945 "I didn't buy a new set of tires from Pearl Harbor until today." My CO also said that the all-volunteer military gives the public the option of treating the military like a stepchild, totally forgetting it exists because so few know someone that serves. This is one reason why I think that in wartime, a volunteer military is not the best choice: it allows the public to disconnect and forget we are at war.

Had the president followed the advise of the assembled "wise" men and women of Baker-Hamilton and the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid instead of doubling down with Petraeus we'd know be well on our way to utter defeat in Iraq.

The jig isn't up yet, my friend. We may still have to split it into three autonomous regions under a weak "Articles of Confederation" central government where the only sure thing is an oil revenue sharing agreement. And that might be the best outcome there is to be had. Petraeus is great, but he was put in control far too late and he is not a magician.

As for liberal democracies, Britain and America exhibited stronger wills than Germany and Italy, both dictatorships.

Scott, WWII wasn't won because of a contest of wills. There's no evidence that Allied bombing campaigns against Japan or Germany ever weakened the German or Japanese "will to resist". Hitler made this error of expectations too when he launched the Blitz by accident against England. The more apt comparison is Vietnam and bin Laden himself has made many comments that America is a "weak horse" which if bloodied as in Somalia and earlier in Lebanon during Reagan's first term will bug out. One of the few predictions that the Bush administration was correct in after 9/11 is that this struggle against retrograde Islam will last at least for a generation if not longer.

Bill:
I would argue that a country that has been wronged will have the fortitude to last through a long struggle. Pearl Harbor steeled the United States to see WWII through to the demise of Germany and Japan. 9/11 would have steeled us to see this war through to the end of extremist Islam if the govt had engaged the public in the fight.

I don't believe they can take our will with terrorist attacks just like Hitler couldn't bomb the British into submission. It just pisses the target off.

Pearl Harbor steeled the United States to see WWII through to the demise of Germany and Japan.

Actually... some of the US still didn't want to go to war and those that did got tired of war very quickly. There was a lot of propaganda in the media that rejuvenated the war effort state side. This isn't to say that the major victories weren't AS major (in some cases they were MORE major), but at the time we really didn't know how major they were...

9/11 would have steeled us to see this war through to the end of extremist Islam if the govt had engaged the public in the fight.

The US is a diverse (culturally) nation, and is more diverse now than in 1941-1946. Many Arabs in the US were enraged at the terrorist extremists, but defended their culture. The Japanese in America during WW2 were not afforded the same level of vocal response. My point is that the American public today is almost impossible to completely unify BECUASE of the robust diversity. Serisouly... get a room full of people to agree on three things consecutively in three very different subjects:

God / Lack of God

Torture

War in Iraq

I don't believe they can take our will with terrorist attacks just like Hitler couldn't bomb the British into submission. It just pisses the target off.

Which is why some people work extremely hard at playing with terminology and micro-define / macro-define 'terrorist' - so that no one is truely clear on what is and is not considered terrorist action

It just boggles my mind how the U.S. and the European nations have handled terrorism differently. Europe has been dealing with terrorists of various types for decades and handles it as criminal activity. The U.S. wants to wage a "war on terror" as its solution. The European approach is business-as-usual-just-be-vigilant while the U.S. approach is let's-put-the-nation-on-a-war-footing. Let's not fool ourselves, a lot of political hay has been made from our "war on terror" approach.

Well, the terrorist action taken against the US was an act of war so we dealt with it accordingly.

Just wondering, if any Neo-cons would take responsibility for having anything to do with destroying the credibility of the Republican Party? Or do they blame Democrats? •·¿•·

For a while I had hope that McCain would do a good job, as a reasonable, intelligent man not chained to the NeoCons. But it's ever more and more clear that he's sold out.

He voted against bush, even said he was as dumb as a stump. Now he denies both.

Two years ago, he negotiation with Hamas was necessary. Now he not only says it's impossible, but he attacks Obama for his old position.

He used to snub all of the crazy fundies, now he panders to Hagee and the rest.

I therefore no longer believe that were he to become president, he would'nt become as cozy to the war profiteers as Bush has been.

Just wondering, if any Neo-cons would take responsibility for having anything to do with destroying the credibility of the Republican Party? Or do they blame Democrats?

They'd blame Bill Clinton.

McCain has been unremarkably party-line Republican this time around. He doesn't seem willing or able to do or say anything that's against the party mainstream. The Straight Talk Express has dropped its transmission and is sitting on the side of the interstate.

Seems the moment he got a sniff of power, be became part of the establishment. Sad to see this happen to what was once a great, independent man. A few years back, McCain said Ron Paul was the only honest man in the House.

McCain sold out, Paul stuck to his guns and created a new, powerful libertarian movement. Better lose an election, and die with the respect of a large movement with fresh ideas in a time our country direly needs them, then to win and die as another faceless, corrupt politician.

Huckabee's ideas on taxes, and his statism, were such that I disagreed, but he too, challenges the status quo of the republican party. Not only that, but he challenges the traditional, corrupt values of the Christian right.

Outside of Paul, I have yet to a realistic assessment of the dire straits we are in financially, or any ideas on how to stop the country's descent into tyranny.

Huckabee and McCain (in that order) were the only two Republicans I could tolerate being president. Losing is not an option but if, God forbid, we did lose I'd want it to be to them. But McCain is losing his shine for me rapidly.

Do any of you people (Scott excluded) know the first thing about how politics in this country is played? Apparently you do not. What McCain is doing now is nothing more than shoring up the base before the campaign against Obama begins at which time he will move to the center just as Obama tries to do (reclaim those Hillary voters and Reagan Democrats) in a like fashion from the left base of the Democratic Party.

Bill's right, guys. McCain is attempting to gather the fragmented pieces of what even Republicans are calling a shattered coalition back together while Clinton and Obama's fight has been giving McCain a respite. He needed time to catch his breath.

Another premature eja "Victory" banner from the neo-cons .... ·•¿·•

Remember saying this is how it is played, (everyone is so tired of being played) after it all slips through McCains fingers like sand in November, and the Republican Party slips into obscurity and irrelevancy. Remember when the Federalist Party lost all credibility with the American people after the war of 1812?, they were cocky war mongering conservatives till the end as well.

I doubt the Republicans will cease to exist like the Federalists did, but their entire leadership will likely be purged and the party will have to start over defining its brand. They have totally ruined the current brand.

It is the neo-cons narrow view of history that keeps these baseless "Predictions" from being even remotely credible. When you are out of touch with the people you have no PARTY.

You mean my predictions, Dan?

Who are you?

You cannot even fathom how confused I am right now. LOL

You cannot even fathom how confused I am right now. LOL

Sorry for the double post... NV is acting strange.

Something else that we can be thankful to Republicans for: no more of that harsh manual labor and not having to worry about having any discretionary income to decide how to spend. They make our lives so much simpler. ;-)

...and not having to worry about having any discretionary income to decide how to spend.

Gas and food prices have pretty much taken care of discretionary spending. I thought gas prices were bad after Katrina but this is ridiculous. My pay hasn't increased and I refuse to live on credit cards or go into my savings, so the only choice is to cut back wherever possible.

/0:
You and I are in the same boat, my friend. My family's finances are stretched to the breaking point and if gas hits $5/gallon then our finances may actually break.

PAM, having lived in Wichita, "the air capital" of the US, and knowing how that economy hinges on aircraft manufacturing, I can understand why Kansans are upset at that tanker contract going overseas. Those workers feel betrayed by McCain, supposedly "one of their own." Another striking example of a core group's disappointment with the Republican establishment.

The tanker contract may have gone to an overseas company, but the planes are being assembled about an hour's drive from where I live in Mobile, Alabama. An estimated 2000 new jobs will be coming here as a result. Knowing what it means to our local economy, I honestly can't bemoan the fact that Northrop Grumman-EADS got the contract.

Thanks for pointing that out, Division. Glad the jobs stayed in the US.

That's what drove me from the Republicans, they finally became the corrupt officials that they came with a mission to replace in 1994.

If the Republican Party were a ship, now would be the time to start throwing the baggage and unpopular passengers over the side.

That would have been about 4 years ago, but they weren't bright enough to do it.