Comments Posted By rd
Displaying 1 To 3 Of 3 Comments
What will give is the perpetuation of the Democratic Party's hold on Congress. They're in a no-lose, can only win, position. A splintered party is a spent party, with a long lead time to pick up the kindling. It was a relief these last few years since I had not thought Republicans would ever win either House -- and have the White House. The Democrats have gone through their intercine warfare and settledd on a clear winning playbook.
Comment Posted By rd On 10.11.2006 @ 15:29
Even if one completely agrees you're right, you're still be in the shadows, pronouncing how right we really are but not developing a winning plan.
I'm sure you noticed Germany bringing war crimes charges against Bush Administration figures. This will make great blogging, great media coverage, posturing all around, but where is your winning plan to retake the House?
The Democrats and Bush will reach accomodations. Bush is more like John F. Kennedy than any other recent president and will end his Presidency as advancing more social programs than Kennedy ever accomplished. Great blogging, great media coverage, posturing all around, but where is your winning plan to retake the House?
I think your're wrong about any one person joining the parts back together. It would have to be a person that's not on the stage today. It took Ronnie over a decade to craft his coalition and only won due to Carter's losing management. The next several election cycles are the Democrats to lose (unless you can share your winning plan).
If you want to affiliate with either party, please join the Democratic party. They'll benefit from a dash of sanity and are closer to you ideology.
It will take much longer than two years to become a majority again. Whatever the Republican party will be in two years will be mostly what you see now. The Democrats are, if anything, very skilled politicians -- they won this time with no real agenda, no real plan. Consider:
The House
The new "moderates" in the Democratic party will likely have near-zero impact on the new leadership. The only issue is how skillful (and I'd say they will be extremely skillful) in pursuing liberal agendas.The Senate
Given the moderate-left Republicans remaining and reading the 2008 tea leaves, the Republicans will likely continue folding their hand. Even more so if the Democrats get to 51.The Legislation
Every bill will build the Democrat agenda and expand their base. The Immigration Reform Act of 2007 will be a true boon to Democratic turnout. And that's just the start. The Democrats are truly the professional political party and much more skilled than Republicans in taking care of their various bases - directly by funding aid, indirectly by regulation, and indirectly by judges. Bush is, perhaps, a on of the few truly moderate politicians still walking and will almost certainly sign any bill that wonders by.The Media and Etc
The old media still controls public opinion. Public opinion will continue to be shoved into the Democratic column. With Republicans out of power (presuming the Senate swings), how many Republicans will be even offered an interview on any national media except Fox? Anything that is positive will be reported as due to Democrats' hurculean effort in the face of Bush; everything negative will continue to be due to Bush and Republicans. You should be able to script this today.2008
The next election cycle will be a sure Democratic win for the Congress (iot’s hard to imagine how they can dramatically misstep). The Presidency is an open issue only because the Democrats could still nominate Kerry. Other than that, it will be at least another four election cycles before Republicans take control.Summary
The Democratic agenda will continue to be the winning agenda and only accelerate over the next few years. In 16 years the Democrats of today will be considered “conservativeâ€.Good luck in finding a coalition of amateur politicians.
Comment Posted By rd On 8.11.2006 @ 08:44
GOSSIP AS POLITICS: WOODWARD'S WHITE HOUSE HIT JOB
The Rumsfeld Narrative continues on botching post-war Iraq. He may have done many things wrong but after Bush appointed Brenner, disasters multiplied. In June 2002, President Bush appointed Ambassador Bremer. Ambassador usually are not part of DoD? I would consider General Garner (served maybe two months) as a DoD person, started with a plan opposite of what the politicians approved. After June 2002, the DoD was hardly in control and went to a supporting role. After Brenner's momumental mistakes, as approved by the politicians (can you say Powell), the course was set as we now see it being played out. Does anyone recall the debate that kicked Garner out? Wasn't it something about not having the military in charge, needing the State department, the politics of getting "partners" for reconstruction, and a host of other reasons?
Below echos most of the critics pointing to Brenner's decisions as the cause of where we are now and, interestingly, point to Garner's plan as what should have been done. But how one morphs all this to Rumsfeld as the scapegoat is a mystery. He should have resigned or, as Franks, just retired, and maybe that's his crime.
"The first committee formed to oversee the reconstruction effort was the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), led by Jay Garner who had been involved in humanitarian efforts in Northern Iraq after the first Gulf War. Garner, who began drafting plans for post-Saddam Iraq in early January, arrived in Baghdad at the end of April 2003. His objectives included food delivery, emergency assistance, reestablishing electricity and other basic services, reshaping the Iraqi military, safeguarding Iraq’s infrastructure and uncovering weapons of mass destruction. One of Garner’s most vital objectives was to retain the Iraqi army to utilize it in the reconstruction process as well as to avoid massive unemployment.
Unfortunately, L. Paul Bremer III, who was appointed to lead the newly formed Coalition Provisional Authority (CPO), which ORHA was dissolved into, replaced Garner. Upon his arrival Bremer began a process of "De-Baathification" of the Iraqi army. The Baath party was Saddam Hussein’s former political party. According to The Council on Foreign Relations, Bremer made two "sweeping" orders: one outlawed the Baath party and dismissed all senior officials from their posts; the other dissolved Iraq’s 500,000-member military and intelligence services. Bremer’s actions crippled the reconstruction effort and made it impossible for American troops to withdraw from Iraq. The stage was set for a long, violent and expensive occupation."
Comment Posted By rd On 30.09.2006 @ 08:30
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/790/60/
