2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

The Republican party is imploding all over the place Iraq will be the main issue that will weigh in voters minds come election day . However other issues will such as health care , The Department of Home Land Security will also come into play. The only Republican candidate that is talking about small government is Ron Paul and as I have said his cure is worse then the disease.

The icing on the cake is of course gay hookers and "mis use " of stalls in public toilets.

reply to post by xpert11



OK, Mr Xpert11, let’s see how this stacks up. On the assumption the GOPs are as smart as the Dems, perhaps this is the scenario the GOP think can be best for them. Bush43 has skipped right by the ISG offer of an escape hatch and a hand up. Despise losing the ‘06 election, just barely losing the Senate, the GOP senators have stood by him. Only 2 have jumped ship, Warner and Hegel, and both have muted any gain that might have offered by declaring neither will not run again. They are now Has-been’s.

Bush43 defies all reason and logic. He has sent 35,000 extra men - borrowing from tomorrow - into Iraq in what he loves to call a SURGE. He cares not a whit if it "works" or not. It is his way of saying "in your face." He has promised us time and again that he will not withdraw from Iraq. I guess we will believe him on January 20, 2009. Q. How many MORE GIs will die between then and now?

Dems strategy calls for nipping at Bush43's heels like an overeager puppy dog, while the GOP strategy is to LOOK strong, LOOK determined, LOOK confident and LOOK away from the downside of Iraq. The GOP knows what the votes don’t know, that America cannot leave Iraq precipitously. The Dems in the end, may save Bush43's ignorant butt despite not wanting to do so.

No matter how many GIs go KIA in Iraq, Bush43 will not do a Nixon and end a losing war on his watch. It’s the Bush43 legacy paid for by their blood.

Ron Paul has zero to no chance of getting the GOP nomination. He is not a GOP and everyone knows it. The GOP doesn’t expel him because he is still a dependable vote. He’d vote GOP even if he was expelled.

By the bye, Ron Paul is a Libertarian. I say Libertarians are Anarchists in drag. With haircuts but without bombs to throw at authoritarians.

Senator Craig. We already knew the GOP was hypocritical about morals and personal conduct. Any party that uses Swift Boats to win elections has no morals.

[edit on 9/9/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Dems strategy calls for nipping at Bush43's heels like an overeager puppy dog, while the GOP strategy is to LOOK strong, LOOK determined, LOOK confident and LOOK away from the downside of Iraq.

The GOP looks doomed because the majority of the US public doesn't support the US military policing a civil war in the ME. By Bush and co own pre war reckoning US troops have been more then three years late coming home.

Along with the botched occupation of Iraq is it any wonder that is very little support for the war in Iraq ?

No matter how many GIs go KIA in Iraq, Bush43 will not do a Nixon and end a losing war on his watch. It’s the Bush43 legacy paid for by their blood.

Nixon arrived after LBJ had gotten the US deeply involved in Vietnam so it wasn't really his ego or legacy that as effected.

Ron Paul has zero to no chance of getting the GOP nomination. He is not a GOP and everyone knows it. The GOP doesn’t expel him because he is still a dependable vote. He’d vote GOP even if he was expelled.

I never said that Ron was going to win the nomination or that he is a main stream Republican.





[edit on 9-9-2007 by xpert11]

I did not get a chance to see it, but I am aware that the Dems had a debate on Univision today. It was pointed out that John McCain was on the only Republican willing to debate in this Spanish-translated format. I can't help but think that this is just one more example of GOP disconnect. What's the deal about a language barrier. Conservatives should be able to handle the Hispanic issues.

Justin has made an interesting post.
IMO the reason that most of the Republican candidates would avoid the Spanish-translated format is because they oppose some of the social effects of emigration. By that I mean that some people oppose the likes of multi culturism and foreign languages appearing in public places. So even if a Republican candidate had moderate views or was a supporter of multi culturism by taking part in a such a debate they would alienate there own core supporter base.


[edit on 10-9-2007 by xpert11]

I don't know what Don will have to say about this, but here's my two cents.

I think the decision has been made at he highest party levels to skirt the issue of immigration becaue of the back-lash generated last summer over the Kenndy-McCain bill. I do think the Old Guys who run the RNC are stuck in the past. They're gonna pay for that in November of '08.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


J/O, X11, even people like me who support an OPEN border and condemn even the thought of building a Berlin Wall West, realize that not everyone sees it my way. We also know there is a very serous problem out there NEEDING to be solved. IN the traditional American way.

Four issues will determine the November 4, 2008, election outcome. Not necessarily in the correct order, I’d offer 1) Iraq War, 2) Health Care, 3) Immigration and 4) a new one, America’s infrastructure replacing the old one, our perennial blathering over education. The so-called War on Terror has finally taken its proper place with the earlier War on Crime, War on Poverty and War on Drugs. All failures but we don’t know how to quit. Which ought to go to proving it is much easier to start a war than it is to end one. Even a bad one deceptively conceived and clumsily executed at great cost in blood, reputation and treasure.

J/O is correct in assessing the reason the GOP candidates - excepting the honest one John McCain - 6 years in prison makes you either a killer or makes you an honest man. What does not kill you makes you stronger. Neither reason, common sense nor fair play appeals to the GOP's core constituency on the immigration issue. 21st century "Know Nothings."

Giuliani as No. 1 has no where to go but down. Rudy’s people have already decided that if the Nine Eleven Event could re-elect Bush43 in ‘04, then it might just elect the NYC mayor in ‘08. Fred Thompson is a cardboard man standing erect but who will be easy to blow over. He is trying to play himself off as Ronald Reagan re-incarnated but that will not work past the end of this year. Fred’s an actor, yes, but a Reagan? No! Mit Romney OTOH, can stay in as long as he wants because he has his own money. He’s flat in the polls and down low. I don’t see him as more than a VP alternative. Which is what I also see Fred as. A stand-by VP.

[edit on 9/10/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
! Mit Romney OTOH, can stay in as long as he wants because he has his own money. He’s flat in the polls and down low. I don’t see him as more than a VP alternative. Which is what I also see Fred as. A stand-by VP.

[edit on 9/10/2007 by donwhite]

I disagree with your assessment on Romney for I see him becoming the front runner. He has a good track record as a Governor (in Kennedy’s state no less) and most like Governors over Congressmen as presidential candidates. He is saying all the right things on the 4 key issues and will please the conservative base while not alienating everyone else. Hell, I can see moderate Democrats that do not like Hillary voting for him, and he has charisma and tons money everyone else is lacking.

I think Fred is a joke and his delay to bypass some debates will show that he really has little substance. As you said it Rudy only has one place to go and that is down. I actually like him, but I just can’t get pass his socialist views and neither will the Republican base. I know little about Paul other than the radicals have adopted him mostly and he will have a short shine then fade away. McCain will do himself in, but will fall back and still come back up a few times, but he can not make it after his debacle in handling his election so far. He has a very hot temper and a hard person to work for, hence so many quitting.

reply to post by Xtrozero

I disagree with your assessment on Romney for I see him becoming the front runner. He has a good track record as a Governor (in Kennedy’s state no less) and most like Governors over Congressmen as presidential candidates. He is saying all the right things on the 4 key issues. I can see moderate Democrats that do not like Hillary voting for him.

Well, I agree in part but I have reservations in part. I agree he was a popular governor of MA. A True Blue State. That proves he can get Dems votes, especially valuable in an election where the GOP is running a bad second. OTOH, unless Giuliani slips badly, and Fred falls back, then Mit will be amongst the “also runs” in the footnotes of history. The public has had enough time to rate the major candidates. Yes, assuming Hillary wins the Dems nomination over Barack, disgruntled Dems could find Mit a happy alternative but only IF the GOP goes his way. What exactly do you think he could do to pull himself out of the political doldrums?

I think Fred is a joke and his delay to bypass some debates will show that he really has little substance. As you said it Rudy only has one place to go and that is down. I actually like him, but I just can’t get pass his socialist views and neither will the Republican base.

I can’t understand your revulsion over socialism. Post War 2 socialism is not about state ownership of the means of production. Minor countries like Estonia and Belarus aside, the only place that ever tried state ownership of production was the USSR from 1917 to 1989-1991. After 70 years, it failed in part because of the tightly structured hierarchy of the Soviet government; instructions flowed easily from top to bottom but bottom to top feedback was apparently non-existent. West Euro socialism is the best working solution to a host of complex societal issues. IMO.

I don’t know how to classify Mao Zedong’s post 1949 China. What is a country with 395 million rice-paddy working coolies, 3 million soldiers and 2 million educated elites called? (1950 population estimate).

I know little about Paul other than the radicals have adopted him mostly and he will have a short shine then fade away. McCain will do himself in, but will fall back and still come back up a few times, but he can not make it after his debacle in handling his election so far. He has a very hot temper and a hard person to work for, hence so many quitting.

Medical doctor Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He “converted” to Republicanism to run for Congress. Everybody knows he is not a GOP type but no one cares because he votes with the GOP 100%. Libertarians are anarchists who comb their hair and have stopped throwing bombs. It is impossible to have LESS government when you have MORE people. And etc.

War hero John McCain has shot himself in the foot. Why he did that I don’t know. If I had $10 million in the bank for my campaign, I’d darn sure have a plan or budget how it would be spent. Once a week we’d all get together and the treasurer would sure be there. He may be more like Bush43 than I care for, if he lets others make the important decisions.

[edit on 9/10/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

IF the GOP goes his way. What exactly do you think he could do to pull himself out of the political doldrums?

I can’t understand your revulsion over socialism. Post War 2 socialism is not about state ownership of the means of production. Minor countries like Estonia and Belarus aside, the only place that ever tried state ownership of production was the USSR from 1917 to 1989-1991. After 70 years, it failed in part because of the tightly structured hierarchy of the Soviet government; instructions flowed easily from top to bottom but bottom to top feedback was apparently non-existent. West Euro socialism is the best working solution to a host of complex societal issues. IMO.

It is not really what he needs to do as much as what he is not lacking.

1. Charisma, extremely well spoken and well mannered guy with quick wit. This is basically everything the Bush doesn’t have, and so gives the voters a totally different presidential package vote for. Rudy is lacking in this area. I remember hearing people talk about him licking his lips to much instead of discussing he points.

2. I think Giuliani and Romney will be the two that the Republicans will pick their contender from, and as of right now either will beat what the Democrats have to offer as of yet. I’m just not sure that Rudy can get his message out as well as Romney can, but I do see them really close on the top four issues and so the conservative issues that Romney is in favor of and Rudy is not will put Romney over the top.

I misspoke on the socialist statement; I meant Rudy’s Moderate Libertarian views. As for socialism in general I do not have a problem with it in small doses and in the right areas like a farmer’s co-op, but in general I do not like the idea everyone is the same and equal, when the work involved is surly not equal.

A good track record isnt enough to win the nomination or get elected. As Justin has pointed out in the past everything in politics is about perception. So those who plan and craft there image in advance are most likely to come out on top. Public opinion also plays it part Obama for example is reaping the reward for opposing the Iraq war from day one. Other factors can come into play Hillary has avoided the inexperienced tag because Obama is running.

Originally posted by donwhite
Medical doctor Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He “converted” to Republicanism to run for Congress. Everybody knows he is not a GOP type but no one cares because he votes with the GOP 100%.

That's pretty idiotic to say, it shows a great deal of ignorance on your part. Exactly what this forum is here to defeat. Ron Paul, as far as I've seen, votes very consistently, and strays from the mainstream Republican Party quite often.

I really think that you need to do some reading before you open your mouth. If you don't agree with him, fine, but at least do it for reasons that actually exist. Otherwise, you just seem like an idiot.

Originally posted by donwhite
Libertarians are anarchists who comb their hair and have stopped throwing bombs. It is impossible to have LESS government when you have MORE people. And etc.

Again, showing your ignorance, and also your bigotry. Jesus Christ.

First, equating libertarianism to anarchy. That basically proves that you have no idea what libertarianism and anarchy are. Or you're setting up a straw man, one or the other. Either way, you're either ignorant or manipulative - and neither are positive traits or conducive to a debate.
Libertarianism is very broad, from what I've seen. It overlaps a lot with paleoconservatism, or the "Old Right." Goldwater sort of Republicans, not the neo-conservatism that is such a plague today. It stresses individual rights and liberties, that's all. It doesn't have anything to do with anarchy - it just means that you, as an individual, are not subject to the tyranny of the majority.

Anarchism, on the other hand, is quite an evil thing. It is the lack of government. In anarchy, there is no way to protect rights, as no government exists to respect or protect them; nor do you have a government to provide security. Those are the two most fundamental functions of government, and if they don't exist, you are, once again, subject to the tyranny of the majority.

Your statement about more people needing more government appears false, but it depends on how you use it. More people doesn't mean that government needs to do more and become more collectivist as population grows; that would simply lead you to communism and totalitarianism should population keep growing - and liberty is not an inverse function of population. What you do need is simply more resources to deal with the functions that the government should provide. A bigger nation will need, and can support, more police, a larger army, and so forth, to protect liberty and security. But aside from scale, nothing changes with population size.


And no, being shot down and tortured doesn't make you a war hero. But he gets my respect for his service and what he endured.
Sadly, that doesn't make his policies any better to me. I won't be swayed by such rhetoric (ethos, in your attempt).


I really don't think you have a clue. I'm happy to explain things to you and take part in debate, but stop either intentionally or unintentionally using arguments based on gross misunderstandings of what is real and what is not.

[edit on 10-9-2007 by Johnmike]

*Justin pulls up a chair*

Keep going. This should be interesting.

*Justin eats popcorn*

posted by Johnmike
That's pretty idiotic to say, it shows a great deal of ignorance on your part. Exactly what this forum is here to defeat. Ron Paul, as far as I've seen, votes very consistently, and strays from the mainstream Republican Party quite often.

General or public knowledge. Even in courts not every “fact” has to be proved. Judges take “judicial notice” of facts that are not in dispute. Such as, if I say “it is 1 PM” I am not required to prove PM stands for Post Meridian. Or if I say “it is 90 degrees out there” I don’t have to prove how Fahrenheit first worked out his formulations. Everyone who needs to know that already does. I don’t think Ron Paul “strays” from the GOP lline very often if at all. Hardly ever to never. FYI, I’m sure his votes are recorded in the Congressional Record. It’s on-line. Go to Firstgov.org.

I really think that you need to do some reading before you open your mouth. If you don't agree with him, fine, but at least do it for reasons that actually exist. Otherwise, you just seem like an idiot.

Test me. Lay out a couple issues on which Ron Paul voted. I’ll tell you how he voted from my general knowledge base. And I won’t be wrong.

Again, [on Libertarians] showing your ignorance, and also your bigotry. Jesus Christ. First, equating libertarianism to anarchy. That basically proves that you have no idea what libertarianism and anarchy are.

Hmm? A bigot? I am prejudiced but I deny being intolerant. Pray tell, which did I insult, Libertarians or Anarchists?

Either way, you're either ignorant or manipulative - and neither are positive traits or conducive to a debate. Libertarianism is very broad, from what I've seen. It overlaps a lot with paleoconservatism, or the "Old Right." Goldwater sort of Republicans, not the neo-conservatism that is such a plague today.

I agree that Goldwater laid the groundwork for Reagan. Both men had a demented vision of government or rather, non-government. Goldwater was the more likable of the two for me because he came across as being intellectually honest whereas Reagan was a complete sham, a stuntman turned to politics.

In anarchy, there is no way to protect rights, as no government exists to respect or protect them; nor do you have a government to provide security. Those are the two most fundamental functions of government, and if they don't exist, you are, once again, subject to the tyranny of the majority.

Well said, Mr J/M

Your statement about more people needing more government appears false, but it depends on how you use it . . liberty is not an inverse function of population. What you do need is simply more resources to deal with the functions that the government should provide. A bigger nation will need, and can support, more . . But aside from scale, nothing changes with population size.

Uh? How’s that again? Can you simplify it for me? Are you agreeing or are you disagreeing with what I said earlier? “More people does not mean less government.”

And no, being shot down and tortured doesn't make you a war hero. But he gets my respect for his service and what he endured.

Respect? Does that and a dollar get you a cup of coffee?

I really don't think you have a clue. I'm happy to explain things to you and take part in debate, but stop either intentionally or unintentionally using arguments based on gross misunderstandings of what is real and what is not.

OK, Columbo I am not.

[edit on 9/11/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by Justin Oldham


United States Attorneys

The US is divided into Federal District Courts by state. Each state has at least one, like Alaska, Wyoming, the Dakotas. California, the most populous and Texas, the largest geographically of the Lower 48 states, each have four district courts. Each Federal District Court has 1 US Attorney. There are 94 Federal District Courts and there are 94 US Attorneys.

Each presidentially appointed US Attorney must first be confirmed by the US Senate. Each US Attorney has a number of Assistant US Attorneys based on the size and population of the district. These are technically chosen by the designated US Attorney, but always in close consultation with the WH, the AG and the RNC or DNC. I do not know how many but I'd guess between 2,000 and 3,000 Assistants. Perhaps as many as half of them are career lawyers who carry over from president to president. This gives much needed continuity to the office of US Attorney.

All US Attorney or Assistant US Attorney positions are highly sought after. The appointments almost always go to the politically astute or to the scions of the R&Fs. Rich and famous. Usually called “Blue Bloods.” Networking. People of whom much is expected. Comers.

The US Attorney has the power to convene a Federal Grand Jury. There are almost no limits on the investigative and accusatory powers of a Grand Jury. The term of a Federal grand jury is 18 months.

The NYT reporter Judith Miller was found to be in CIVIL contempt of court. She could have been held in custody until EITHER the term of the Grand Jury expired OR she testified. It has happened in the past the US Attorney has immediately reconvene a second grand jury and called back the recalcitrant witness who faced another 18 months in prison unless he or she testified in accordance with the rulings of the District Court judge. There is no trial, there really is no appeal, you either testify or you go to jail. You will be freed ONLY when you decide to “purge” yourself of contempt by testifying. Think of “contempt” as disputing the authority of the Court system. A no-no. See Foot Note.

Criminal contempt of court, OTOH, is strictly limited. Spitting on the judge is an example of criminal contempt. The judge cannot sentence you to more than 30 days in jail for criminal contempt. You have the right to appeal although your sentence is not automatically delayed and you may have served it out before the appeal is heard or decided.

Federal Warrants. NO Federal warrant issues without the US Attorney’s approval. Search and arrest. The FBI makes arrests ONLY on a warrant approved by a US Attorney. Or course, the Federal judge or Magistrate signs the warrant, but it is prepared by the US Attorney. No Federal judge would sign a warrant if the US Attorney recommended him not to.

This puts the US Attorney at the center of all Federal law enforcement in his district. Tax evaders. Customs violations. Wage and Hour. OSHA. Immigration law enforcement. Abuse of Federal contracts. Patent disputes. Treaty interpretations. All Federal criminal laws.

In other words, the kind and quality of Federal law enforcement or lack of it in your district is the decision of the US Attorney, one of 94 nationwide. J/O, who do you think approved the search warrant for Senator Steven’s home? I dare say NO State of Alaska law enforcement officer would have dared to do that! A career ending miscue! ONLY the Federal judiciary and US Attorneys can deal forthrightly with the High and Mighty.

Bush43 and his worthless lackey AG Gonzales, have weakened that system. To our national sorrow.


Foot Note: Clinton loyalist Susan McDougal OTOH, stayed the full 18 months rather than testify before Inquisitor General Ken Starr's own Star Chamber.

www.uscourts.gov/faq.html

www.constructionweblinks.com/.../Florida__Federal_District_Cour/florida__federal_district_cour.html

[edit on 9/12/2007 by donwhite]

Another nail in the coffin ?
Alan Greenspan has written a book that criticizes Bush for not vetoing Bills that do nothing more then waste tax payer dollars. See related thread .

No doubt the dems will look to gain political mileage and the only thing that can minimize the damage is that the dems fiscal habits aren't any better then there Republican counter parts.

So if your Republican 08 candidate how do you react to this ?
I cant see any other reaction other then candidates looking to distance themselves from Bush. With the likes of a government run health care system on the horizon the US is fast approaching an significant ideologically choice and the Republican party looks set to lose out because they don't subscribe to the Goldwater or Reagan school of thought and they have failed to define a workable way forward. The Republican Party has no place to go .

They cant fall back on the Ike school of thought either because by today standards Ike would be a dem in drag . Although in terms of foreign policy this was always the case.

posted by xpert11
Another nail in the coffin ?

Alan Greenspan has written a book that criticizes Bush . . the only thing that can minimize the damage is that the Dems fiscal habits aren't any better then their Republican counterparts.

Ah so Mr X11? I say that is a BAD rap you are putting on the Dems. The last time the Dems had control of both the WH and Congress was following the 1992 election, the Congress sitting in 1993 to the end of 1994. The Dems voted the Clinton tax rates during this term. The vote was absolutely on party lines, EVERY Dem voted yea, and EVERY GOP voted nay. Then in 1994, Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America took over. The Dems tax program brought a balanced budget in 1999 and a projected surplus. Bush43 squandered all that in less than 6 months of taking office.

Prior to 1992, the GOP held the presidency from 1980 - Reagan - through 1992, Bush41. Surely both Reagan and Bush41 KNEW how to VETO a bill? So why make the Dems the heavy? See Foot Note.

With the likes of a government run health care system on the horizon the US is fast approaching an significant ideologically choice and the Republican party looks set to lose out because they don't subscribe to the Goldwater or Reagan school of thought and they have failed to define a workable way forward.

You have a lot higher regard for both Goldwater and Reagan than I have. Of either. I will give Goldwater this, he was not duplicitous. Recall the 1964 GOP bumper stickers were Au H2O?

Reagan only knew 3 things without a cue card. 1) The rich should not pay taxes, 2) The USSR was the evil empire and 3) Star Wars would save America. For all else, he was a card reader. What someone else wrote.

Reagan had a dream. That he would be able to dismantle the New Deal and its consequential bureaucracy. Reagan governed by quips. And made-up stories. He loved to tell and re-tell the Welfare Cadillac story. Who says Reagan was not a willful racist? His devotees generally excuse him on that count by saying he was too dumb to know it. Well, not in those words but that is what they mean. As for a favorite quip? How’s this: “Government is not the solution , it is the problem!” The tragedy was not so much that he said it over and over - and perhaps even believed it - the tragedy is so many other people still believe it. Hmm? Hello, 18 million lead painted toys. Hello Katrina! Hello Walter Reed! Hello I-35 Bridge! And etc. And us going to Mars? Get a grip. Don't you know a diversion when you see it? I wish.

As president, Reagan NEVER proposed a balanced budget! So why do people deny the FACTS? Because is makes them feel good. Because we hate to come to grips that all our leaders lie from time to time. That the public is ill informed and really wants its leaders to do the right thing but not necessarily tell them how they did it. Abu Ghraib. Guantanamo Bay. Patriot Act. Etc. But what the hey? Has it ever been different?


Foot Note: The 2000 election gave a 50 Dems to 50 GOP in the Senate. VP Cheney voted with the GOP to organize the Senate. In a couple months into 2001, Senator Jeffords of NH dropped out of the GOP and became an Independent, but he voted with the Dems who then reclaimed the Senate, 51 to 49. Sen. Tom Daschle of ND managed to hold back the recklessness of the GOP for 2 years. Bill Frist had his own revenge on Daschle by campaigning in person against Daschle who narrowly lost in 2002. The Frist Hastert Tom Delay team ran the most disgusting Congress in my lifetime. End.

[edit on 9/16/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


Don I do support a balanced budget for reasons of common sense rather then political ideology.
But can you say that the current demcratic Congress is anymore fiscally responseible then there previous Republican counterparts ?
Wasn't Newt forced out by his fellow Republicans because of the failure to impeach Clinton ?

This next bit is for argument sake.
Katrina and the I-35 bridge collapse make poor examples.
Despite the amount of money Congress spends adequate maintenance wasn't done on the bridge that collapsed.
Disaster relief probably arrived quicker and was better organized before the days of FEMA.
So sometimes government is the problem.

Reagan did support giving the president the power to veto Congressional spending . IMO this is something that needs to be seriously looked at. In terms of Goldwater I think that he represents conservatism a lot more then the current Republican party.

What did you folks think about the Preident's speech regarding Iraq? I was busy with hte official ATS 2007 debates, but now that I'm free and clear of that...I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I needed to be up front and say that I haven't seen Bush speech.
But I think that thanks to three years of doing nothing or making colossal mistakes in Iraq and throw in that by Bush and co own reckon coalition troops are four years over due in coming home.
Remember when Dick said in his infinite wisdom that the insurgency was in its last throws ?
What does all that add up to ?
It all adds up to the fact we are well past the point of Bush being able to turn public support for the war around. The Surge has accomplished its political goals on the home front but the dems have responded with political games of there own they are now attacking an ease target General Petreus .

In political terms it doesn't seem to matter that the dems are giant antic hypercricts(SP?) the Republican party is just going to have to pay the price for being ideologically bankrupt.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by xpert11]