Re: State of the Union. What was the point? No domestic policy will go anywhere, because Democrats are deep into the "whatever Bush is for, we're against" mode. That is not leadership, but it's the way it is. Roughly 70 percent of the country is against the administration on the war in Iraq, and there won't be any coherent discussion of that because we seem headed for obvious defeat, and the implications are scary. Such a major address shouldn't be irrelevant, but it probably was.
Comments
This post reminded me of something- Leo's post about the stadium a few days ago- the number of "70%" was involved there too- 70% of the folks responding to the survey are against the "stadium".
here is a snippet of the original post:
"The people" are not always right, but their opinions do matter. If opposition stays this strong, and the city goes ahead with the plans anyway, that will put success of the project in great doubt. At the least, the city has to do a much better job of selling the stadium.
Following that logic, you could write the following:
""The people" are not always right, but their opinions do matter. If opposition stays this strong, and the President goes ahead with the plans anyway, that will put success of the war in great doubt. At the least, the President has to do a much better job of selling the war in Iraq."
Kevin, that analogy makes perfect sense. There is only one variable though, to make a completely true comparison.
You would need to have protesters daily all over Ft. Wayne claiming the city was a facsist regime, the TV and print press would have to denounce the idea every single day. Of course you'd also need one political party completely freak out over it and liken the current administration to economic terrorists for considering such a foolhardy plan.
Then the analogy would be more appropriate.
>You would need to have protesters daily all
>over...claiming [we are] a facsist regime,
>the TV and print press would have to denounce
>the idea every single day. Of course you'd
>also need one political party completely
>freak out over it and liken the current
>administration to economic terrorists for
>considering such a foolhardy plan.
>
>Then the analogy would be more appropriate.
Can anyone disagree that we have that already at the national level? Apparently your analogy is complete after all. With friends like the Dems, who needs enemies...
>Roughly 70 percent of the country is against
>the administration on the war in Iraq, and
>there won't be any coherent discussion of
>that because we seem headed for obvious
>defeat...
Let's make a seldom-highlighted point here. From the beginning, even including the vote in favor of military action, the national Democrat leadership has been against the whole thing and secretly hoping that they were giving President Bush enough rope to hang himself. When they have come out in the media for hawkish things like "more troops," it has subsequently been proved by their actions to be empty posturing.
The so called "loyal" opposition has been daily attacking, decrying, and belittling the entire effort in a concerted attempt to dissuade the American people from their original avid and largely unified support of the incursion into the Middle East.
It has to a great extent been the relentless liberal chipping away at America's resolve, their artificially hyped "milestones" regarding our troops' relatively small body count, their single-minded pursuit of any and every negative story -- from questionable shootings to re-upped reservists to amputees in Johns Hopkins to aggrieved families' unprocessed anger in reaction to a personal loss -- which have to a great extent brought us to this point.
I'd be much less disturbed by the supposed current disillusionment with our mission in the Middle East if the liberals had not done everything they could think of to create the impression that this was all foolhardy and reminiscent of Viet Nam. All they have done is to put themselves in a position with just enough power to force America to cut and run -- as in Viet Nam -- and then launch a campaign to try to blame our nation's supposed failure in the Middle East on the opposing U.S. political party.
But with their fingerprints all over the decline of our efforts and aspirations for the region, there's no way I, or history, will ever buy such a transparent attempt to re-mold the history along liberal party lines.