Landscape-Altering Vote Last Night

Before Congressman Billybob jumps in with what I know will be an astute analysis, I'll get my two cents in on last night's vote. I consider it to be potentially a landscape-altering vote.

First, as a caveat for all you "The-Republicans-Always-Snatch-Defeat-From-The-Jaws-of-Victory" crowd, let me admit it's a long way to 2006 and the GOP still can shoot itself in the foot, ankle, and probably rectum several times before the election. So can Bush. However, tactically this was brillilant (thank you J.D. Hayworth, Denny Hastert, and all who spoke), and for now, the GOP not only seized the high ground, but they have the Dems fully on the run.

Pay no attention to what the MSM says about this vote ("Fox and Friends" mindless twitterers were already saying, "Well, of course we can't just pull out now," which, of course is exactly what Murtha recommended and what the Dems want to do). This was a huge vote, a potentially landscape-altering vote. The GOP forced the Dems to choose between the general election next year and the primaries, and the Dems chose the general election. The result will be threefold: 1) a dramatic decrease in funding of the Dems across the board, but especially the House members' campaigns (as if Dean wasn't hurting them enough in that area anyway); 2) a decrease in the committed volunteers from the Michael Moore/Moveon/Moonbat wing; and 3) probably the most serious, intense challenges in the primaries for many of these incumbents from the left. By the way, for all the Rush Limbaugh bashers on the board, this was precisely the strategy that Rush recommended before he left on break: MAKE the Dems become more extreme and cater to their base even more.

When you add to that the sound bite gifts that the Dems gave the Republicans who can use it in all campaigns ("Our soldiers have become the enemy," for example), this tactical maneuver not only recaptured all the lost momentum from the last two months, but put the Dems on the defensive on their worst issue, and the one currently costing Bush the most at the polls. Then you have the great sound bites from the GOP side, including Congresswoman Schmidt's fantastic "cowards surrender, Marines never do!" THAT ONE will be on all the ads, you can believe it. (And it doesn't matter that she "withdrew" her remarks: they are still playing it on the tube). She is in the district next to mine, and I'm glad those fine people in Hamilton County sent her to Congress and not DeWine the lesser.

As if all this weren't enough, several Republicans emerged as stars through their actions and speeches, including Schmidt, Hayworth of Arizona, and Sam Johnson of Texas. Others severely damaged their credibility by either praising Murtha (Curt Weldon, who badly damaged his Able Danger campaign with his stupid speech) or taking the opportunity to nip at Bush (Tom Tancredo, who hurt the immigration issue that badly needs fixing). If one wonders why such people aren't in positions of power in the GOP, that was a good example of the fact that they cannot keep their eye on the ball and, to mix metaphors, "bunt the runner over to third" by sticking to the topic.

Perhaps most important, anyone watching the incredible debate had to come away with a sense that in fact these Democrats are not "patriots" and that they indeed wish we could somehow lose in Iraq. It is interesting that to my knowledge not one Dem read a single letter from a soldier at the front (I think Murtha read one from a guy in a mental ward). ALL the GOP letters were from soldiers at the front.

These comments will get out, despite the MSM. The new media will get them out; campaign ads will get them out, and if I were the GOP, right now I would assemble an ad with sound bites of these Dems' treasonous comments and start running them immediately! THE CAMPAIGN STARTS TODAY.

My take on this is that if correctly played, last night's vote possibly could cost the Dems up to 30 seats in the House in 2006. This could very well be as significant as the vote in 1900 "for" continuing to fight the Filipino Insurrection and to keep McKinley in the White House. You heard it here first. We'll see if Frist and the Senate have the same cajones or political insight that the House members have.

I thought the House set a nice example for the Senate. Look at the behavior in the last week with regard to Iraq from the two wings of Congress. The Senate passed a measure that was a watered down version of a Dem demand of a timetable for exit. Compared to the actions taken by the House GOP last night, our honarable Senators look weak and confused.

Because they are. Although, they didn't have a Murtha-like object to work with either.

The Senate didn't make a good PR play, equating the DEM proposal with Murtha's for "immediate withdrawal." They couldn't, because the Levin proposal didn't even call for a timeline - but it did call for the President to SET a timeline, then report against his own benchmark. There is PR hay to be made in there, but the GOP didn't capitalize.

It does appear that the Warner proposal has been overshadowed by House action of yesterday. My prediction when the Senate approved the Warner proposal was that it wouldn't give the DEMs much traction in their anti-Iraq/Bush-lied campaign.

The evenings agenda was a display of pompous, self serving, butt kissing, self patting, especially when Nancy Pelosi gave her rant and giggled during the applause from her fellow Dems.
I was amazed at how the debate focused on the resolution to bring the matter to vote as a matter of defending the honor of the Rep from Penn. Murtha, like it was an attack on his honor for bringing up the defeatist issue to withdraw immediately.

After the narrow vote in favor of allowing the resolution to withdraw to come to vote...... several standing ovations commenced with speakers from both sides pointing back to the honor of Murtha. (butt kissing)

There was no question in my mind how the vote to withdraw immediately would go. Nobody would want to go on the record at this juncture of re-election ambitions as a defeatist pseudo French Surrender Monkey....oh but there were 4 who did and two GOP's who will be marked for replacement asap.

When al jezerra picks up the story about possible withdrawal of our troops and makes it headline material, the perception to the enemy is they are indeed winning the battle because we are weak heathens. Since we are weak anyhow.. we still need to die. This action, regardless of the outcome of overwhelming support to continue, will result in a stepped up campaign of terrorist activity because they know they have pulled our strings and we are nervous.

"These comments will get out, despite the MSM. The new media will get them out; campaign ads will get them out, and if I were the GOP, right now I would assemble an ad with sound bites of these Dems' treasonous comments and start running them immediately! THE CAMPAIGN STARTS TODAY"

You are absolutely correct! EXCEPT, we have many, many spineless pubs and RINOS! Saying that, doesn't take away the HUGE opportunity the House has given our party! So instead of pleading with the cowardly senate pubs, let's go directly to the RNC headquarters and DEMAND they start buying some air time and show clips from last night! IT'S TIME TO PLAY HARDBALL, and I want my donation to be used for AD'S that will completely DESTROY our enemies, instead of it going to any RINO or wimpy pub!! We need to start an email and phone campaign to FORCE the RNC to go with OUR wishes!! IT'S OUR MONEY ANY WAY!

Check out the Nation today.....they will only support a candidate that will pull out the troops and stop the war...now....

Democrats and the War
[from the November 28, 2005 issue]

Everything that needs to be known is now known: The reasons the Bush Administration gave for the American war in Iraq were all falsehoods or deceptions, and every day the US occupation continues deepens the very problems it was supposed to solve. Therefore there can no longer be any doubt: The war--an unprovoked, unnecessary and unlawful invasion that has turned into a colonial-style occupation--is a moral and political catastrophe. As such it is a growing stain on the honor of every American who acquiesces, actively or passively, in its conduct and continuation.

The war has also become the single greatest threat to our national security. Its human and economic costs are spiraling out of control, with no end in sight. It has driven America's reputation in the world to a historic low point. In the meantime, real threats suffer terrible neglect. These include more terrorist attacks, jeopardized oil supplies, rising tension with China, the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and even natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. All are pushed aside as this Administration pours the country's blood, treasure and political energy into a futile war. In short, ending the Iraq War is the most pressing issue facing America today. Until it is ended, a constructive national security policy cannot be forged.

Americans are well on their way to a full appreciation of the dimensions of this debacle. In an October CBS news poll, 59 percent of citizens surveyed and 73 percent of Democrats now want an end to US military involvement in Iraq. But this growing majority has made its judgment with virtually no help from our nation's leaders. Most shameful has been the Democratic Party's failure to oppose the war. Indeed, support for it has been bipartisan: A Republican President and Congress made the policy, and almost all of the leading Democrats--most of the honorable exceptions are members of the House of Representatives--supported it from the outset and continue to do so. To their credit, would-be presidential candidate Senator Russell Feingold and former Senator Gary Hart have recently made strong antiwar statements. More recently two other presidential contenders, Senator John Kerry and former Senator John Edwards, have begun to call for a shift in policy, though still in vague and reticent terms. More typical, however, are the other presidential hopefuls, Senators Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden and Evan Bayh, who continue to huddle for cover in "the center." They offer little alternative to Bush's refrain "We must stay the course!" Nor do the party's Congressional leaders and its head, Howard Dean, once a leader of antiwar sentiment. Can such politicians, who cannot even follow a majority--in the Democratic Party, a large majority--really be considered leaders?

The Nation therefore takes the following stand: We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still. Fear of facing the consequences of Bush's disaster should not be permitted to excuse the creation of a worse disaster by continuing the occupation.

We firmly believe that antiwar candidates, with the other requisite credentials, can win the 2006 Congressional elections, the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries and the subsequent national election. But this fight, and our stand, must begin now.

In the coming weeks and months The Nation will help identify--and encourage support for--those candidates prepared to bring a speedy end to the war and to begin the hard work of forging a new national security policy that an end to the Iraq War will make possible.

There is no other way to save America's security and honor. And to those Democratic "leaders" who continue to insist that the safer, more electable course is to remain openly or silently complicit in the war, we say, paraphrasing the moral philosopher Hillel: If not now, when? If not you, who?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.