Replies

This is why they were elected, for better or for worse.

Not really. There were lots who wanted someone other than Rumsfeld to run the DOD but not to 'cut and run'. The Democrats didn't run on a unified platform in 2006 the way the Republicans did in 1994. DemocRATS will have a smaller majority in the House than the Republicans currently have. Furthermore, when the DemocRATS last had control they had much larger majorities. I'm not sure they know how to run it on a 24 seat majority.

How many successful dem candidates that you know of ran on an unapologetic pro war on terrorism posture. Lieberman is one, but he didn't run as a dem. Can you name a dozen?

Whether we like it or not, the election did amount to a vote of no-confidence in Dubya and his 'stay the course' sound bite. It was close in many races, but it was still 'no confidence.'

The biggest problem was that Dubya really failed to drive the narrative on the war, and seemed disinterested in it. As a result, he lost people's faith. That's a very difficult thing to win back.

I think pulling out of Iraq prematurely would be a disaster, but I also think people knew what they were doing when they voted. For better (unlikely) or worse (more likely), the voters should be honored, even when they tell our side to screw off.