Replies

What do you think would happen to the Bush approval ratings if he blocks the Liberal Agenda that surely Nancy Pelosi will try to get the house to pass.

The key words to remember are Hillary Care.

If the NEW media takes on Nancy Pelosi the way they did Hillary in 1993 and 1994, and the President appears to lead the charge, the presidents approval rating will go well above 50 percent. The majority of Americans are not in favor of socialism.

That will motivate Republicans in the Senate. It does not matter what Republicans do in the House. In the House the majority party runs the show. Pelosi has bypassed all the regular rules for passing bills during the first 100 hours. She can bypass them for the next two years if she wishes.

But the Senate is another ball game. As we learned in the last congress it takes 60 votes to get anything done. The Democrats have at most 50 Democrat votes. They can perhaps get the support of 3 or 4 RINOs. But that only gives them 53 or 54 votes... they need 60 to get a bill passed in the Senate. The reason the Democrats have control of the Senate is the defeat of several RINOS. There are fewer Rinos to help them get to the 60 vote point. With Jeffords in a coma they only have 50 votes. They need all fifty of their votes plus ten Republicans votes to pass almost anything Repubicans oppose. The Republicans only need 40 of their 49 votes to block anything the Demorats try to do. They can not get much of anything passed the Republicans don't want them to pass.

George Will apparently agrees with me that the current situation is similar to the 1946 situation with the party roles reversed. Back then, in 1946, the Republicans won the House and the Senate largely on the low approval ratings of Harry Truman. There was a wide belief that Dumb Old Harry was in way over his head. That is what the media believed and convinced a majority of voters in 1946. Democrats back then longed for an FDR like many less than bright Republicans long for a Reagan today.

But after the 1946 election Truman lead the way opposing the Republicans while enduring the total opposition of a hostile media. He managed to lead enough Democrats to block everything the Republicans wanted to do. In 1945 and 1946 he needed all Democrat congress critters to support him to get a bill passed. But in 1947 and 1948 he only needed most Democrats to support him to block anything the Republicans wanted to do. Truman then labeled the Republican Congress the "Do Nothing 80th Congress!"

But even the most isolationist Republican in 1947 and 1948 dared not block Truman's efforts to defend Europe against the Soviet Union.

Today way in the background we have a few Republican Pundits saying we must "fight them over there with our army or we will have to fight them over here with our civilian population."

Republicans dare not make that claim too loudly. For if we get attacked "Over Here" while we are "Fighting Over There" the Democrats will kill the Republicans. But if the Democrats bring our troops home by cutting funding, and we get attacked "Over Here", the Republicans including the President will scream it from the roof tops.

Imagine attack on us with our troops having been "redeployed" by Democrats after 5 years of fighting over there with no attacks. It would destroy the Democrats for a generation.

The Democrats have put themselves in a terrible situation. If they force our troops to redeploy and we get attacked they are doomed. If they appear to support Bush and "His illegal war in Iraq" the media will turn on them with a vengeance.

The media fully expects the Democrats to make changes. They expect the Democrats to force Bush to pull our troops out. But there are only a handful of Democrats in the House and Senate willing to take that very risky chance.

So much like the Republicans of 1946, today's Democrats are in a bind. If they do as they sort of promised they would do they are taking a huge risk none of them want to take. If they don't force a troop pull out they are the party that promised changes in Iraq and then failed to produce those changes.

Republicans and the 2008 Republican candidate for President can effectively do what Truman did in the 1948 campaign. They can take back control of the Congress and hold the presidency. They can blame everything on the "Do Nothing Democrat Controlled Congress."

If Democrats end up supporting the President they are open to the same attacks that did in the Republicans in 1948. If they force a pull out of troops, and we get attacked they are in even worse shape.

Like the Republicans in 1948 the Democrats in 2008 may be in a heap of trouble with voters.

George Will in his latest column makes the case that our situation in Iraq is much like it would have been if our troops had participated in WWII during the German attack on Moscow has ouur mission been to prevent both sides from making war.

What we did in WWII was take sides. We sided with the Soviets against the Germans. We felt that Stalin was bad, maybe as bad as Hitler, but we had to take Stalin and Hitler on one at a time. That was not a happy decision.. since both were very bad guys.

It seems obvious to me that victory in Iraq will come only after we take sides. I think the side to take is the Shiite side against the Sunnis.

We know that the Saddam and many of his Sunni underlings were fans of Hitler. We need to do what we did in the last war we won. Pick the Shiite side and then destroy the Sunni's will and ability to resist.

I don't agree that the new commander in the middle east was chosen to take out Iran. There is no way to get congressional approval to take out Iran unless we first win in Iraq. What we need is a commander that can understand the strategy we used in WWII. There were two bad actors in that war... Hitler and Stalin. We did not try to get them to stop fighting each other. We allied with Stalin and defeated Hitler. As soon as Hitler was defeated we pointed out that Stalin was a bad guy and took him on.

That is the only way I can see to win the war in Iraq.