Ron Paul

The Daily Show

The above graph is from The Futurist

Cross Posted at Classical Values

You Are Sh***ing Me

As you can tell from the title - this video might not be entirely safe for work.

Jimbo might want to remember that Victory has 1,000 fathers. Even men who said, "I never went near that woman" will claim to be the father of a child named Victory.

This has been up since 4 July 2007:



H/T Sara at Pal2pal.

Unacceptable Risk

President Present is running into resistance from the Pentagon over has troop withdrawal plans.

The Times reported that Odierno had "developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama's campaign timetable" and had suggested in an interview "it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly."

The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama's withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the January 21 meeting when retired army General Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop-surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Petraeus, appeared on the "Lehrer News Hour" to comment on Obama's pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.

Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would "increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months."

He asserted that it would jeopardize the "stable political situation in Iraq" and called that risk "not acceptable."

The assertion that Obama's withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush troop surge and Petraeus' strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning.

Getting General Petraeus to win the war and then having Mr. Obama give it back to the jihadis does not seem like a good idea.

I wonder what Mr. Obama really plans to do? If he gives up Iraq to the enemies of stability he is going to create a lot of other enemies. Not just here at home but also in the Middle East and Europe as well. OTOH there is always the possibility some one is paying him for results.

However, more and more I'm leaning towards the idea that President Present's map of reality and reality significantly diverge. This could lead to problems.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Why hasn't Polywell Fusion been funded by the Obama administration?
Bussard's IEC Fusion Technology (Polywell Fusion) Explained

Obama Be

Team Obama has figured out a way to stop his slide in the polls. Summer Camp.

The BHO campaign has sent out emails to me and probably millions of other lucky recipients encouraging us to sign up for a local "Camp Obama" (my.barackobama.com/page/s/campobamaus, my.barackobama.com/page/s/campobama08la), a two-day session where we'd learn how to be effective organizers for the campaign. Hopefully a citizen reporter will sign up to report back with a critical eye, but for now all we have are the positive and very many negative connotations brought to mind. You can see a full copy of the email here, and if you want to be creeped out even more see the description of last year's "camps" here:

Rivals of Obama know that while he may at times appear to channel Martin Luther King Jr., his methods sometimes give evidence of his allegiance to [Saul Alinsky], who shunned starry-eyed idealists and recommended purging do-gooders from organizations. Alinsky wanted results. And his methods often forced the hands of elected officials... It's not enough to want to help others, [an Obama campaign staffer] says. These campers need to focus on people's self-interests. What do they want? How can Obama help them? ..."We want you to stop thinking about Barack Obama and be Barack Obama," she says.

Did some one say Clone Wars?

Obama has taken Mau-Mauing The Flak Catchers and turned it into a national campaign. Can you say reparations?

So let us have a look at Alinsky's handbook Rules For Radicals. Just so we can see the train coming and get off the tracks. Here is a list of the rules.

RULE 1:"Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

That would explain a lot of the current campaign's dynamics. Obama is running on the idea that a lot of people fear being called racists. If that fear is not there then his campaign has no power. McCain has neutered that whole line of attack. It may play well among the latte liberals (Tom Wolfe called them the radical chic) but it will not play well against the original anti-slavery party (Abe Lincoln was a Republican).

RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

This would explain Obama's One note campaign: "I'm Black. Vote for me or we will brand you a racist." All his other policy positions are amendable (see flip-flop, Obama). Obama might not know math, science, economics, or any number of other things. He does know race and so does his base.

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

Again. This may work for latte liberals but Clinton supporters (whose husband was touted as the first "black" President) are not buying it. Did I mention that Republicans were the original anti-racist party?

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

There may be racists in the Republican Party (as there are racists in the Democrat Party). McCain is not one of them. His strength is as the strength of ten because his heart is pure.

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

This has been turned against Obama with McCain's "Paris Hilton" ad and his "The One" ad.

RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

Evidently the Obama Campaign and his mighty minions love calling people racists. I don't see any fun in that. Only sadness. However, to each his own.

RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

So far the Obama campaign has been a one note campaign. Besides any tactic that is over used wears out its welcome. The "cry wolf" syndrome. I wonder which way they can turn now? The post racialist candidate has been branded a racialist. Where do they go from here?

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

Well they have to find pressure points. Places where the pressure is effective. So what are Obama's choices? Anti-surge? The surge is working. McCain was way out front on that one. More drilling for oil? McCain was at least a month ahead of Obama on that one and Obama's statement was not unequivocal. He wants limited drilling. McCain placed no such limits on his policy. Higher taxes? That has been death for any candidate pushing that proposition hard. So what can he come up with that will keep his team on side and make advances on his opposition? This is going to be interesting to watch.

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

Ah yes. "We will call you a racist if you keep attacking our positions. How is that working out Barry? That threat is gone. He is going to have to come up with a new one. Fear of labeling McCain a war monger? I think Obama is weak on that. He called for pulling out of Iraq and attacks on Pakistan in August of 2007. He labeled McCain McSame. So what has Bush done? Well he has attacked the terrorists in Pakistan and threatened further attacks if Pakistan didn't straighten out. Preempting Obama's whole line on that front. I wonder if Bush and McSame are working together? They are both Republicans. What are the odds? In any case warmongering does not play well to Obama's base. He will have to tread lightly. So far he has not come out with "we were right all along" on this one. No need to remind the base about it, because for him it is a double edged sword.

RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

How is that racism thing working out? McCain has refused to take the bait. In turn he has counter attacked making Obama look obsessed with race. And he is obsessed with race. Just read his books.

RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

Of course the alternative to racism is the post racialist candidate. Obama needed to present himself as anti-racist not anti-white. He screwed the pooch on that one with this primary attacks on Clinton. Ooops.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Well he has gone after McCain in particular AND the Republicans in general. McCain blunted the attack, and counter attacked. Republicans are not buying it at all.

McCain, the fighter pilot, has gotten inside Obama's OODA loop. Something the Navy teaches fighter pilots to do.

The OODA Loop, often called Boyd's Cycle, is a creation of Col. John Boyd, USAF (Ret.). Col. Boyd was a student of tactical operations and observed a similarity in many battles and campaigns. He noted that in many of the engagements, one side presented the other with a series of unexpected and threatening situations with which they had not been able to keep pace. The slower side was eventually defeated. What Col. Boyd observed was the fact that conflicts are time competitive.

Elections are nothing if they are not time competitive. Evidently the "freezing of the opponent" that Alinsky recommends has not worked on McCain. He was not frozen. Once that happened McCain was operating inside Obama's decision loop.

Evidently Boyd is beating Alinsky. Or to put it another way. The fighter pilot is beating the community organizer. As a Navy man myself, I'm not surprised.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Stupidity Begins At The Water's Edge

I'm reading the comment section at Reason Magazine and as per usual losing in Iraq is at the top of their agenda. They have much good to say about the Democrats who want to end the Iraq War with an American defeat.

So I'm proposing a new motto to replace "Politics ends at the water's edge." I like:

Stupidity Begins At The Water's Edge

Not even the Libertarian's Saint Jefferson (he was actually a Democrat - see Jefferson Jackson Day Dinners done annually by the Democrats) was that lame (see pirates, Barbary). Did you know the war on the Barbary pirates was not declared? All Jefferson got from Congress was the authorization to build some ships and an AUMF which reads like the AUMF against Iraq almost word for word. Plus the war went on for over a decade and extended into Madison's term.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

War Stories - 2

Wretchard of the Belmont Club links to some war stories. One of the commenters also gives a link. If you like to read about courage under fire may I suggest that you read them all. This is why we are still in Iraq and the insurgents (for the most part) are not. Sen. Obama - take note.

To my brothers in arms. Get some.

Night Stalkers
Saving Germans
Guitar Heros

Cross Posted at Classical Values

History - The Prequel

I just came across a most interesting bit of information. Despite a whole host of folks, including Andrew Sullivan, coming out with the idea that if Iraq is not yet won, a win is likely, a book has recently come out which says all is lost. Defeat is at hand, and well deserved. One must remember, however, that book publishers operate on a longer schedule than journalists and bloggers. And the book, written by a senior correspondent for the Guardian, which is just a few months old, Defeat: Why America and Britain Lost Iraq,is already 40% off at Amazon.

Would I recommend this book? Absolutely. And not just because I get a cut from every one sold through here. I have other better reasons. Now I have to tell you that I have not read the book. So how is a reasonable recommendation even possible? Well the reviews were all gushingly positive so there is that. But that is not it. The real reason I suggest this book is the same reason I have a copy of The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age. It will be good to refer to when people start trying to overdose you with conventional wisdom. Sometimes the odds makers don't even know what the real odds are. Which brings up another point. Has any one noticed a change yet in editorial policy or reporting policy re: Iraq from the Guardian? What are the odds?

Cross Posted at Classical Values

I Link

I haven't linked to Andew Sullivan in ages. Since after he lost his cahones about the War in Iraq. Well I'm linking today. And to what? This article on the changed situation in Iraq, suggested by Jennifer Rubin of Commentary. Via Instapundit. I'm sure this is white hot because in some respects it represents Andrew's return to sanity. We will see if I can shed some light on it from a different angle. Or from the same angle. Depending.

Here is what Andrew Said that got him a link:

Petraeus deserves the lion's share of the credit; luck and time and the self-defeating nihilism of the Jihadists have helped. But Bush and McCain equally merit points for pursuing the surge, even though the metrics pointed to failure. Obama needs to capitalize on these gains, not dismiss them.

Props where they are due. That is an astounding turn around for Andrew. He finally gets it. Even if the War was a mistake a self governing, independent, prosperous Iraq is a good thing.

Now what about Obama? Boy, is the Good Judgement Man™ ever in trouble. He has been talking defeat in Iraq since forever. Whoops. McCain on the other hand has the distinction that, despite the unpopularity of his position, he was right. I predict a pivot - "I never knew how really vile those jihadis were. And I repudiate them for their obvious misjudgment. I have always been in favor of good relations with the Government of Iraq and no Republican is going to stand in the way of my achieving that goal. There are a number of companies in Chicago that would be excellent help in the effort to rebuild Iraq and they will have all my support." Aside to staff: " &#(*^@!~& Axelrod, where are my G-d Damn Tickets to Iraq? "

You know, I don't think Barry is going to have a cake walk.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

We Owe It To Our Military

McCain made a great point at the NRA convention and he changed my mind about my on again off again support for him. We owe it to those who have fought and died in Iraq.

Senator Obama has said, if elected, he will withdraw Americans from Iraq quickly no matter what the situation on the ground is and no matter what U.S. military commanders advise. But if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the success of the surge, still exist, and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda. Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. A reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran will view it as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the Sta te of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly.

The consequences of our defeat would threaten us for years, and those who argue for premature withdrawal, as both Senators Obama and Clinton do, are arguing for a course that would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would entail far greater dangers and sacrifices than we have suffered to date. Thanks to the counterinsurgency instigated by General Petreaus, after four years of terribly costly mistakes, we have a realistic chance to succeed in helping the forces of political reconciliation prevail in Iraq, and the democratically elected Iraqi Government, with a professional and competent Iraqi army, impose its authority throughout the country and defend its borders. We have a realistic chance of denying al Qaeda any sanctuary in Iraq. We have a realistic chance of leaving behind in Iraq a force for stability and peace in the region, and not a cause for a wider and far more dangerous war. I do not argue against withdrawal because I am indifferent to war and the suffering it inflicts on too many American families. I hold my position because I hate war, and I know very well and very personally how grievous its wages are. But I know, too, that we must sometimes pay those wages to avoid paying even higher ones later. I want our soldiers home, too, just as quickly as we can bring them back without risking everything they suffered for, and burdening them with greater sacrifices in the years ahead. That I will not do. I have spent my life in service to my country, and I will never, never, never risk her security for the sake of my own ambitions. I will defend her, and all her freedoms, so help me God. And I ask you to help me in that good cause. Thank you, and God bless you.

I think in these dangerous times McCain is the only competent war leader on the ballot. Thank you for reminding me John.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Vastly Exceeds Expectations

Why are the Ds panicked? They are running against “We are Americans and we will never surrender. They will”.

What do the Ds have to offer? “We are unAmericans and we know how to surrender. We have done it once, we can do it again.”

I thought they already tried that in ‘04? With the obvious results.

The Dems motto “We have a game plan that doesn’t work. Let us use it again.”

And John Fn Kerry and Tahreeza campaigning with Obama is just further proof. “Now Barry I’m a totally experienced loser. Let me show you how it is done.” The clown party at work. I expect Obama can show Kerry a thing or two about losing. I expect Barry to vastly exceed expectations.

A Man With Real Experience

Yes. When it comes to war and peace we need to heed the words of a man with real experience. Al Gore.

Gore said in 1988 that his experience in Vietnam:

"...didn't change my conclusions about the war being a terrible mistake, but it struck me that opponents to the war, including myself, really did not take into account the fact that there were an awful lot of South Vietnamese who desperately wanted to hang on to what they called freedom. Coming face to face with those sentiments expressed by people who did the laundry and ran the restaurants and worked in the fields was something I was naively unprepared for."

So the war was a mistake. OK. I don't buy that. But Al and I agree that the bigger mistake was abandoning the freedom lovers in South Viet Nam. A mistake the Democrats are intent on repeating in Iraq. How stupid do you have to be to repeat a mistake with truly terrible consequences a second time?

I believe you don't have to be stupid to do that. You have to be a Democrat.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

JD Johannes Needs Your Help

JD Johannes is asking for help. He has produced a pro Victory in Iraq movie and needs to sell 2,900 CDs of his movie in six weeks to give Hollywood a wake up call.

People often complain about Hollywood's leftward tilt when it comes to Iraq, but few do anything pro-active about it.

I am trying to do something about it.

I have nearly died a few times trying to do something about it.

Hollywood and the entertainment industry is a business focused on the bottom line. If people want Hollywood to produce a pro-victory film, or a pro-troop television series, they will have to demonstrate that it is economically viable.

Most of the anti-war films have taken a beating at the box office.

Brian DePalma's 'Redacted' grossed $65,388, but cost $5million to make and 'Home of the Brave' only brought in $51,708 domestically.

To put that in perspective, I made my documentaries for under $60,000--that is the trip to Iraq and editing, audio studio, music, digital animations, etc., EVERYTHING.

To beat 'Redacted's' box office gross, takes the sale of 2,900 DVDs. Just 2,900 DVDs sold.

To demonstrate to Hollywood and the cable TV networks that a pro-victory documentary is viable, I need to sell 2,900 in 6 weeks.

You can buy the movie here.

This is one way to put your money to use for better reporting from Iraq and stick a finger in Hollywood's eye for their anti-American slant.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Morally Unpopular

Michael Totten has been visiting the jail in Fallujah. While he was there a Marine remarked:

Sergeant Dehaan was comfortable with his mission in Iraq and the flaws of the Iraqi Police he was tasked with training and molding.

“I prefer these small and morally ambiguous wars to the big morally black-and-white wars,” he said to me later. “It would be nice if we had more support back home like we did during World War II. But look at how many people were killed in World War II. If a bunch of unpopular small wars prevent another popular big war, I'll take ’em.”

Yep. Better the Rhineland 1936 than all of Europe 1939 - '45.

Al Qaeda In Iraq

The US Military has put out a slide show about Al Qaeda In Iraq [pdf]. The first few slides are innocuous enough. After that it gets pretty graphic. Pictures of wounds on torture victims. Mass graves. And other such vileness.

After looking at the presentation it is no wonder the Iraqis hate Al Qaeda and all it stands for.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Stretch Them To The Breaking Point

Stretch them to the breaking point and then increase the pressure. Collapse will follow. In the early days of the siege of Richmond, Lee admitted that if Grant had been able to bring one or two more brigades to bear he would have been crushed as he had no reserves left.

It appears that this is what Bush has done in Iraq according to the Weekly Standard. It appears that Bush made one of the most audacious moves in civilian control of the Military since Lincoln appointed Relentless Grant to lead the Union Armies.

In September, Rumsfeld had rejected the idea of a surge when retired general Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army and a member of the advisory Defense Policy Review Board, met with him and Pace. Keane insisted the "train and leave" strategy, as Bush referred to it, was failing. He proposed a counterinsurgency strategy, the addition of five to eight Army brigades, and a primary focus on taking back Baghdad. Rumsfeld was unconvinced. But now, with Bush favoring a strategy nearly identical to Keane's, he didn't object. "Rumsfeld was never a lose guy," a Bush adviser said. "He always wanted to win."

With Bush's connivance, Cheney asked the chiefs a series of questions designed to ease their qualms about a surge. What would be the consequences of losing in Iraq? Was the Iraqi army capable of quelling the sectarian violence without substantial help from American troops?

The chiefs had real grievances to air, and they didn't hold back. Schoomaker cited the stress on combat forces from repeated tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. That, Bush told me, was "the main thing I remember from that meeting. That was clearly a factor in some of the people around the table's thinking .  .  . if you sustain our level, much less increase the level, you could, Mr. President, strain the force, which is an important consideration."

Bush agreed that strain was a problem. Then he delivered a sharp rejoinder, touching on a theme he returned to in nearly every meeting on Iraq. "The biggest strain on the force would be a defeat in Iraq," he said. Winning trumped strain. To alleviate the strain, the president committed to enlarging the Army by two divisions and increasing the size of the Marine Corps. The chiefs had two more complaints. The military, practically alone, was carrying the load in Iraq. Where were the civilians from the State Department and other agencies? Again, Bush agreed with their point. He promised to assign more civilians to Iraq. (The number of provincial reconstruction teams was soon doubled.)

Their final problem was the unreliability of Iraq's Shia government and army. Would Iraqi forces show up and do their part in the surge? And would they act in a non-sectarian manner, treating Sunnis the same as Shia? Bush said he'd get a public commitment on both counts from Maliki before making a final decision on the surge. And he did.

The article goes into General Petraeus' call for more brigades. The initial plan called for a one or two brigade surge. Petraeus asked for 5 brigades and got them.

On top of that Congress voted to increase the size of the military. The Democrat controlled Congress. Obviously it is never wise to come up short of divisions in wartime. It could adversely affect re-election prospects. Even of Democrats.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Broad Legitimacy

Mat Yglesias at The Atlantic wonders how there can be more air strikes in Iraq while there are fewer civilian casualties. The best answer is this comment. But that is not what I want to discuss. Also in the comments is a guy who says the war is not worth it because we have not established

an Iraqi government which does enjoy broad legitimacy

The US Congress is at 11%. Bush at 28%.

So would 11% be enough legitimacy? Or would it have to get to 28% to make it Jake?

Where do these people get their ideas? Three boxtops and a SASE?

HT Winds of Change

I Feel Their Pain

From a comment at Think Progress.

What a masterful plan on the Repubs’ part - create a mess so big, ugly, and stinky that it is NEXT to impossible to solve effectively, and then blame your opponents because they can’t clean up the enormous, hideous, painfully ugly mess you’ve created. What strategists! Curse you, KKKarl Rove!

Heh.

Another Great One Has Fallen

I just read on Instapundit that Major Andrew Olmsted has died in Iraq.

Andrew and I had numerous exchanges on Winds of Change. He will be sorely missed.

Damn. Fuckin damn.

You can read his final words to us at Obsidian Wings.

You can also read his blog Andrew Olmsted

My blog Master at Classical Values Eric has left this comment there. He is so right:

Very sad news. His final post (intended to be published in the event of his death) is deeply moving. Don't miss it.

Winning Wars

It is my contention that you don't make babies or win wars by withdrawing.

*

So You Don't Have To

I was reading Michelle Malkin on the recent vote by the Senate to authorize funds for the war with no strings attached. The vote was something like 90 to 3. I thought to myself, certainly there will be outrage at the DU, probably fodder for a blog post. So I'll go have a look and see if I can find something. So I'm looking. And looking. And looking some more (so you don't have to). Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkiss.

If I was to tender some kind of meaning for this I'd say that outrage has given way to denial and will soon be followed by depression.

I did find some dissension in the ranks though. It seems Hillary supporters are not too fond of Obama supporters. And vice versa. So there is a good fight to watch. I got no dog in that one. Here they are attacking Obama over his cocaine use. Here is the purge wing of the party attacking Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the Blue Dog Democrats who made their majority in the House . Still no direct mention of the appropriations bill.

Here is an uplifting post - why none of the Dem contenders for President have a chance in '008. If only it were true. It does give some hints for attacking the Dem candidates so it may not be entirely useless.

This one is really good. In a post titled "As usual, #1 post blames Pelosi for years of repuke's crimes" they rip each other to shreds. The tone is much like the Socons (social conservatives) and fiscal conservatives ripping of the Republicans in '006. It looks like the Democrats are a united party. United in their hatred of each other.

Not all Democrats are depressed about their prospects. This one explains what they have to do to win 2008. These suggestions are so good (for Republicans) I'm going to repeat them.

1. Impeach them all

2. End the funding

3. Ban handguns

And the best thing is
you can get it all with
one candidate.

The poster claims that this is all snark. I'm not so sure. In any case, which candidate is the poster referring to? Doesn't say. Not to worry. The post (which has been up for a couple of days) has gotten exactly zero comments so far.

Here is a choice one attacking Hillary's campaign operatives. One commenter is really disgusted because Hillary wants the nomination and will do anything to get it. Isn't that a Republican complaint?

This one is about Jewish support for various candidates and what it all means. It gets ugly.

Obama is a stalking horse for the Republicans according to the commenters. It could be.

The Progressive (Communist Wing) of the Democrat Party is not happy. They feel taken for granted. Sounds a lot like the Socons in the Republican Party in '006.

Well I have had enough time in the pit. My conclusion? The Republicans are a lot more unified and may have the advantage in '008 despite fielding (on the Presidential level) a really motley band of candidates.

The Democrats? I predict listlessness and depression followed by grief.

No matter what this will be fun to watch.

The war? I was unable to find even one article referring to the war funding vote in the Senate.

I blame Bush. He has outmaneuvered the Dems at every turn despite his party being in the minority in Congress. Sun Tzu had a word or two on the subject:

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

Bush is helping the Democrats defeat themselves. The stupid evil genius strikes again.

Cross Posted at Classical Values