"I'm sorry, our side just bungled this "big time."
I'm a Rummy fan...."
I am a Rummy fan, too. And a Bush I fan and a Bush II fan.
And I think there is a family similarity between 1992 and 2004. In both cases I think the Bushes fell far short of putting forth strong arguments for their cases.
Politically they gave weak performances. Like they were plain tired of the whole thing, and had little fight left in them.
The dems in 2004 did a very good job politically, and Republicans did NOT. Politics is a game of skill. It requires verbal ability to persuade, by keen argument.
At this time, I read a forms of denial about the elections.
If Bush had put forth a case for better "management" of Iraq, as this article purports, I think they could have held the majority. But that requires admitting mistakes; something Bush II doesn't often do.
But they had months (even years) of plunging Presidential ratings and a shift away from support for Iraq. Yet they muddled on, making little effort to change those perceptions.
They let Iraq drift for way, way too long.
We have too many good men and women serving for them to have handled it this way.
Much good is being done on the ground in Iraq...but the blunders up top are wrong.
Please read all of this memo.
Our policies toward the Muslim world in general and Iraq in particular were always risky and experimental. How could they have been otherwise? So even a truly great leader would have had trouble keeping his followers in line...and Bush is not now, and never has been, such a leader.
Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
Too bad the Republicans has no Mr. Smith in Washington.
I did however witness one who came close, Mr. Coburn and, I'm not from his state. A stand up guy in many respects, politically speaking.