Posted on 01/23/2007 8:01:14 AM PST by Valin
From the Washington Post's coverage of the House and Senate maneuvers to undercut the president and the troops:
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) took to the Senate floor yesterday to implore his colleagues not to go through with a vote on any resolution of opposition, calling the effort "pernicious" and "very, very dangerous."
House Minority Leader Boehner's decision to break with the president yesterday, and the desperate attempt of John Warner and some of his Senate colleagues to split the difference between defeatist Democrats and round-heeled Republicans underscores that the GOP is now close to splitting on the war.
Parties do split, and the Congressional Republicans seem headed toward such a breakdown. The Congressional Republicans are putting forward positions that were not part of the party's agenda in the fall, and not part of the leadership elections that followed either. They are positions far removed from the party's core commitment to national security and an aggressive war against terror in Iraq and elsewhere.
These resolutions have nothing to do with the party of Reagan, and everything to do with political opportunism that will long be remembered as a low point in the party's fortunes.
At a minimum the RNC, the NRSC and the NRCC will be stunned to watch the money dry up, and the contempt that will be heaped on the defecting Republicans will be far greater than they imagine.
You can contact House Minority Leader Boehner's and Senate Minority Leader McConnell's offices via the switchboard at 202-225-3121. If the Republicans on the Hill cease to support the war, the troops, and the president, I will cease to support them, and I hope you do as well.
Victor Davis Hanson, on yesterday's program, voiced the concern that many Americans, including the defecting Congressional Republicans, seem to have lost the will to persevere in the war:
I’m very worried, because in some sense, the jihadists are just a rag tag bunch of failed extremists. They don’t compare with the Wehrmacht, or they don’t compare with 7,000 nuclear weapons, but then you stop and say well, wait a minute. They did what none of those people did. They took out 3,000 Americans at the heart of American military and economic power in Washington and New York, and then you realize as you start thinking about it, this is a worldwide ideology that transcends countries, Indonesia, Philippines, Iran, all these places. And then more importantly, in the age of globalization, miniaturization, and nuclear proliferation, you really don’t need those assets that threatened the United States before. And then you add one other wrinkle to it. Never in the history of the United States, as I see it, have we had an elite who are more diffident and conflicted about "Is the United States different?" Is it exceptional? Is it better than the alternative? Is it worth defending? And at this sort of perfect storm, bin Laden and these people have come along and said "You know what? We can wage a psychological terrorist war against the people who don’t think that they really deserve to continue as a people in the way they had before."
See also Jules Crittendon's State of the Union speech that the president should deliver (HT: Instapundit.) Key excerpts:
Didn’t you learn anything from Vietnam? Didn’t you see what happened when your predecessors in Congress, disgruntled and responding to public opinion polls just like you are, voted repeatedly to undermine an ally that was fighting for its survival and making headway against evil? There, I’ve said it again. Millions of people were murdered or imprisoned...
Now, you want to negotiate with two of the world’s primary sponsors of terrorism, who are directly involved in support of the terrorists who murder our soldiers. You want to make an arrangement by which we will exit Iraq, and leave it to them. To loot, to murder, to fight over, while the rest of the world’s evil regimes look on, see our weakness, and plot their own moves.
You can try that, with resolutions, by cutting spending for troops in the field, as you seek the short-term satisfaction of withdrawal. But I remain President of the United States, and as long as I am, I will be no lame duck in this fight.
I will engage evil directly where I find it, in Iraq and in Iran. With an aggressive and ruthless new strategy and a plan to build our army as we should have a long time ago, I will show the American people that we can fight and we can win. I expect that the American people, though misled by their press and many of their elected representatives, will see results and will get it. Because the American people are a people who in the end don’t give up, don’t stop fighting, refuse to lose, and will choose to win. I have faith in them.
The president, the polls say, is supported by less than 40% of the people. That's probably 85% of the GOP, however, and both numbers will grow as the focus on the Democrats' fecklessness increases, and all the more rapidly if serious people join the president in discussing again the perils we face as a nation.
The Republicans who cut and run on the war now --and make no mistake, a yes vote for the Warner resolution, just like support for Boehner's "benchmarks" is a vote to cut and run-- will not live down the vote in the eyes of the serious people. It will not be forgotten that when the political going was toughest (and still far, far easier than the easiest day the troops ever have) some Republicans folded. Tax cuts, market solutions to health care, spending discipline etc. etc. --all are important.
But victory against the enemy is the overriding issue of our time. House and Senate members can be right on every other issue, but if get the war wrong, their "record" will be as disatrous as Baldwin's and Chamberlain's.
The rebuilding of the GOP is what the article should read.
But of course the negative approach is wht the writer wants.
The Republicans still seated in Congress have cut and run from the voters. I wish even more loss to their numbers. They are a total embarassment.
Hugh Hewitt negative? Not hardly.
I haven't renewed my RNC membership for 2007 yet. If the GOP cannot support W in this moment of crisis, I may send in my card.
Man. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Anybody remember the "death of the democratic party" stuff a few years ago? ;)
Thats the ay of doing what the oppostion wants. Maybe we should all reflect, on rebuilding for the future, before we are all lost in a socialist nightmare.
The time has come to renew your republican membership and help weed out the moles.
Negative, this article is by it headline. Rebuilding is the focus, we all need now. Weed out the jerks, but hold the republican line.
The GOP had collapsed before the elections. That's why they lost.
I do believe that the Dems were on death's door just a few years ago, esp. just after the 2004 election. Had the Republicans begun serious cost-cutting, serious budget-balancing, serious BORDER CONTROL, and had the President completely taken the gloves off---not only in Iraq but vs. the Dems---we don't lose the 2006 elections and the Dems are on the ash heap of history. But while it was only a two-year period, it was one filled with goofs, missteps, stupid votes and policies, and above all too much "new tone."
The good news? Just as things turn ONE WAY on a dime, they can be reversed just as quickly with a spine and a leader.
Weed out the jerks, but hold the republican line.
Agree. What's going on with some of the GOP today makes a good argument for Term Limits.
I've never contributed to the RNC; Jesse Helms, Paul Laxalt, Orrin Hatch, Citizens for the Republic, etc. were all much more effective at identifying and electing promising candidates. This years money will probably go to Duncan Hunter and anybody that Tom Coburn recommends.
>>The good news? Just as things turn ONE WAY on a dime, they can be reversed just as quickly with a spine and a leader.<<
...or an event...
Whistling past the graveyard:
The dems only need a few months, a slice of time, to do all the damage they'll need for the next decade or so.
It appears they have got a good start on doing just that and, as expected, congressional pubbies are hiding out or pleading for scraps.
Hugh Hewitt is one of the biggest knee-jerk Republican party apologists there is. Fidel Castro could defect and run for president and Hewitt would probably support him if he had an "R" by his name. The fact that he writes this article should be a wake up call to the GOP.
good article.
Say a prayer, please. We need Divine Intervention. Some of these pubbies make me sick.
Well, yes, unfortunately.
your post sounds right to me.
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.