Republican Iraq War Supporter Who Won Close Election Changes Her Tune

Rep. Heather Wilson, (R-NM), described by the Albuquerque Journal as initially a "staunch supporter" of the war, is now telling New Mexico reporters that she is opposed to increasing the number of American troops in Iraq and, in fact, believes that withdrawing troops might "serve United States interests better" but does not "favor a complete troop withdrawal."

Wilson was high on the House Democrats' target list in 2006. She comes from a district that Kerry carried in 2004, but one that she manages to win. She apparently has decided that losing her seat over George W. Bush's war is not what she has in mind for her political career. According to the Journal's article she is not alone in her decision to oppose Iraqi troop escalation since only one member of New Mexico's five member delegation supports troop escalation.

Wilson called for a re-thinking of American policy regarding Iraq. In what might be a considerable understatement she said that the US seems to "lack focus" on what it is trying to accomplish. She described the establishment of a democratic Iraqi government as an "aspiration" but not something that is vital to American national security.

Wilson is a Air Force Academy graduate and a former National Security Council aide. If she has decided to bail on Bubble-Boy's Iraqi adventure, can other Republicans, especially ones from swing districts be far behind?
___________________________________________________________________
Click on the arrow next to this post's title to link to the Journal article.

Richard Clarke Article in the Washington Post

In an article in the Washington Post, former Clinton and Bush national security official, Richard Clarke, points out something that is seldom commented on by the media. It is that Bush's focus on Iraq is causing his national security team to be distracted from other more pressing problems, like global warming and trouble along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. It is an interesting article. Check it out by clicking on the arrow next to the title of this post.
___________________________________________________________________
If you like what you read on MCDAC blog, scroll down and fill out the FeedBlitz subscription form. It is located just above the links. You will be sent a daily listing of the post headlines. You can then click on the ones that you like and read the full entry.

CNN Gets Bitchy with John Edwards

Scroll down the page and read the transcript of the interview with John Edwards and you see the uphill battle that Democrats face in dealing with the media. The media is determined to put everything into a dichotomy. In this case it is either you agree with Bush and want more troops, or you want to lose and give up the fight. Of course, the American people aren't buying this stuff but the media insiders are and that is going to be a problem for Dems in 2008.

What Democrats need to do is what Clinton did with Chris Wallace on Fox and that is simply not take their stuff. What a reporter/pundit asks a stupid question, call the question stupid, don't dignify it with an answer or treat it like a serious question. If they are asking "got you" questions, call them on it. They need product, they aren't going to stop asking you on their programs and Democrats don't need to take their crap.

A Mission Statement for America?

In his interview with Bob Woodward, the following quote appears from former President Gerald Ford: "Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."

That statement made us wonder if what is needed for America is a mission statement. What is the mission of the United States Government and is this administration fulfilling that mission? The quote from President Ford suggests one such mission statement. That statement might be as follows: It shall be the mission of the United States Government to provide for the security of the American people.

Assuming that would be the mission, how is this administration doing fulfilling that mission? Well, based on what is happening in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and what happened with Hurricane Katrina, not very well. In Iraq it has American troops bogged down in a sectarian civil war; in Afghanistan we are seeing resurgence of the Taliban, the same government that harbored bin Laden while he planned his attacks on America. In New Orleans we saw the complete failure of this administration to protect the security of Americans, before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina.

The advantage of having a mission statement is that when you are asked to do something, like say invade Iraq, you would contrast the thing you are being asked to do with the goal of your organization, as set forth in the mission statement. This is just a hunch, but we don't think that if comparing America's mission statement with the Iraq War had been done that reasonable people would have came out in favor of the war.

Because a comparison wouldn't have just meant that looking at this Administration's Iraqi claims, but also whether alternative actions would have worked just as well to protect the security of the American people. At least such an comparison would have forced members of the United States Constitution to defend their support of this war in terms that the American people could understand.

Receive MCDAC Email Alerts

At the bottom of this page is a sign-up form to receive Feed Blitz email alerts from our blog. You will receive daily email messages telling you of new postings which you can then click on to read. Its free and you can unsubscribe at any time. If you like what you read on our blog, this is a great way to stay in touch.
_____________________________________________________________________
Feed Blitz is protected by copyright and is used by MCDAC with permission.

Military Personnel's Doubts about Bush Growing

The Military Times, a newspaper that circulates among military personnel, conducts a poll every year in late December. This poll, which is done by mail, is sent to personnel of all the armed services. This year's poll shows waning support for President Bush and his handling of the Iraqi War.

Here are some of the results:

Percentage of respondents approving of Bush's handling of the war: 37%
Percentage of respondents disapproving of Bush's handling of the war: 42%

Percentage who think that Iraqi War is part of the War on Terror: 47%
Percentage who think that Iraqi War is a separate military action: 47%

Percentage who think that number of troops should be increased: 38%
Percentage who think number of troops should remain the same: 13%
Percentage who think that number of troops should be decreased: 26%

Percentage of respondents who think that it will be more than two year before large number of Iraqi troops are ready to replace American troops: 70%.
Percentage of respondents who think that it will be 10 years before large number of Iraqi troops are ready to replace American troops: 12%.

This poll shows a sharp decline in Bush's support in the military as compared to two years ago. Then 63% of American troops polled supported Bush's handling of the Iraqi War. The full results can be viewed by clicking on the arrow next to the post title above.

Lieberman, Bush, and Iraq

In a column about the need for escalating the number of American troops in Iraq, Joe Lieberman cannot bring himself to blame Bush for the insufficient number of troops in Iraq.(Lieberman article can be linked to by hitting the arrow next to title of this post) In the article the following quote appears: "In nearly four years of war, there have never been sufficient troops dispatched to accomplish our vital mission." Note that nowhere in his article, does Lieberman point out who is responsible for not putting enough troops into Iraq. Well, here is a clue, it wasn't those people who opposed the war, and it wasn't the Democratic Party and its elected officials, it was the administration of George W. Bush.

This is a small example of why Joe Lieberman drives Democrats crazy. He was so moralistic about Bill Clinton lying about oral sex, but he is not nearly as worked up about George W. Bush getting us into a war under false pretenses. He can't bring himself, even now, after the incompetence of this administration has been shown time and time again, and after he has safely won re-election to criticize Bush like he criticized Clinton. This is what we would like to see one those insufferable talking heads like Tim Russert ask Liebrman: "Senator do you consider George W. Bush's mistakes in Iraq worse than Clinton's behavior with Monica Lewinsky?" We think the answer would be extremely interesting.

Ford Disagreed with Bush on Iraq

Bob Woodward has a story posted on MSNBC's website that quotes Ford from an interview in July of 2004 disagreeing with Bush on the decision to invade Iraq. He told Woodward that the interview could only be published after his death, although he did not specify any waiting period after his death before the article could be published. The story can be read here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16372929/

We have this theory that George W. Bush was pushed for the presidency by people who wanted to make Ford and George H.W. Bush look better by comparison. Think about it for a minute. Who wouldn't have taken Ford, Nixon pardon and all, or take his father, awkward syntax and all, over "Bubble-Boy" and his Boy Genius, Rove. After all, Cheney and Rumsfeld served both Ford and BB's father. What better way to improve the historical standing of Ford and Bush I than by getting Bush to start a war with Iraq. Far-fetched, you say? Well, it makes as much sense as going into Iraq to get rid of non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

Stand Tall for America

Is what Senator Ron Wyden calls an organization that he has created to help push for affordable health care for all Americans. The address is here: http://www.standtallforamerica.com/ After we posted a reference to Sen. Wyden's health care proposal on this blog, Kari Chisholm, who is working on this plan with Sen. Wyden's organization, posted a comment which had a link to the above website. If you are interested in this subject, you might want to check it out.

Has Bush Raised Your Expectations about Iraq?

If you are a regular reader of this blog, we think we know the answer, and it is either "No" or "Hell, NO". According to this article by the AP, ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bush_expectations ), political experts think that Americans' expectations about Iraq are being raised by Bush taking so long to roll out his "New Way Forward" plan. Now, with approval ratings for his Iraq policy at 27%, according to the last AP poll in December, he would seem to have a long way to go. The theory is that since he is known to be so stubborn, and since he is taking a long time to announce his plan, Americans are beginning to believe that maybe he actually will announce something new that allows us to withdraw from Iraq without it becoming a bloodbath of sectarian violence.

Had more Americans, including media reporters, read Frank Rich's book, The Greatest Story Ever Sold, they would understand what is happening. Rich recalls the infamous quote by Andrew Card, former White House Chief of Staff, that you "don't roll out a new product over the summer", to explain why the Bushies were waiting until the fall of 2002 to announce its plans for Iraq. Rich's book makes the point that with this White House everything is about politics and nothing is about policy, or, perhaps more accurately, policy is always subordinate to politics. Part of politics is marketing. The problem with this White House is that it thinks that everything in politics is marketing.

If you don't roll out a new product over the summer, when shows are repeated on TV and Americans are busy taking vacations, watching Little League games, and relaxing, you also don't roll out a new product when people are distracted by Christmas and the New Year's holiday. Hence Bush's decision to wait until January of 2007 to announce his supposed "New Way Forward" on Iraq.

The irony, of course, is that since the American people aren't as cynical as "bubble-boy" and his incompetent group of toadies, this is going to work against him. He is raising expectations for a genuine "New Way Forward", not just a new catchphrase for the old policy. If he doesn't meet them, he will be in even a worse position with the American public than before.

Democrats and Fiscal Responsibility

According to this article in the Washington Post, ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500549.html ), Democrats want to drive down the deficit, preserve middle-class tax cuts, and pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One way they want to do this is force Bush to raise taxes to pay for his Iraq War. Budget Director Robert Portman claims that there is no need for a tax increase because the reduction in the expected size of the deficit shows that the Republican tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are stimulating the economy. Democrats respond by claiming that the deficit is artificially low because of increased borrowing from Social Security revenues. They point out that the fastest growing part of the budget is for interest payments on the national debt.

Here's a suggestion: bring back Al Gore's "lockbox" concept. Pass a law that prohibits the use of Social Security revenues for anything other than funding Social Security and Medicare. Force this administration to show the American people how they are plundering Social Security revenues to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Such a move would seize the financial initiative.

Iraq: The Republican War

In the 1950s and 60s one of the attacks on Democrats was that Democratic Presidents got America into wars. There was some justification for that charge. WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War were all started under Democratic Presidents, and except for WWI, Democratic Presidents were supported in these wars by Democratic-controlled Congresses.

Well, this current war is a Republican War. A Republican President urged support for this war, and a Republican-controlled Congress went along with him. It was a Republican Secretary of State who went to the United Nations and told them that there was proof that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. It was a Republican Vice-President who claimed that our troops would be greeted as liberators.

The result? We have now lost more troops in the Iraq War than we lost civilians on September 11, 2001. ( Article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq ) Americans don't feel any safer, bin Laden is still at large, hundred of Iraqis are dying each month because of sectarian violence, and America's standing in the world has plummented. Meanwhile, the Taliban, who sheltered the evil organization that attacked us, is enjoying a resurgence in Afghanistan.

In the 2008 presidential election, the question will be whether the Republican Party nominee can escape political retribution for the horrible mistakes of the Bush Administration. This will be especially true if the GOP nominee is John McCain, who is now calling for more troops to go to Iraq. The only way that could happen would be if the Democratic Party nominee was a person who supported the war and if such a nominee was not able to articulate a foreign policy vision that would avoid such a disaster in the future.

Katrina Fraud Could Top 2 Billion Dollars

Because of the lax ways of the Bush Administration in handling Federal aid for Hurricane Katrina, losses due to fraud could top 2 billion dollars, according to Federal and Congressional investigators. This is another example of the incompetence of the Bush Administration and its appointees. Remember when we were told in 2000 that the election of the first President to have a MBA, from Harvard, no less, would bring about good management? Put that right up there with "Misson Accomplished", "compassionate conservatism", and "No Child Left Behind."
You can read an article about this here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061225/ap_on_bi_ge/katrina_contracts

Oaths of Office and the United States Constitution

Article Six, Clause 3, of the United States Constitution reads as follows:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Three things are apparent from a reading of this paragraph:

1. All Senators, Representatives, and all officials of the various states have to take an oath to support the United States Constitution;

2. Unlike the oath taken by the President, the Constitution doesn't prescribe any certain language for such an oath; and

3. No religious test can be ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States.

The oath of office that is prescribed in the U.S. Constitution for the President is found in Article III, Clause 8, and reads as follows:

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Note that the above oath does not require that it be made upon a Bible and does not include any reference to God, although there is nothing to prohibit a President from taking the oath on a Bible or adding the words "So help me God" to the oath.

Washington Dems Plan to Put Health Care Back on the Table

The Washington Post has a story, ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/24/AR2006122400589.html ), about the new Democratic majorities in the House and Senate wanting to put health care back on the table. Since the defeat of the Clinton administration's efforts in 1993-1994, there has not been a major effort to reform the nation's health care system. Polls show growing dissatisfaction with the system, increases in costs to employers, and growing numbers of uninsured Americans.

According to a Republican Senator quoted in the story Democrats will not be able to get universal health care enacted. If that is true, and we are not sure it is, then that means that reform will be centered around continuation of the employer based system we now use. American's employer based system is putting American business at a competitive disadvantage against companies based in countries that have universal health care provided and funded by the national government. One reason why Toyota enjoys a competitive advantage against American automakers is that Toyota doesn't have the same costs for employee health insurance as American automakers.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) plans to introduce a bill to provide health insurance for all Americans using a centrally financed system of private insurance companies. ( Senator Wyden's website offers links to a more detailed description of his plan. You can link here: http://wyden.senate.gov/ ). If Democrats could deliver solid reform of the nation's health care system, not only would they be doing the right thing, but also the politically advantageous thing.

Strickland to Change Judicial Appointment Process

According to this Columbus Dispatch article, ( http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/12/23/20061223-D1-03.html ), the Strickland administration is going to change how judicial appointments are handled. Under the last two Republican governors, three names were sent by the local Republican Party to the Governor's office. The Governor then chose one of the three for the appointment. Strickland wants to set up a screening process, similar to the one used by Dick Celeste when he was governor.

Considering that over 80% of all Ohio judges start their judicial careers via gubernatorial appointment, this is a very significant development. This should lead to greater transparency in judicial appointments and more diversity in the people appointed. It should also lead to greater confidence in the appointment process.

Reader Submission: Sherrod Brown's Victory by the Numbers

An analysis of the November 7th vote shows that Democrat Sherrod Brown ran a far stronger race than Ohio's Democratic U.S. Senate candidates have run in the past 12 years. Since 1994, up until this year, Republicans had totally dominated Ohio's Senate contests.

The numbers don't lie and these are the numbers:

1994
DeWine (R) 53%
Hyatt (D) 39%

1998
Voinovich (R) 56%
Boyle (D) 44%

2000
DeWine (R) 60%
T. Celeste (D) 36%

2004
Voinovich (R) 64%
Fingerhut (D) 36%

2006
Brown (D) 56%
DeWine (R) 44%

In the 10 year period from 1994 to 2004, Republican U.S. Senate candidates averaged 58% of the vote while Democratic candidates only averaged 39% of the vote. This meant that the average Republican victory margin during that period was 19% of the vote. Such an average meant that Democratic U.S. Senate candidates took "a thumpin" from 1994 to 2004.

Sherrod Brown changed that. He beat incumbent Mike DeWine by 12% of the vote. That is huge-particularly in light of the miserable results Democratic candidates obtained during the 1994-2004 period.

The question thus becomes: Why did Sherrod Brown do so well? Although a full answer might depend of more detailed number crunching, a preliminary analysis shows that Sherrod Brown created a strong campaign organization and, just as importantly, talked about issues in a way that appealed to most Ohioans.

Ohio's Democrats would do well to learn these two lessons from Sherrod Brown. One, if you want to win a statewide campaign you need to put together a strong campaign organization. Two, you need to talk about issues that interest most Ohioans, and take political positions that appeal to most Ohioans.

This may sound simplistic but it is something that Ohio's Democratic U.S. Senate candidates were unable to do from 1994-2004.

Bill Mann
Columbus, Ohio
__________________________________________________________________
Mr. Mann is a Columbus attorney who has long been interested in politics.

New Hampshire Newspaper Poll Shows Tie in '08 Dem Preference

This is the report of a poll done for the Concord Monitor, a New Hampshire newspaper, that shows Obama and Hillary basically tied among NH Dems. You can read the full story here:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061224/REPOSITORY/612240366 We present this for your enjoyment and note that the campaign for the 08 nomination is beginning earlier than usual. The fact that there is so much coverage of the 2008 presidential race almost two years before the election shows (a) the impact of having so much media as compared to even 2000; (b) the desperation of Americans to get this administration out of power; and (c) the fact that political reporters will always focus on the horserace as opposed to substantive ideas.

Bush, Tax Cuts, and the Iraq War

E.J. Dionne argues in this column ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/14/AR2006121401364.html ) that the Iraqi War has never been Bush's top priority, preserving and extending his tax cuts has always been his first priority. He calculates that for every dollar this Administration has spent on the war, it has cut taxes by two dollars. Obviously this can't continue, and the deficits we are experiencing is the natural result of such a policy.

Democrats should demand that if Bush wants to increase troops in Iraq, and wants billions of dollars for Iraq's unemployed, then he should propose raising taxes to pay for expanding the war effort. It would be fascinating to see Republicans try and explain why we should spend billions of dollars more in Iraq, but not raise taxes to pay for such expenditures.

Bush Wants 10 Billion for Iraqi Jobs

According to this report in the London Times, ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2517659,00.html ) the Bush Administration is seeking up to 10 billion additional dollars to provide Iraqis with jobs. These jobs would be created by rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure. Gingrich, who is advocating this plan, calls for a cross between the Marshall Plan and the New Deal for Iraqis. According to Gingrich, the plan is to "mop up" every unemployed Iraqi and give them a job.

Do you think that anyone in the media will get the irony of this? Here we have a conservative Republican, who would never call for such a plan in the United States, urging a plan that he describes as a cross between two plans associated with liberal Democratic presidents. And he is doing all of this with a straight face.

Well, here is a question for Mr. Gingrich and the Bush Administration: why are Iraqis more worthy than unemployed Americans? Why is such a plan a good idea for Iraqis but not for Americans? Are unemployed Americans not good enough for their own government to help?

The only job plan this administration has for unemployed young people in America is to have them join the military so they can risk their lives, apparently to protect American companies while they provide jobs for Iraqis. Democrats need to start asking why we can spend American tax dollars to provide unemployed Iraqis with jobs, but not unemployed Americans. Watching Republicans try and explain the difference would illustrate the difference between us and them.
It would illustrate the difference between a political party that wants to help Americans and a political party that doesn't.