I would much rather spend money on the Children of America, universal health care coverage, medical research, improvement of infrastructure, and less on some vague and endless war against "terror".

As far as Iraq, the current problems there are the product of our meddling, not a response to them.

Life is not risk free. Terrorism is not an existential threat warranting such disproportionate attention. To ask the government to blanket us in security is asking for a police state. That is the direction your fear is leading us.

Furthermore, if you're someone who regularly consults the Christian Bible for guidance, you have absolutely no hope of understanding or adapting to the realities of the world around us, where the Earth is not the center of the universe and people are not conceived without 2 people being involved nor do they rise from the dead.

What does someone who believes in such things have to offer the world except more delusions?

"Today neither the Republicans or the Democrats have anything to commend them to the admiration of future historians and there exists no one in either party who can possibly lead them out of the swamp. McCain? Pelosi? Obama? Gingrich? It is to laugh."

Yes.

However, we also have a class of fighting men with more combat experience, per man, than at any time in US history. Some of them will enter politics.

The Senate will take quite a while to be changed to a great degree, but I would not be surprised to see the House changed in the next two or three election cycles to include several such figures. I think they will be a renewing force in our politics, which surely needs renewing.

#2 Grim;

I guess you haven't been paying attention, because many Iraq vets have entered politics....as Democrats.

Perhaps that's why you failed to notice.

Yup, Andy and it was all spontaneous too, wasn't it?

A.L.

Andy, I'm a Democrat myself. So I'm going to say two things to you:

First, I endorsed Paul Hackett, who I think was the first of them, and did what I could for his campaign even though I disagreed with his position on Iraq. I wanted to see vets of this type in office, though, regardless -- I think we need them there. (This is the same reason I endorsed and did my best to help elect Jim Webb this year.)

Of course, Hackett was thrown under the bus by the national party in the 2006 elections. That's too bad -- he seems like a good guy.

Second, as to Christians being incapable of adding to the discussion -- you might read this post and the links off it. It may be that there's a bit more to be added than you might imagine.

Spontaneous? What does that have to do with anything? I'm sure somewhere in that cryptic comment is the seed of a dismissal of exactly the point you have, and Grim is, making.

Andy, just read your first comment - you're skirting a ban with that kind of ad-hominem; you (and I) may not hold a lot of stock in religion, but I won't have people insulted because their views are different.

A.L.

Andy, because you care about these things, I presumed that you knoew that Rahm Emmanuel sought out and solicited Gulf vets to run for Congress (sadly, some of them got kicked to the curb by the Party).

It wasn't a spontaneous movement by any means.

A.L.

So are you suggesting they were coerced or bribed into running as Dems? A far more plausible explanation is that Emmanual discovered fertlle soil in which to sow the seeds of a movement.

When is running for office ever spontaneous, and what does that have to do with their purpose or goals anyway? Nothing.

You don't think Republicans tried the same thing? And if they did but were largely unsuccessful, would you agree that this means the Democrat's ideology is closer to the vets than Republicans?

Don, isn't despair normally considered a sin in Christianity?

AL: Coming around to my way of looking at things, huh?

You don't have to read far in this thread for your every word to be confirmed.

Hey, Andy -- you forgot to say, "Oh, sorry, Grim, I didn't realize. Thanks for helping to win the majority in the Senate, since it was you and people like you who put Jim Webb over the top and secured the one-vote majority."

You're welcome, though I didn't do it for you -- I did it because a man who has fought as hard as Webb, and shown personal honor in office as he did when he resigned as Secretary of the Navy, deserves the support. Even if he does threaten to punch out the President afterwards... but hey, who among us hasn't wanted to punch out a President now and then? If not this one, then some other, surely.

Maybe the Democratic party is a bigger tent than you realize. If so, keeping that very narrow majority means keeping everyone in the tent. A little courtesy, to the remaining Southern Democrats, wouldn't hurt.

To steal a line: "I cry for beloved country"
tonight I 'm going to listen to a speech by a man so something I can't find words whom is going to try and sove a problem of his own making. Because it was done w/ so much incompetence I can only beleive it was deliberate. On the other hands many of the Democrats are engaging in the most puerile kind of cowardice i.e., they see a problem but refuse to fix it as though they were Pontius Pilate. The problem is what happens if Iraq becomes a total civil war w/ the potential for sectarian cleansing a la the partition of India, what will the sectarian sides as nation states do and lastly what will the loss of oil reserves mean to the economies of the world.
Well here it is

Andy - I know a fair number of electoral mecahnics (the nuts and bolts folks) and no, the GOP wasn't smart enough to do that this cycle.

There's a fair difference between a locally prominent pewrson who gets a call from the DCCC saying "Hey, we've got $100K in seed money if you'd be interested in running..." and a local person organically deciding to run. (See my posts on Cynthia McKinney's opponent...)

A.L.

"In my studies of American history, I cannot identify another time when both political parties were of such small ideals, little intellect ... party who can possibly lead them out of the swamp. McCain? Pelosi? Obama? Gingrich? It is to laugh. Then cry."

Here, here. Never better said.

Two:
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo

I put them in that order for CIC & V-P. Romney is Conservative and scares the libruls because he is Mormon. Tancredo understands the immigration mess and has good solutions.

Andy X - "I guess you haven't been paying attention, because many Iraq vets have entered politics....as Democrats."

Yup, that is true, because those with a true sense of duty are still serving, the Dems entering politics, almost to a man, used their service as a springboard into the political swamp. I have very little respect for many of them.

Perhaps that's what YOU failed to notice.

There has never been a more crucial time in the history of the US than now. Our future is truly threatened by the elitists in Washington. They have no vision, just visions of what wish us to become. They do not understand what we are.

G-d help us.

(sorry for the typos BTW - still have three band-aids on fingers. I'll post the salmon recipe later, tho. It was delicious, even if TG had to feed me...)

A.L.

Donald, you must not have studied the same American History that I did. Taft? McKinley? Tyler? Hughes?

Our history is full of prominent nincompoops. Our cxountry survives in spite of them, because of the resilience and genius of the American system and people.

Yes, it's going to be a painful decade, but we've had painful decades before, and will yet again in the future.

Our kids, and the immigrant kids who they go to school with are reallyt just fine, thank you. And I think they will do far better than we have.

So no, don't dispair. Buckle down and work harder. We all need to.

A.L.

Donald, you must not have studied the same American History that I did. Taft? McKinley? Tyler? Hughes?

What are Bush's signature accomplishments? Treasury-busting tax cuts that provide more for those who already have plenty. Incompetently managed wars of choice. A boondoggle of a prescription drug plan that combines the worst of the Democratic Great Society with the worst of Republican corporate welfarism. Warrantless wiretapping, secret prisons, the PATRIOT Act. Katrina.

He has two solid appointments to the Supreme Court (one of which only occurred after a revolt by his own base forced him to pack off a substandard pick clearly motivated by personal loyalty rather than merit). Other than that, he has very little to show for six years in office.

In addition, Don's point was about much more than the presidency. It was about the quality of both the opposition and the supporting cast in the president's own party. These, too, have been uninspired. The Democrats continue to lack any clear plans for either our domestic or our international troubles, and resemble academics that got tenure on "critical theory" more than policy leaders. Meanwhile, the Republican Congress of the past six years has given us Terry Schiavo and a host of other inconsequential issues to chew on. They've also given us Sarbanes-Oxley, which has collapsed (as in, something like a 90% reduction) the fraction of global IPO's offered on American exchanges and sent a lot of viable companies private, preventing the public from profiting off their success. They've given us No Child Left Behind, another in a long series of Congressional acts with Doublespeak names.

Meanwhile, in the states, Republicans push for limitations on the tort liability exposure of industries that make generous donations; Democrats launch wars on Wal-Mart.

Healthcare, education, retirement security, military transformation, intelligence reform, emergency responsiveness, border security, energy--there are a lot of major issues that no one in any major party is willing to speak candidly about, and the level of risk-aversion among both parties regarding talking about any policy that might entail public sacrifice has risen to the level of pure cowardice. I tend to agree with Don. The people out there with good ideas are ignored; the people who candidly speak about costs (even if they simultaneously speak about benefits, in order to compare them) are pigeonholed. Both parties seem to be actively looking for small, low-intellectual-caliber proposals geared more towards the generation of talking points than the solution of public ills.

Luckily, it's not up to you.

Donald Sensing: "I am, for the first time, deeply pessimistic about the future of this country."

Don't be. The "last, best hope" jazz is looking more justifiable than ever.

You don't have to be gloomy now or else miss the rush. Why not wait for a while and watch Europe imploding? There'll be all kinds of cause for gloom, and America may look better and better by comparison.

Don, isn't despair normally considered a sin in Christianity?

Despair - "the Sickness unto Death", as Kierkegaard put it - is in fact called the unforgiveable sin.

Fortunately the sin of despair is quite limited and specific in scope, and does not apply to pessimism about the state of the world. Despairing that the Chicago Cubs will ever win another world series, for example, is not even a sin at all. It's a total freebie.

I'm with A.L. in thinking that Donald's pessimism is lacking historical perspective. In 1860 half the country took a walk, while Congress went on vacation and Buchanan went around telling everybody that he would be the last President of the United States. Times have been worse, for sure.

In fact, most of our country's most respected leaders look a hell of a lot better in retrospect than they did at the time. Does anybody wish that we had the Korean War instead of this one?

And as far as I'm concerned none of the Whig presidents were worth a damn. Tyler too.

(But you'd have to give 'em Daniel Webster and Henry Clay in Congress)

Concur that Mr. Sensing is being too pessimistic. History is full of failed plans and attempts, but somehow people keep going.

As we have seen in the comments to this article, there are always those who will try to degrade others, and there will always be those who will be histrionic in their ascription of social ills to whoever is on the hot seat (in this case Bush.)

Reality is the hammer that will knock nincompoops down to earth, and the reasonable citizens of the US will get along ok.

Reality in this case being that nuances in any Iraq policy, or Democratic Congress-controlled agenda, will make little difference to the average citizen who gets up and goes to work. Oh, over the long term key decisions will have affects, but I see little reason to have any immediate addition to gloom.

Long term - as long as people aspire to be US citizens there will be hope. As long as US citizens have the fundamental rights to assemble and speak their mind, there will be hope.

Are people serious about this?

America is in great shape.

I'll refrain from giving the Reverend Donald Sensing religious advice, but if other people are really feeling gloomy about America, maybe it might be a good idea to sink a few beers or something so you feel better. Of all the countries in the world to get gloomy about, that is not the one.

I can't say I am pleased that you worked so hard to deliver this country into the hands of the democrats. It would appear that your PLAN is to hand the country over to a bunch of people who will not acknowledge the war on terror, have no plans to protect us, and will only deal with the babysitters. Thanks a bunch.

If that's addressed to me, Judith, I wouldn't say that I did. What I did do was try to get one particular Democrat elected -- a former Marine who had been awarded the Navy Cross for, as the citation notes, "extraordinary heroism."

Heroism does not imply any kind of rational thinking and an ability to plan for the future of this nation. While a "hero" may be less prone to turning into a "politician", good intentions from honorable people have landed this country in a lot of trouble.

I don't deny it, Davicus. I mentioned also that I was impressed by his resignation from his position as Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, rather than endorse a Congressional reduction of forces that he thought was misguided.

That's the old fashioned way: a military leader in uniform who is ordered to do something he thinks puts his men at risks, resigns rather than doing it. I like that he did that. If we'd had more generals and admirals willing to do it in 2002 and 2003, rather than simply griping about how "Rumsfeld is pushing us around," Bush wouldn't now be admitting that he didn't send enough troops.

Anyway, as I said, I don't agree with Webb's position on the war. I do think that his past service is worthy of a particularly high degree of respect, both in the USMC and as the SECNAV.

I think Donald has a point. Though I'm only 34, I can't think of a time that our "leaders" were so feeble, inarticulate, and weak.

This administration fails on so many levels, its driven me from the Republican party.

I would guess that there are many people like myself, disenchanted with the state of our two party system. Sadly the third party choices are weak and cater to petty special interests or single issues.

It makes one want to give up on politics altogether. Especially when qualified candidates (of either party) are thrown under the bus because they haven't toed the party line or didn't cow to the party bosses.

Grim wrote:

bq.If that's addressed to me, Judith, I wouldn't say that I did. What I did do was try to get one particular Democrat elected -- a former Marine who had been awarded the Navy Cross for, as the citation notes, "extraordinary heroism."

And for whom did that particular decorated Marine Democrat vote for Senate Majority Leader?

Does having Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader help or hinder our effort to fight World War IV, of which the Iraqi campaign is a part?

Strategy folks! Sometimes a good tactic is a bad strategy.

Mike

Wow Andy, thanks for making a lot of good points for Christianity! The Bible says absolutely nothing about Earth being the center of the universe - that was the work of the established state Church, which went out of it's way to persecute those who believed the Bible, not the state, was the final authority. The Bible clearly talks about worlds far beyond this one. The Bible ALSO states that Christ was born of a virgin, which you concur can indeed happen - people are not conceived without 2 people being involved _ , so it's good to finally get THAT off the table. Also, apparently you believe that folks can't be revived once they are dead - _nor do they rise from the dead. . I know some folks who may disagree, having been pronounced clinically dead before being revived. You may do well to be more open minded instead of clinging so tightly to your own established beliefs.