This Dem position sure as hell will not excite their base. Poor Nancy, a political strategist she is not.

Pelosi has endured so many local and general anesthetics in pursuit of pinning her eyebrows to her ears, that she suffers from terminal NUMB.

Not Using My Brain.

Didn't these guys (Schumer, Dean, Pelosi) say about a month back that they would release their plan for Iraq in January? I know I saw that on the tv news programs.

I must disagree, Hoggy. The moonbat base will be excited, since they will not have to attempt to address the Dems Official Cut and Run Plan, and can continue to bloviate about Bush/Cheney/Rove. With feeling.

There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war...

And yet they didn't include this on their precious 2006 Issues Agenda? Wow, could it really be that they finally realized that a major political party can't be run on an "Anti-That-Guy Campaign"?

Dean most certainly does have a plan! It's a diversity plan detailed here.

Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq.

That'll certainly piss off the editors at The Nation who unequivocally said ""The Nation will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the American war in Iraq a major issue in his or her campaign."

Oops, Nancy.

Of course, Daily Kos was also in a tizzy today over the alleged "spying on Americans!" and exhuming McCarthy comparisons at will and they (sepcifically SusanG at DK) seem to think they have the answers as to how Democrats can win elections.

"I suggest that those of us who are represented by Republicans in the House contact our representatives and get them on record over the next few weeks on three specific questions:

1. Does the president have unlimited power in a time of war, particularly an undeclared one?
2. Do you believe the government has a right to spy on its citizens with no regulating oversight?
3. Do you support a full and open Congressional investigation into the executive branch's authorization of spying on American citizens?

These questions, depending on how they are answered, may well prove to be a gift we can give to every Democratic challenger in the year ahead. It will force GOP reps to take a stand, if as constituents we don't let them get away with obfuscating. Insist on a clear-cut answer. Demand a yes or no. And keep ready at hand the letters or emails you receive back. It's time to force this issue. It's time for all of us to do our part. It's time to re-deliver this government into the hands of the people it was elected to represent.

Naturally, all those talking points were followed by the usual KosKiddies talking about saving The People! Sticking it to The Man! Right on, brother! and Hey, where's my bong?

Wow, you can write about something other than New Orleans.

Apologies, that post should've been italisized all the way to the word "represent."

A unified party is good for the party, but it's worse for the country.

For those of us who vote for individuals instead of parties this means nothing.

Personally? I think its a brilliant bit of politicking. The Dems know the majority of their base is going to vote for them no matter what is said or isn't said by the party as a whole. What this does is, it allows individual Dems in contested area's to appear to be more "moderate" or even "right of center" on the War on Terror which has more appeal to swing voters. It also allows those in rabid moon bat country to take a freakishly left stance on the War.

I'm so far right of center that I'd vote for a Rumsfield/Ashcroft ticket in a heartbeat...and yet there are Dems out there (Lieberman, Miller) that I would vote for (on a state level) and support if I had the option, and if I honestly felt that the Democratic Party as a whole wasn't going to influence their actions after they were elected.

Paul:

I disagree with you. I expect that what you're seeing is probably the only thing that Pelosi can do.

If you've followed her comments in the last several weeks, you probably noticed that she's moved just a tiny bit toward the "Let's withdraw them all now!" stance.

And you'll notice that this doesn't exactly play well with centrist Democrats, many of whom are mature enough to recognize that "withdraw now from Iraq!" is about as wise a strategy as "Invade Luxembourg!"

And if she pushed the Democratic Party too far into "withdraw" territory, than congressional candidates, particularly those in heavily Republican districts or who prefer a more (ahem) nuanced approach to the Iraq question would have to spend far too much time dissassociating themselves from the head-in-its-ass wing of the Democratic Party, which has unfortunately penetrated the party's leadership of late.

This image problem is compounded by the latest antics from the Michael Moore/Kosette wing, which is openly calling for the head of Sen. Lieberman after his remarks on the war and the president in the last few weeks. If the Democratic Party wants to portray the Republicans as an authoritarian party that brooks no dissent from the rank-and-file, then the Democrats (Rep. Pelosi among them) probably realize that it ill behooves them to act like an authoritarian party that brooks no dissent from the rank and file.

--|PW|--

I don't know about the rest of you but every time I see "Pee-losi" I am looking for her hair to stand on end at anytime.

PW:

>I disagree with you. I expect that what you're seeing is probably the only thing that Pelosi can do.

ummm I don't think we disagree... I agree that this is the best she can do. The Left side goes from fairly sane and rational to complete moonbattery. Getting them to form a consensus on anything other than Bush and Abortion is impossible.

What I am saying is that they start 5 points (or 8) behind because of it and it harms them as a party greatly.

-- And playing the fact that they are clueless up is -I think- moronic strategery.

Christ. Murtha comes up with a plan for Iraq, and all we hear about is "cut and run" and white flags. Why, pray tell, should Peolosi come up with a plan? The Republicans would find some dishonest way to smear the Democratic plan, even if (like Murtha's) the President pushes the same plan the following week.

The Democrats are powerless to change occupation policy. They swallowed their objections and largely supported the President in the invasion, and still took a beating for not being compliant enough. They are learning, slowly.

The President has made it clear that he intends to stay the disastrous course, whatever that is. Any plan the Democrats suggest today will be meaningless in six months because the President will have screwed things far worse than anyone now imagines possible.

It isn't a great strategy, but until the current band of crooks and incompetents are unelected, hypothetical alternate plans have no value.

Jim, what, pray tell, was Mr. Murtha's plan, exactly?

When you use the word "plan" it means that you have something more than a slogan, and it should mean that Democrats actually vote for it, which they have declined to do when given the chance.

Kerry said he had a "plan" for the war, but couldn't tell us what it was. Brilliant.

If by now you haven't been able to figure out what our course is in Iraq, then you suffer from a great lack of discernment. Did you notice the 70% turnout in the elections, did you listen to the numbers of Iraqi brigades and troops standing up and taking frontline positions now, did you see what happened with security this weekend with Iraqi's standing guard over their own country, did you see how the locals in Iraq and Jordan now view the terrorists???

Do you read, can you see, can you think???

Jim,

They are learning, slowly.

How, pray tell, do you come to this conclusion? The only thing the democrats seem to agree on is to not take a stand on the most important government function of our time: protecting the people of the United States from terrorists and terrorist states. Indeed, the main skill the defeatocrats seem to have is not taking a consistent, intellectually honest stance on anything!

Paul:

I (ahem) disagree.

There are ways to turn the multifarious plans into a strength. The Democrats could enlist people from all over the party to submit plans and/or ideas for Iraq, then offer each of those as a solution, along with the tag line, "we're ready to talk."

Or something similar.

Me? I'm just waiting for a Progressive (not the capital letter) movement to take hold in both parties.

--|PW|--

Unfortunately I think the Dems are doomed anyway. All this does is give the hare (Repubs) a head start on the tortoise (Dems). Until the Dems can caome forward with some agenda items that they are for, instead of being the anti-Bush party 24/7 they are relegated to has been status.

They obviously are not the party of National Security. The economy is going gangbusters, so that leaves out a lot of the domestic issues. The only "hot button" issues left, for me anyway, are those of secure borders and federal spending. Where the hell are they on those?

They just don't advocate for anything.

After a couple of decades of voting the idiots out of office, we've run out of idiots.

Are these two stories related to each other ???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051216/pl_afp/usiraqvotemilitary_051216213139

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The elections in Iraq have exposed divisions within the insurgency ... Al-Qaeda found itself pitted during the elections against Sunni insurgent groups who joined together to protect voting in western strongholds such as Ar Ramadi. ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501814.html

Pelosi Hails Democrats' Diverse War Stances

"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.

It is a good thing when your enemies are divided!!!

It is a shame that the Democrats only care about their votes while we are at war.

Why doesn't Pelosi just start saying, "lalalalalalalalala" and be done with it. Then Dean can go, "yeaaarrgghhh" and Kerry can flick his tongue and clear his throat, Reid can utter unintelligible bombast with that great big smile and Kennedy can hold his breath and turn beet red.

That would be such an improvement.

"-S-" LMAO

jim,

Thank you for re-affirming my suspicions about moonbats.

In this day and age of trials and tribulations, it is some comfort to KNOW there are such as you.

BTW. Didya notice things are going as planned by the EVIL ROVE?

Damn those neocons.

Must suck to watch the world go according to someone else's plan.

Do try again in '08.

The dems main point of consistency is their lack of a plan to achieve anything. They seem to only bring problems to the table when they should bring solutions. But they think they dare not bring solutions because they think the Republicans will take their plan as their own and leave them with nowhere to go. That plan worked for the Australian Labor Party (socialists) against the Australian Liberals (conservatives), for 3 terms. Now, Labor are where the US Democrats are and they, too, can only complain and not lead - and they can't win elections either.
Murtha's 'plan' to pull out of Iraq and his statement that the US could 'do no more' were just stupid - surprising for such a smart guy.
I didn't think it was his idea to pull US troops back a little and start to give the Iraqis more space, because that's what has been happening for months now. I see it in most of the stories I've published at NewsBlaze. If it was his idea to pull the Coalition back at an appropriate time, (remember, there are others out there as well as the US, who think its a worthwhile endeavor) to some close point so they can swoop in like the cavalry in case something really bad happens, then maybe that's a good idea - if the military can make it work and if the Iraqis ask for that. in case anyone has forgotten, the Iraqi government can ask the coalition to leave if they don't like us there. (no chance) If Bush has now taken on part of Murtha's ideas, then at least part of what he said must have made sense.
The thing that most people seem to forget about is that the people we elect are supposed to be working for the good of the country as a whole. I would have said, excluding his dumb comment, that Murtha is one of those good people who does work for the good of the country. Maybe if there was more of that, there would be less confrontation between politicians and between supporters. But the dems seem to be too smart to let any of their ideas out of the bag. This also serves to hide whether they have any solutions and allows them to complain and not contribute, which is a lot easier to do.

You know you are a bad American when you spend more time thinking about the other party than whats best for the country.

I was at a wedding recently at which a most of the groom's family was liberal and most of the bride's family was conservative.
The groom's mother said, in response to a rather benign political comment from the bride's side, that "I hate Bush".
All I could do was to congratulate her on so succinctly but comprehensively stating the Democrat position on just about any subject.
They appear to be quite comfortable with merely being contrarian, not offering much as an alternative. The Democrat’s position on Iraq seems to make my comment less “tongue and cheek” than I intended it to be.

Sounds like my son, Yak the Younger, at age two:

YtY: "That's NOT okay."

R.Yak: "Well, then, what would you like me to do?"

YtY: "I don't know. But that's NOT okay."

Someone give all the democrats a box of legos for Christmas...maybe they'll go away and leave the adults alone.

A common Republican theme. "Democrats have no ideas." Simply willful blindness.

Democrats have war plans. Social Security plans. Health Care plans. Of those 3, 3 of the most important issues facing our country, Republicans have not put forth any plans.

If that's true it's time for the Democrats to put up or shut up about those plans you allege, jp2. They trained you well, you cliam they have just like they do, but for some reason you don't tell us what they are, just like you don't. I think we can all guess what that reason is.

You know you are a bad American when you spend more time thinking about the other party than whats best for the country.

This is what the Democrats have been doing for the past 5 years, isn't it?

Check out a funny site dedicated to the absurdity and satire nature of saying "It's All George Bush's Fault!"

http://www.itsallgeorgebushsfault.com

Regards,
Notta Libb

Nancy and Babs tend to make all Californians look dumb. Just remember they are both from NoCal and get little support from SoCal. In Nancy's case she need not worry as she represents a small district in the hart of the antiAmerica North Bay area.As op-osed to the South Bay Area of El Segundo, PV, et.al. Nancy has been a strong defender of Johhny "Taliban" Walker from Marin; in SoCal she would have been recalled for that position years ago.
Just remember Ronnie was also a Californian and won 2 elections as govenor by landslides. We are not all airheads.

The Democratic Contract with America:

1. We promise...um...never mind.
2. We will...um...go on to the next point.
3. We are...um...Democrats. Yeah, that's the ticket.
4. We promise to say bad things about George W. Bush until we turn blue in the face!
5. And finally, we believe in...uh...whatever we want to believe in.

Eat your heart out Newt Gingrich!