electing a moderate to conservative Democrat who is good on the war

Which ones were those? Only two Democrats, Marshall of Georgia and Taylor of Mississippi, voted against the defeat and retreat resolution. The rest of the 43 "Blue Dogs," including newly elected alleged "moderate conservatives" like Heath Shuler of North Carolina and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, either voted for it or were one of the handful who ducked the vote.

Since most of the Democrats who won Republican seats last November had expressly promised not to support cutting off funds for the war, why would any voter believe what the next crop of Democratic challengers promises?

We have established a team within the site that will focus on identifying strong candidates -- veterans, ideally

Holy shit, veterans ideally! Sounds like a chickenhawk argument to me. Let's see what Lorie has to say about chickenhawks:

the only way to be certain that chickenhawks did not start and support wars would be to allow only those in the military, or parents of those in the military, to vote for the Commander-In-Chief and for Congress, since they authorize funds for military action. I don't think those currently doing all the chickenhawk talk would be so happy if that happened. I wonder how many members of the House and Senate would be Republican then?

I think that just about everyone on the right has now addressed the silliness of the chickenhawk "argument." I have weighed in myself and have linked to others who have, as well. Now everytime I hear "chickenhawk" all I smell is desperation.

Mmmm, I smell something. What is it....?

NOW it has BEGUN! the "Republican" facade has been jettisoned.(FOOLS! SUCKERS!) But touting Likud is way, WAY too risky (and neocons are uber-risk-averse!) so now the fallback position is "America First"!!??? (new world order/ America first: hmmm? dialectics.) Dems, ex-commies, left-handed pedophiles: Rally 'round and SAVE OUR (invisible) ASSES! (And please don't utter that dry-drunk, useless, GW Bush's name AGAIN!) Democracy Project and it's newborn Freak, The Victory Caucus are AEI-affiliated front groups of the Zionist/neoconservative Greater Likud War Party (I made the name up, they don't tout their brand yet: again, too risky!). Note: these are not good, Ha'aretz-reading Israelis. These are Jerusalem Post-types. Happy spinning!

Mantis,
Why did you start my quote in the middle of a sentence? It doesn't make much sense when the first part is cut off. Here is the entire first sentence:

"If the chickenhawk argument (if namecalling can be called an argument) is taken to its logical conclusion, the only way to be certain that chickenhawks did not start and support wars would be to allow only those in the military, or parents of those in the military, to vote for the Commander-In-Chief and for Congress, since they authorize funds for military action."

You intentionally quoted me out of context to make it sound like I was advocating only those who had served in the military be allowed to vote. Please, at least be honest and don't post half of a sentence, intentionally leaving off the beginning.

I stand by what I said. When I hear that excuse of an argument (chickenhawk talk) I think it is because the person trying to debate has run out of valid arguments.

As for the Victory Caucus advocating recruiting veterans, that is simply political strategy and an attempt to recruit those with firsthand knowledge of the issues. They are not engaging in the chickenhawk talk of the left saying only those who have served, or those who have children serving, can talk about the war. Mantis, your comment made no sense, and wouldn't have even if you hadn't tried to mischaracterize my earlier post.

By the way, below is the link to my entire earlier post from a guest blogging gig at Michelle Malkin's site. I encourage readers to follow the link and read it in its entirety, as well as the links it contains.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003358.htm

Why did you start my quote in the middle of a sentence?

That was what was pertinent. The part that you felt I should have included, which you have quoted above, makes no substantive difference. Why did you feel I misrepresented you by omitting it? What salient point was ignored by not including that? I suppose I should have included it, but the only reason for such is you would have no excuse to accuse me of misrepresenting you. Since I did not, however, I can only assume you would have found some other avenue to claim I did so.

As for the Victory Caucus advocating recruiting veterans, that is simply political strategy and an attempt to recruit those with firsthand knowledge of the issues.

And similar tactics made by Democrats have been met with derision, from you, that they are employing the "chickenhawk" defense. Let me link to just such an instance:

It matters not to Alter that Webb is advocating our near-immediate withdrawal from Iraq (how muscular will Osama bin Laden find that?). What counts is that Webb's dad was a vet, he's a vet, and his son's currently serving in Iraq. And like a good liberal, Alter invoked the chickenhawk mantra, saying that unlike Bush and Cheney, Webb served in Vietnam.

He is a veteran, but this is to be dismissed because, as you state, he is for (as you call it) "near-immediate withdrawal" (even though you misrepresent Webb's position). Veterans, in your mind, as explicitly stated, should be listened to and actively recruited to the cause, as long as they advocate continued conflict. That is what you are saying, right? If not, then what you are advocating is that veterans should be recruited and supported, regardless of their views on the war, which is inherently a chickenhawk argument (as you state: "would be to allow only those in the military, or parents of those in the military, to vote for the Commander-In-Chief and for Congress, since they authorize funds for military action.")

Why don't you just admit that you approve of Kesler's point, that veterans should be recruited to the cause, as long as that cause is continued conflict? If you cannot admit to that, then i guess you are guilty of chickenhawkery. What other conclusion can I come to?

Mmmm, I smell something. What is it....?
Posted by: mantis

Mantis... have you lost your way from Uranus?

The planet I mean....honest.

There are more issues than the war, and voting for anyone with a (D) after his/her name will lead to problems long after this war, like all the ones before it, is over and forgotten. Lyndon Johnson's worst contribution to history was not the VietNam war, it was the "Great Society".

Whether, we ultimately fight them there (which I prefer) or fight them here, we will win (unfortunatly after many more have died). I am more concerned with what will happen to our nation in the mean time. Winning a war is a lot like pulling a tooth, the faster you get it over with, the less it hurts.

I think it's time to impeach Bush on his failure to let the troops do their job in this war. That combined with his refusal to secure our border and to let those two Border Patrol Agents to be railroaded in order to make it clear that the gate is WIDE OPEN for cheap labor to come on in is enough of crime for me to push for impeachment. I voted for him twice, but now have lost any faith in the man. He needs to go and go now.

Jimbo:

I have a feeling that when you were a kid, and everyone was choosing up sides for a softball game, you were the last one picked. Quit listening to last nights democratic talking points, and start paying attention to long term results.

BTW: You can't fill (14) million jobs with (6) million people. It isn't that lettuce will be more expensive; it's that there won't be any lettuce, or offices cleaned, or dishes washed, or chickens packaged. The president can't listen to talking points, he has to look at the reality of the future.

If you had written that you don't want them to have amesty/citizenship, I would have supported you. However, stuffing them all in a bus and shipping them back to Mexico isn't practicle, especially with the boarders wide open.

How on earth is Walter Jones a "White Flag Republican"??? After all, this was the fellow who led the defiant Republican revolt against the French:

"On 11 March 2003, Representatives Robert W. Ney (R - Ohio) and Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R - North Carolina) declared that all references to French fries and French toast on the menus of the restaurants and snack bars run by the House of Representatives would be removed. House cafeterias were ordered to rename French fries as 'freedom fries.'" -- from Wikipedia

Now to those of you astounded who would proclaim, "Hey, this was COMPLETELY NUTTY," I would declare, "You're obviously not conservatives!"

The left always assumes it's okay for them to take
out of context quotes turning them into whirled
peas.
It's a guarantee reality will catch up eventually
just like the laws of nature, whether it's liked
or not.

The left always assumes it's okay for them to take out of context quotes turning them into whirled peas.

And as a corollary to this, when conservatives quote a lefty accurately and in context, the lefty complains that he or she is being "smeared."

This vote is so despicable. The dems again (with help from white flag reps) are trying to ensure American defeat. Now the terrorists, the Baathists, and the thugs like Sadr are on the run, so the dems have to help out these allies of theirs in Iraq.

What a despicable party!

There doesn`t seem alot opponents of the war can do can do but gripe from the sidelines until the war is played out and we aren`t even close to the final act. However, there is this interesting conjecture from Juan Cole "The talk about the Dems wanting to 'cut off funding to our troops in harm's way' will increasingly just raise questions in the public's mind about who put the troops in harm's way and why."

Steve:

Was Roosevelt wrong to put the troops in harms way?

Was Johnson wrong to put the troops in harms way?

Was Clinton wrong to put the troops in harms way?

The main fight should be in the primarys. Donations should NOT go to the RNC for their distribution but rather to opostition candidates directly.

Certainly the rino 7 should be stepped on heavily but the RNC won't do it even though it cost them bundles in lost donations last cycle. But then who in the hell got e. dole dishing out the dough?...

Mmmm, I smell something. What is it....?

Teen spirit?

Where's the Team America sequel when you need it?

I have to question anyone's sanity that quotes Juan Cole. Sheeze
Mmmmmm I smell'--- might be your breath blowing back in your face.

Mantis, you answered my qustion, "Why did you start my quote in the middle of a sentence?" as follows:

"That was what was pertinent. The part that you felt I should have included, which you have quoted above, makes no substantive difference. Why did you feel I misrepresented you by omitting it? What salient point was ignored by not including that? I suppose I should have included it, but the only reason for such is you would have no excuse to accuse me of misrepresenting you. Since I did not, however, I can only assume you would have found some other avenue to claim I did so. "

Sorry, Mantis, but I could not get past that first part of your extended comment. If you seriously, in all honesty, do not see how omitting the part of the sentence that says "If the chickenhawk argument (if namecalling can be called an argument) is taken to its logical conclusion,..." makes a difference, then I am not sure I can explain it to you, but I will try.

If you truly, honestly, do not see the difference it makes, try this example, which is even more blatant, to get a clue. How about if I said, "If what Mantis says is true, I say we should all just blow our brains out now and be done with it because this country is completely worthless and impotent and not worth living in." If I omit the "If what Mantis says is true" part the meaning of the sentence is changed considerably (180 degrees, in fact). Obviously I don't think that most of what you say is true, just as I don't think the chickenhawk strategy to try to silence anyone who supports the mission in Iraq is valid. That was the point. You used something I wrote, which began with saying if the chickenhawk logic was actually followed... and omitted that part, making it sound like what followed was something I was advocating -- taking away the right to vote from anyone who had not served in the military. Since the sentence was edited in the only way that would have resulted in making it sound like I was advocating something I was not, I questioned your decision to do so. I will take you at your word though, that it was unintentional. Maybe you didn't understand the sentence and thought I really was advocating only military members and their immediate families vote. I assure you I was not.