Is there a reason why we’re ragging on Hillary, because she’s sorta kinda our ideal target in a general.

Vizzini on January 5, 2008 at 11:26 PM

Call me an idealist, but shouldn’t we be hoping for the strongest candidates in general for the nomination for President? Can’t people for once think as what is best for America instead of what is best for the Republican Party? Because, as it stands right now, we don’t have very good candidates in the GOP, nor do we have the GOP base very energized or inspired to even bother to vote. So we should be encouraging Democrats to nominate a good candidate, especially considering that most of the GOP base has been insulting each other throughout the entire Primary, and some may just stay home out of spite.

Also, Fred Thompson’s message resonated with me that we need to bring the once great Democrat Party back from the clutches of the radical leftists and “progressives”.

We need to keep in mind that what is best for America is a strong government, not just a strong GOP. We all saw what happened with the war effort these past few years with the Democrat Party turning into the anti-war, anti-military Party. We are a better, stronger nation with a strong government.

Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 12:52 AM

By the way how long until the “Huckabee hates the surge” ad comes out from Romney?

John_Locke on January 5, 2008 at 11:56 PM

I really don’t think any of the candidates, including whom I am supporting, Fred Thompson, can claim any kind of benefit by talking about their support/non-support of the “surge”. Unless any of them can point to where/when any of them talked about supporting new COIN strategies in 2006, then they may as well shut up about the “surge”. Saying you support the “surge” means nothing. Lots of people say they supported “more troops”. Big deal. “More troops” did not win this war effort. The strategy of how to use those troops in COIN operations won the war effort. Unless any of them talk about that aspect, I give none of them any credibility of “supporting the ’surge’”.

So if any of them come out with an attack ad like that, my first question for them will be what they had to say about COIN operations and the COIN manual in 2006.

Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 1:01 AM

joewm315 on January 6, 2008 at 12:58 AM

I agree that Hillary is the best candidate on the Democrat side in regards to the war effort. I don’t believe she understands The Long War at all, but I also don’t believe she would pull us out of Iraq prematurely. I don’t have that same belief about Edwards or Obama.

And I believe she would be more ‘protective mother’ in regards to any attacks on us, whereas I think Obama and Edwards would be more about ‘nuance’ and ‘understanding our enemies’.

Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 1:08 AM

Politics now is the reason that Fred! ain’t doing so hot. It is far too oriented towards 30 second sound bites, and the point you’ve just made is solid, but a little too complex. Thirty second platitude: I like the surge.

John_Locke on January 6, 2008 at 1:07 AM

Well, someone savvy can explain the difference pretty easily in a 30 second soundbite actually. They wouldn’t be able to go into the specifics of COIN strategy, but they would be able to just say “the ’surge’ was more than just more troops, it was about better strategy. More troops with the same failed strategy would not have led to success. Our military succeeded, because President Bush and GEN Petraeus used more troops in a very successful new strategy that led to victory.”

I agree though that our political climate in this country is unfortunately very shallow and superficial. Unfortunately, that is why our politicians continue to be shallow and superficial. They are not going to do any more than the public demands of them. If we tell them we are satisfied with this type of politics, they will continue to give it to us.

Sad state of affairs.

Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 1:20 AM

He’s already thumbed his nose at the nutroots once, and if he wins NH he might cut bait with them.

Spirit of 1776 on January 6, 2008 at 1:12 AM

I certainly hope this happens. The best thing for the country is to marginalize the ‘angry left’. The very best thing for the country is to get the ‘angry left’ to grow up and get back to being rational about issues and policy and ideas.

Granted, it would help if we had leaders in office instead of politicians.

Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 1:23 AM

Of course there is a benefit – there will be a general election in November, and the GOP candidate will be on record as supporting the strategy that won the war,…

LagunaDave on January 6, 2008 at 1:14 AM

I must not have made my point clear. The ’surge’ was not the strategy, COIN was the strategy. The ’surge’ of troops was simply needed to enact the COIN strategy. When I hear people talk about the ’surge’, they are usually ignorant and think that the ’surge’ was all about keeping the same strategy, but just using more troops. So people take credit for supporting the ’surge’, by saying that they called for ‘more troops’ earlier in the war effort. Well, that’s great and all, but ‘more troops’ was not the answer. COIN strategy with more troops enacting that strategy was the answer.

See, in my opinion, we can’t allow politicians to get away with generalities like that and then assume they know what they are talking about when the use a talking point. Saying “I support the war effort in Iraq” does not necessarily mean the candidate actually understands The Long War or Islam or anything about the war effort we are facing. They just use that line, because they know the base of the Republican Party supports the war effort, so they should say so too. But I want to know more than just that. WHY do they support the war effort in Iraq? Because it is politically expedient or do they understand the reasons we are there, the history of Islamic terrorism and Saddam’s links to it in Iraq, the strategy of being in Afghanistan and Iraq to surround Iran, etc.

Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 1:29 AM

Obama, to his credit, acknowledged that the surge had accomplished a reduction in violence, but in a deft, but breathtakingly shameless piece of political jiujitsu, gave the credit to the Democrats for taking control of Congress, which apparently resolved all outstanding problems between the Shia and Sunni in overnight.

LagunaDave on January 6, 2008 at 1:14 AM

I have to give him credit for that as an excellent political move, but this is why I want to hold the politicians to a higher standard in their understanding of the war effort. In response to Obama’s blatant pandering and trying to have the Democrats take credit, all a Republican has to do is show a minor understanding of the COIN strategy and explain this to people and it would show just how incompetent, ignorant and clueless are the Democrats when it comes to Iraq.

We need to expect more from our leaders or we are going to continue to get the same political nonsense from them, as we got from Obama. He sounded good though, because no one has come out and actually explained the truth to the American people. We force the Democrats into reality if we force the Republicans to a higher standard. But if we accept talking points from our own party, it leaves things wide open for the Democrats to say anything and sound smart, because it sounds like they are not using talking points, when they actually are.

Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 1:33 AM

My high school Latin teacher would blame it on “the great dumbing down”. I couldn’t stand her 99% of the time, but she’s definitely right about American society’s collective willful ignorance.

John_Locke on January 6, 2008 at 1:24 AM

I actually agree with her sentiment there too.

Ironically, I think both the Left and the Right believe the American public is generally dumbed down and ignorant, but for completely different reasons. heh

Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 1:41 AM

If the GOP politician supports the war effort and pledges to support the commanders on the ground, is that not enough?

Basically what I’m saying is, if the nominee comes out and says I’m sticking with Petraeus, would that be alright with you?

John_Locke on January 6, 2008 at 1:34 AM

If the candidates were running for Congress, then sure, that would be enough. But they are not running for Congress, they are running for Commander-in-Chief. They are not going to be supporting anything, they are going to be leading the war effort if they get into office. Therefor, I want them to completely understand what is going on with the war effort.

It is very easy to just support something that someone else is leading. It is quite another to lead an effort and be able to explain why that effort is necessary in order to garner support. A president needs to explain to the American people why things are necessary, especially things such as war. I want to be comfortable knowing that the person I am voting for understands this conflict.

Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 1:44 AM