What if people realize that until they STARTED the war in Iraq, Iraq wasn't part of the "Terror" problem? Do the Republicans really want people to notice how they threw gas on the fire?

“The president has to make the sale.”

The problem is the war isn’t going well. The problem is it’s costing too much money.

Oh, yes, lest we forget—there are some dead troopers. Yes, there are some sundered families. There are children without parents. There are untold thousands who are injured, whose lives are ruined, and whose potential and dreams are gone.

As Tony Snow might say—these are just numbers.

Do Republicans care about anything at all except privilege?

While some of us recoil in horror at what’s going on in our country, the Republicans are concerned about image, about salesmanship, about winning an election.

What happened to honor, and country and patriotism?

What happened to justice?

Who are these people?

These people are whores. They have not a thought of the troops dying in Baghdad. They are not "conservatives" in any sense of the definition. The people who voted for them deserve them. In Alaska anyone who has an "R" by their name is elected. Alaskans don't give a crrap about the corruption of Stevens, Murkowski or Don Young. They are Republicans and that is all that matters. Even though their rank arrogance, stupididy and corruption (crimes) are plastered over the Anchorage Daily News. So how do we deal with that? Eagle River, Alaska

These people are whores. They have not a thought of the troops dying in Baghdad. They are not "conservatives" in any sense of the definition. The people who voted for them deserve them. In Alaska anyone who has an "R" by their name is elected. Alaskans don't give a crrap about the corruption of Stevens, Murkowski or Don Young. They are Republicans and that is all that matters. Even though their rank arrogance, stupididy and corruption (crimes) are plastered over the Anchorage Daily News. So how do we deal with that? Eagle River, Alaska

The Republican Party, much like another twentieth century right-wing movement, facing the consequences of a lost war and country over-rum by foreigners, is loath to pay too much attention to what's happening outside the bunker. George Bush can talk about his plan for winning the war in Iraq only to others willing to suspend their engagement with reality.

The Republicans (and the Democrats) face a dilemma with regard to immigration that will require painful, high-risk decisions between incompatible forces within their existing constituencies. Clearly, neither party has found a credible answer. The Republicans are forced to choose between the demand from their corporate financiers and Chamber of Commerce whores that unlimited access to cheap illegal immigrant labor be maintained and the xenophobic/nationalist core of their "conservative" blue collar base that the foreigner's be kept out of the country and their manufacturing jobs be kept in. There is no compromise position to satisfy both. One or the other will have to be thrown under the bus. At the same time, the Republican Party needs both constituencies to maintain the illusion of political viability.

There is a similar, though less dire dilemma for the Democrats. It will be difficult to stake out a position on immigration that captures some populist appeal while not violating the core principle of ethnic inclusion. If the Democrats can muster the courage to commit first to a position, and hopefully limit the Republican’s opportunities to maneuver on this issue, they could lock-up the presidency and both houses of congress in 2008. The risk is in judging the growing power of the populist movement. In a political vacuum, it could be crafted into the overwhelming vote magnet. Corporate money could make it a tough fight, especially if the corporate interests spent their money on a “Swift Boat” campaign claiming racial motivations on the part of the anti-immigration movement. It’s hard to imagine the Republican Party becoming the champion of racial and ethnic “minorities” but a populist swing on the part of the Democrats and the resulting alienation of traditional Democrats could force them to attempt such a shift. The dilemma is further complicated by attempting to judge short-term vs. long-term advantages to the various options.

Why, all of a sudden, do I feel like I need to take a shower?

The Republicans are still trying to evade the responsibility for their destructive and counterproductive policies. "First, [Mehlman] said, they must reconnect the war in Iraq to the broader war on terror." According to this, the error lies in our perception which needs to be properly focused by Republican reconnectors.

The Republican misrule since Bush came into office makes all Republican suggestions suspect. They can't be trusted with anything.

Alone on a hill

The man with the foolish grin

is keeping perfectly still...

I can't remember the title of a movie I'm about to describe; I saw it when I was very young--decades ago. But it had an impact, and I believe it featured James Cagney who played an activist, a successful leader of a grassroots movement who didn't know when to stop fighting. He'd tasted power and recognition and became so addicted to it that he couldnt' let it go.

It's not completely relevant to Bush, although one could say he achieved his objectives long ago--to kill Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. After that he took on new objectives that included nation building, and those have been elusive. But he's managed to enrich many of his cronies' corporations--Haliburton--in the rebuilding process. These American companies have made billions, despite the loss of life from both military and personnel ranks.

But Scherer's article effectively casts the pall of defeat over the Iraq war controversy. When you see not one Republican jumping up and down on behalf of the President's grand plan, you know the party's over. You can see lights flickering on and off, encouraging the guests to go home. You've stayed too long. Get your things and go.