You seem to think that the Democrat carefully schemed and plotted to appear as wet noodles.

But if they were actually capable of scheming and plotting, they'd have gone with GG's suggestion, and put out a unified message daring the President to veto the Rockefeller-Levin bill. It wouldn't really have taken much organizing.

You are engaging in wishful thinking, and refusing to accept reality.

None of the Democratic presidential candidates advocate a neocon foreign policy.

If you mean whole-cloth, that's true. But the fundamental neo-con principle of military force to shape geo-politics is clearly, explicitly there in at least two of three top tier democratic candidates:

Military action against Iran: "On the Table"

Military action against Pakistan: "On the Table"

Your faith in Party is naive, in my opinion.

Have you seen the new Darpa semicentennial logo?

Darpa 50 years 1958-2008

Bridging the Gap

Powered by Ideas

http://www.darpa.mil/body/pdf/DoingDARPAbiz-v2.pdf

I'm sympathetic to J.M. Greysky's take. If you read Josh's description of the GOP debates in Iowa, it makes sense.

An excerpt:

GOP in Idle

The third is just how weak this field really is -- something I knew but hadn't seen yet quite so up close. I can't imagine that a sentient Republican could have watched that 90 minutes and not been at least quietly aghast. McCain, who is the only person on the stage with real national stature, comes off as a crushed man, almost pained. But the issue isn't so much that most of them don't seem up to the challenge of being president. It is more that the political climate and the state of the Republican party in general makes their answers to most questions either off-balance, awkward or completely incoherent.

The discussion of Iraq was the case in point. Only two guys on the stage had anything remotely coherent to say on the subject -- McCain and Paul. Brownback was better than the rest, but not by that much. There was actually a relatively lengthy statement on the topic by Tommy Thompson (who's actually supposed to be a sharp guy) that had to be one of the most nonsensical and factually-challenged things I've heard on the subject to date -- the highlight was how Iraq has already been divided into 18 separate states so partition into three states is unworkable.

I'm not saying they're stupid. But watching these forums, you can see that George Bush has left the ideological and policy furniture of the GOP in such a shambles that these guys can't even find a place to stand or pivot on to an issue of choice.

Then there was the exchange on the nation's infrastructure and how to get money to repair bridges before they fall into various lakes, rivers and bays. Giuliani, trying to prove his national conservative credentials, claimed that the best way to raise money to repair the nation's bridges was to cut taxes. This is, I dare say, a caricature of supply-side economics, which admittedly was always something of a caricature in itself.

Romney's moments of articulateness came in moments when he was pulling the dialog back from digressions into utter fantasy...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/016226.php

I'm reading a lot of posts that excuse the Dems behavior, but I don't get it. Are we just going to ignore the bottom lines here?

1. We are still in Iraq because the dems are unwilling to use the power of the purse. What did we elect them to do?

2.Congress has passed this disastrous bill which makes them complicit. Who cares how many voted for it? It's unacceptable.

It would also seem to take any real teeth out of investigating the NSA scandal. I mean, hey - if the dems basically APPROVED these warrantless measures now, how can they come out against more or less the same measures used previously? They've basically agreed that the actions themselves were OK - we just needed to address some arcane "holes' introduced by technological advancements. Goodbye accountability.

3. See # 1. Why are we still in Iraq again? The dems could have said to Bush "You accept funding with these strings, or you get no funding at all". They don't need a fillibuster-proof majority, but ceded this meme without even a fight. THAT is the biggest fraud in all of this, IMO.

The dems have failed us. There really is no other way look at it.

The worst thing one can be in American politics and American culture generally is a loser, and Democrats perpetually turn themselves into losers...

What really amazes in light of Glenn's point is that 9/11 happened under Bush's watch, yet it's the Democrats who are losers. Bush taunted Iraqi insurgents with "bring 'em on," yet the Democrats are losers. Bush got on an aircraft carrier in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner, yet the Democrats are losers. In spite of all of Bush's gaffes, mistakes and incompetence over the last six years, the Democrats have always ended up on the losing end.

In reality, it's the American people who voted for Bush who are losers--along with Bush himself--and they have turned all of us into a nation of losers in the eyes of the rest of the world. Great work, folks!

Military action against Iran: "On the Table"

Military action against Pakistan: "On the Table"

Your faith in Party is naive, in my opinion.

-- casual_observer

Bear Any Burden, Bum Out Any Dictator

Another priceless moment in the GOP Iowa debate was the exchange about Sen. Obama's pledge to take military action within Pakistan if necessary to kill Osama bin Laden and other high-value al Qaeda leaders. As in other cases I noted below, it was another case of the candidates forced to tie themselves in pretzels because they're saddled with President Bush's legacy of a mix of rhetorical belligerence, strategic misadventure and unwillingness to actually strike at al Qaeda when given a chance.

Rudy Giuliani felt compelled to recant an earlier statement supporting Obama's point. And the consensus from him and the rest of the candidates appeared to be that of course the US would take such an opportunity to strike (even though President Bush hadn't) but that it was the height of naiveté to announce that we would do so. And that in any case, you shouldn't say such a thing because of the importance of maintaining ties with our friends and allies -- even ones who have our prime terrorist foes operating from on their soil.

Here you have again the perfect image of the inverted world of Bush loyalism. Any price to fight non-al Qaeda in Iraq. But don't go overboard against real al Qaeda in Pakistan. And especially don't get them upset by talking about it in public.

--Josh Marshall

We have the big stick. We can afford to walk softly, which we no longer do. But you never say never. If it's not on the table it's under the table and that's covert. One could argue your worldview is naive.