The Discerning Texan

Remember when the No. 3 Democrat in the House said if the Surge worked it would be “a real big problem for us” (Democrats)? The video is here. Guess what? Mike Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee remembers and he’s using it to raise funds:

Dear Donald,

The Democrat leadership believes failure by our troops in Iraq — the central front in the War on Terror — is essential for them to win elections in 2008…

…and that any positive sign of progress in Iraq is simply a “problem” for them.

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, driven by polls and politics, declared “This war is lost,” even before the President’s new strategy began. Reid also has bragged, “We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.”

And Democrat House Majority Whip James Clyburn said that a positive report in September from General Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would be “a real big problem for us (Democrats).” Meaning the Democrats’ desire for an arbitrary troop withdrawal — and their party’s 2008 electoral fortunes — would be in jeopardy if our troops succeed.

Donald, America’s national security should not be kicked around like a political football. Republicans believe winning the War on Terror is vital to our country’s national security. The RNC needs your help to get this message past the liberal media filter and directly to voters. They need to know about the Democrats’ “surrender and defeat” politics.

Please click here to make a secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to help spread the word about the Democrats’ political rhetoric and defeatist agenda.

It is unconscionable that Democrat leaders are hoping for our troops to fail so their party can gain a political advantage. And it is unacceptable that the leading Democrat presidential contenders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both claim to support our troops yet voted against providing them with the resources to sustain their mission and keep them safe.

Your urgent online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to the RNC today will help get the facts about the Democrats’ true defeatist agenda and their efforts to put politics above the War on Terror past the liberal media filter.

Our President and our Party are counting on your help. Thank you.

Ah, liberalism: The gift that keeps on giving.

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, 2008 Presidential Race, Defeatocrats, Democrat, Republican

The Democratic Party has taken a swipe at the nation's fourth biggest state, stripping Florida of all of its '08 delegates as punishment for jumping the gun with its Jan. 29 primary. Florida's early date could force other states to move up and up to stay at the front of the pack.

Under a nearly unanimous vote taken moments ago by a powerful committee of the Democratic National Committee, if things don’t change, Florida’s primary will be a "beauty contest" — the delegates won’t count toward the party’s presidential nomination.

Florida officials complained that the DNC was going to "disenfranchise voters," as it says on the state party's home page. The DNC pushed back strongly against that contention, since it has rules that Florida decided not to follow.

This is the party’s way of trying to stop the crazy domino effect of states moving their nominating contests earlier and earlier, which causes OTHER states to go earlier and earlier.

The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee voted nearly unanimously that Florida’s plan is noncompliant with party rules, and gave the state 30 days to fix it. Otherwise, the state will lose 100 percent of its delegates.

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, 2008 Presidential Race, Democrat, Democrat Sabotage

Right about now, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are learning the meaning of the phrase “be careful what you wish for.” Their nincompoopery has led them to have the Most Despised Congress Ever. This constant investigations without any legislation is wearing thin on an American people who thought they were voting out earmarking, money-grubbing incompetents. The “new” team turned out to be the 1994 team of Dave Obey and Robert C. Byrd as the respective appropriations chairmen. Meet the new boss — older than the old boss.

Bush has a base. 58% of Republicans approve of his overall handling of the presidency. He has accomplishments and he has taken the principled — if momentarily unpopular — stance on the war on terrorism.

The 110th Congress as run by Pelosi and Reid is universally hated. ...

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, 2008 Presidential Race, Congress, Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Nutroots, Socialism, Socialized Medicine, The Left, US Senate

When I first saw the comment on Instapundit, I thought it was an Obama aide who made an astoundingly boneheaded assessement of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. But no, it turns out it was the candidate himself:

Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

Ahem.

[Here Geraghty runs through several Afghanistan news item from the CENTCOM ...]

Nope, no ground troops currently fighting, just a bunch of "air-raiding villages and killing civilians."

That's it. Too many foreign policy gaffes in too short a time. Goodnight, Senator Obama. Thanks for playing.

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, Afghanistan, Barack Obama

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, 2008 Presidential Race, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, Islamic Fascism, The Long War

Ray Fournier of AP interviewed politicians about the effects of a Hillary Clinton nomination on the 2008 campaign:

1. “I’m not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag'’

2. “The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she’s so damn unpopular. I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn’t.'’

3. “Republicans are upset with their candidates, but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls.'’

4. “All the negatives on her are out. There is a phenomena with Hillary, because she is the front-runner and because she’s been battling Republicans for so long, her unfavorability (rating) looks higher than what they will eventually be after the nomination and through the general election.'’

5. “For Hillary, who has been on the scene for so long and has had perception of her so ground in … there’s no question it will be really hard for her to change perceptions.'’

6. “I’m one of these Democrats who has some legitimate reservations, because the Clintons have in the past invigorated the Republican base.”

And that’s what the Democrats are saying. Those direct, on-the-record, use-my-name quotes were from 1. Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind., 2. and 3. Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party, 4. Clinton’s pollster and strategist Mark Penn, 5. Democratic pollster David Eichenbaum, and West Virginia’s own Democratic Delegate, Carrie Webster.

The whole story is here.

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, Democrat, Hillary

The fear of exactly this result might explain Democrat Rep. James Clyburn--the House Majority Whip, told the Washington Post yesterday. I linked it earlier, but the "money line" of the quote bears repetition (also check out the video here; and get a load of Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Boyda's equally telling actions...the very suggestion of recent American success in Iraq was enough to send her scurrying out of a briefing with an American General in great distress...). Meanwhile Mr. Clyburn couldn't help himself either, it just sort of 'came out' this way (emphasis mine):

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. [...]

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

Can you imagine if, one month after D-Day--after the American invasion of France finally began to show real progress--a member of Congress going to the press and being asked something like: "well it looks like the American troops have finally broken free in France, despite enormous loss of life, and that for the first time, Germans are in retreat." And then the Congressman coming back with: ...yeah, and if that continues it would be a real big problem for us"??? I mean obviously he is talking about the Party, not the country, He probably would have been impeached on the spot.

The heavy irony of this little slip of the tongue by Rep. Clyburn is that it is completely indicative of where the defeat-mongers of the Democrat Party find themselves. Any good news about the war has been habitually buried by Democrats and their allies in the press for over 4 years now--to the point where they have conditioned themselves to believe none of it; meanwhile the majority of Americans have been spoon fed only negative news about the War--both by Democrats and their allies in the media--leading to a false sense of hopelessness at home which is a far cry from what our fighting men and women (and other embeds) have been saying for over a year now: namely that the military situation on the ground has been improving dramatically. And now even regular Bush critics from the liberal Brookings Institution think tank have issues a shocking (to the Left) positive report after a recent trip to Iraq.

Morale is high with the troops. The Iraqi people are coming around--especially in their unity against Al Qaeda. And the fact that the Democrats have been engaged for months in this "early" Presidential campaign--trumpeting all the while the assumption that an American defeat is a foregone conclusion--has put the Dems even further behind the "8-ball." All of its major candidates have gone on the record ad infinitum about their opposition to the War and desire to pull us out in shame of a War that cannot be won. Harry Reid their leader in the Senate has pronounced the War already lost.

Now these Defeatocrats have a real dilemma: if the Dems pull funding now, just as the effort seems destined for success (and the public knows it...opinion polls regarding the war have already moved appreciably in the last 7 days), the resulting American shame and the genocide that would ensue could result in a Democrat defeat of epic proportions next year; something that no one even dreamed of at the beginning of the year. The American people will clearly see pulling the rug out from a rapidly improving situation in Iraq and handing 1/3 of the world's oil supply to our enemies as a great betrayal instead of an inevitability. Meanwhile the Republicans, who have all along been suggesting "just give the surge time to work" appear to have been borne out, even after 5+ years of persistent, non-stop Democrat derision and personal attacks.

Stay tuned: the events of the last month--and the months to come--may portend as a dramatic reversal of fortune that American politics has seen in a long, long time. Dems are painted into a corner on Iraq now--and any defeatist moves to satisfy the base could result in a landslide against the Dems in a general election. Has the President (and Gen. Petraeus) been "Misunderestimated" again? Time will tell...

In the meantime, to our troops I say: Take heart! And 'Just win, baby'!

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, 2008 Presidential Race, Congress, Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, Surrender Caucus, US Senate, War Successes

For: John Boehner, Roy Blunt, and NRCC Chair Tom Cole
From: A Longtime Supporter
Subject: The Cash Crunch And The Elections of 2008

We all know you are getting crushed by the Dems when it comes to fundraising.

We also know you are working hard to turn this around. We also see that the Pelosi Democrats are significantly to the left of the public face they put on last fall, and that on a number of issues the GOP caucus has held together and scored wins.

So why is there this gap? Why isn't the money flowing in with which to take back the House?

The answer has to be that people don't give to unknowns, and they certainly don't want to give to any GOP candidate who isn't solid on the war, on border security, on spending and taxes. They aren't buying --or sacrificing for-- the hope that the candidates who emerge in 2008 will be the sort they are proud to back.

The key to getting some energy back in the donor base --small and large-- is to identify the challengers on whose success will come the return of the majority.

Some GOP leaders say the party doesn't play in primaries. That's nonsense. Yes it does, when it wants to, and we know that.

Some say it is too early to push hard. That may have been true under the old calender, but the old rules are smashed up and the lead the Dems are building may become insurmountable unless you folks wake up and start acting like a party that wants the majority back --badly. The contrast between the parties is already as sharp as it is going to get. If you can't raise money right now, it isn't because your donors don't understand who's in charge on the Hill. They do know, but it is also clear that they don't trust you to mount the sort of campaign necessary to win in '08. They aren't going to send scarce resources to a gang that can't shoot straight politically, even if your agenda is a good one. If you won't make the tough calls or take the hard steps to start a long and difficult campaign, they aren't going to send in the money such a campaign requires.

You need to make the base believe you can win back a majority, and that takes candidates in districts currently held by Democrats. There are 233 Democrats and 202 Republicans. That means the GOP needs to find at least 16 new faces to take seats away from Democrats, and probably a couple of more given the weakness of some of the GOP incumbents.

So make some moves to prove you are serious about getting the majority back and not just protecting the incumbency of Members comfortable in the minority.

Establish a fund for challengers only and do the legal footwork necessary to segregate it from the NRCC's general fund.

Then carefully identify those candidates who will benefit from that fund and make an absolute commitment that they and only they will get these funds, and get them on an equal basis. It doesn't have to be a list of 16 right now, but it should be growing in that direction, but carefully. Before adding anyone to that list, do a thorough vetting with the donor base on whether they want that candidate to benefit from a fund designed to help the top priority challengers. The internet allows you to govern the addition of names via a poll of the donors who have given, say, at least $100. Not only would this protect against the fund being crippled by the addition of a round-heeled Republican, it would also provide you with a reason for saying no to weak candidates demanding access to the money. Transparency at every step is crucial because the base doesn't trust you.

Then --and this is the crucial part-- flood the challengers' fund's site with information about each of those races. If you want to take back the House, show the donors how that can be done, and where it is happening.

Don't make the mistake of throwing into the mix a favorite son or daughter who is on the wrong side of any of the key issues.

Do the smart thing and make sure the list of key challengers is heavy with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. (In fact, a list of challengers that was exclusively made up of such candidates would swell with donations overnight.) Make sure that when the GOP campaigns for a return to majority status, the donors --and the public-- know it is on a platform of winning not retreating in Iraq specifically and the war generally.

These steps are so obvious that not taking them raises fundamental questions about the leadership's commitment to trying to win back the majority.

It seems clear that right now the GOP is not poised to do anything except give up more ground in the House. That's obvious, and so your response should be obvious as well.

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, Republican

The Iraq war critics seized upon a new intelligence report that al-Qaida has been rejuvenated by the Iraq war as proof that the invasion of Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror. OK, that should be good for a few minutes of bashing President Bush, but it doesn't change the reality that al-Qaida is in Iraq and is our enemy.

Here's another thought: What would be the reaction of the quit-Iraq advocates should al-Qaida in Iraq's fingerprints be found in a terrorist attack in America?

This is not an idle question. After all, the National Intelligence Estimate released last week also said Osama bin Laden's organization will "probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland." Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission has said another attack on America by Islamist terrorists is inevitable, and a new threat assessment a week ago from the National Counterterrorism Center suggested al-Qaida is working to renew attacks on America. Now we're told al-Qaida in Iraq could be the agent for it.

No doubt, even as the bodies were being recovered, the wounded treated and survivors consoled, the implacable Bush haters would blame his policies for an attack by al-Qaida in Iraq. But what would be the view of the majority of Americans who have been telling pollsters that it's time for America to withdraw the troops from Iraq?

It seems reasonable to conclude in the aftermath of another mega-attack that Americans would come to agree with bin Laden and al-Qaida that the central front in the war between America and Islamist terrorism is in Iraq, despite the serious challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If so, they might decide that defeating al-Qaida requires more troops, not fewer, and not just in Iraq but Afghanistan as well. And support for the much-maligned Patriot Act would grow.

"Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "I don't see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity."

Neither do we, and certainly the actions of the six imams last November qualified as suspicious. While at the gate, according to police reports and witnesses, the six made anti-American comments and provocatively chanted "Allah, Allah, Allah." On the plane, they asked for seat-belt extenders with heavy metal buckles, even though none was obviously in need of them, and then dropped them at their feet.

Last time we checked, there was no tenet of Islam that required them to leave their assigned seats shortly before takeoff, a violation of federal rules, and occupy the exit and entry rows of a jet aircraft, a pattern associated with the 9/11 attacks. All six moved — two to front-row first class, two in the middle on an exit row and two in the rear of the cabin.

Was it racism to report these actions? Stereotyping? Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute notes: "A stereotype in this instance is nothing more than a compilation of facts about who has attacked American interests in the past and who, given what we know, is most likely to do so in the future."

The editorial stops short of asking why the Democrats are blocking the John Doe legislation. Recall that the legislation arises in the context of the case of the flying imams. Recall also that the case of the flying imams is a production brought to us by CAIR, the Islamist front group that holds itself out as a civil rights organization. The attorney representing the flying imams in their lawsuit in Minnesota federal district court is an officer of CAIR's New York chapter.

The Democrats' opposition to the John Doe legislation is consistent with the alliance between radical Islam and the American left. It is an alliance that one can see embodied in the person of Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison, America's first Muslim congressman. Ellison had spoken at the conference of the flying imams in suburban Minneapolis over the weekend before the incident giving rise to the case. If the case of the flying imams ever gets off the ground, one incidental benefit would be the illumination that the discovery process might shed on the imams' weekend deliberations.

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, 2008 Presidential Race, Al Qaeda, Democrat Sabotage, Hearts and Minds, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Fascism

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, Barack Obama, Democrat Sabotage

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, Iraq, Republican, The Long War

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, America War Support, Hearts and Minds, Iraq, White Flag Republicans

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, Fred Thompson, Media Bias, The Left

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, 2008 Presidential Race, Media Bias, Media War

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, Illegal Immigration, Republican