Have You Signed The Pledge?
By Erick Posted in War — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The pledge has it's own site now, found here. In less than 24 hours, over 10,000 people (excluding the trolls) signed the pledge. That's pretty impressive.
Let me say again, Republicans should support General Petraeus's request and the President's plan. There can be no compromise on this issue (I'm looking at you, Senator Brownback). We must move forward with this plan and win this war.
I know some people have concerns about the war's unpopularity. I think, however, that they must premise that on our assured defeat. I disagree. I think if we can give General Petraeus what he needs, he can turn this thing around and we can win. Victory will shift the poll numbers. Defying the President's plan will not -- it will only reinforce them.
Sign the pledge and send the Senate GOP a message. No support for the plan means no money for your re-election. This issue is that important.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Update on Somalia — Comments (1) »
Have You Signed The Pledge? 22 Comments (0 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Can you cite any time in history when they did? Other than for a brief period after Newt became Speaker.
There is no unifying "act" in the Party. Even when we hold the WH, we've still got morons like Hagel and McCain who think their agenda is primary and could care less about either the Party or the country.
Internal discipline? See Specter, McCain and any number of the collective idiots.
I'm thinking that the StupidParty™ label should be amended to PatheticParty™.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
And I feel exactly the same way, we have to send a message to these guys. Apparently losing the election wasn't enough.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Hope you don't forget to add Tancredo and Rohrabacher to the list of misbehaving politicians. Let's balance by adding folks from the far right as well as the center please.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
I don't beleive the war is unpopular because people do not feel we should have invaded. I think it is unpopular because it does not seem like we are fighting hard to win and that the goverment is willing to take a loss on it. I feel if we change the ROE and really go after the bad. I mean really go after them (like Falluja)the country will once again rally to the president. We just have to let our military fight.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
is no longer so easy. The Iraqis have formed a government and are now once again a sovereign, if utterly dysfunctional state. I doubt that the Iraqi leadership would permit a change in ROEs that would let the Army and Marines bring the hammer down. Like it or not, we are now in Iraq as their guests and we have to play by their rules.
Punishing the NRSC is not the smartest way to do this. In fact, its lunacy.
The NRSC is charged with electing Republicans to the Senate. In order for the NRSC to do its job, it has to do it with a singular focus in mind: which course of action will increase the chances of winning back a Senate majority?
The NRSC should not, and cannot, be an effective tool of changing how conservative some Republicans are. That duty is up to the individuals in the states of each Senator. If the voters of Kansas think Sam Brownback is wrong on his position in Iraq, then they can vote him out in the next primary, or not vote for him for President. If the Maine Republicans think they can do better than Olympia Snowe, then they can try the next time her seat is up. I would think for as many states' rights advocates that must exist here, this point would be clear.
Interfering with the NRSC is just dangerous. Its a trumpet call for defeat. The reason why we have so many groups--the NRSC, the RNC, the Club for Growth, Pro-life advocacy groups, pro-troops advocacy groups, is that so they can all work together to ensure on a platform that's mostly agreeable for most people. In the meantime, we should let these agencies do their job, especially a group that's tasked with taking back the Senate.
If you truly believe that we should withhold funding for the NRSC for trying to do its job, then you lose the right to complain about anything that the Democratic Senate passes: minimum wage, repealing of free trade, blocking of conservative judges, funding for the war. You have to ask yourself a simple question: which is more important? The Senate in Republican hands, or your attempt to send a message on one specific issue?
I mean, the $1M-plus they gave Linc-f'ing-Chafee really worked wonders last cycle - if by "working wonders" you mean propping-up a mental lightweight and certified pain-in-the-backside who made a big media splash by announcing he didn't vote for his party's nominee for President who also in the end couldn't even win the general while at the same time taking a moderate-conservative reform challenger and making him electorally radioactive forever, that is.
The NRSC's singular focus is keeping their own members in the Millionaire's Club - nothing more. You want to elect republicans? Donate to them, directly.
In light of the events of the last 2-4 years, your entire comment is spectacularly nonserious.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
If we're going to abandon Republican members who face tough re-election challenges just because we don't agree with them on some issues, then let's excise the other 15 members of our caucus who sometimes cross over the aisle, set up shop as the permanent minority party, and give Democrats a filibuster-proof, veto-proof majority?
The purpose of the NRSC is to elect Republicans. In Rhode Island, Chafee had a chance of winning. Laffey did not. In following with the only coda that the NRSC should operate by, it picked Chafee in order to try to win the seat for Republicans. Its easy to say in retrospect that the money we spent on Chafee's loss could have gone elsewhere, but if Chafee had won, then Republicans would have held a majority in the Senate. I think that's a gamble worth taking.
If you disagree with the principle of electing Republicans to the Senate, then you shouldn't be lobbying for refusing funding for the NRSC, you should be lobbying for the dismantling of the NRSC. And you should lose the right to complain about anything a Democratic majority passes in the Senate.
...I think the point is that the money spent on him probably could've done more good elsewhere. I don't think the complaint is that the NRSC should've supported Laffey instead of Chafee -- but, rather, that the NRSC should've focused on other embattled incumbents (ie, Allen and Talent).
And I think that makes sense, considering Chafee's apostasy. He was way back in the polls, had very little chance of winning, and was about as loyal a Republican as John Dean is.
By the time of RI's primary (Sept. 12th), Allen had rebounded from macaca (before self-destructing all over again) and Talent had a small lead over McCaskill, but I would argue that the NRSC did properly fund Talent in Missouri. There was never indication that Talent didn't have enough support.
Hindsight is 20/20, but I agreed with the decision to support Chafee.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15651273/
The guy who if he would have won probably would have switched anyway ?
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
I happen to hold "life an death decisions about war and conflict" at a slightly higher point of the political food chain than, say, the minimum wage. So I would not really be generalizing about "some issues" in this context were I you. YMMV.
The purpose of the NRSC is to re-elect existing republican members - including beating back primary challenges - which I find disgraceful. Again, YMMV.
Besides, I thought we were opposed to centrallization in general - you know, the whole "federal" thing. I must have missed that memo. I suppose we should just fork-over our cash to our annointed rulers and submit. (See, I can play the hyperbole game too!)
Your prophecies regarding Laffey and Chafee were fulfulled largely by the NRSC choosing to meddle in that primary. Congratulations. And sure, I don't have neither a crystal ball nor the ability to see the future, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that if a sitting senator was having trouble putting away a mayor in a primary that his general election chances were, to put it mildly, lousy.
And you're further assuming Linc would have stayed a republican for 15-minutes in a 50-50 senate. Well, OK. I don't believe it, there's little to no evidence to support it, and Linc provided little to nothing to earn said faith, but OK.
As to the rest, you seem to be arguing with someone other than me, so I'll just move along.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
But you're engaging in the same type of political games I am. It just so happens that control of the Senate is the most important priority in my book, given the totality of issues that it covers. You are allowed to have a different opinion.
The purpose of the NRSC is not to re-elect Republicans, its to simply elect Republicans. If Steven Laffey stood a better chance of keeping the seat, then the NRSC probably would have backed Laffey.
Your musings on the vulnerability of Chafee are rather dishonest. Chafee was having trouble putting away a lowly mayor because the only people voting in that election were Republicans. Troubles within one's own party concerning the primary are in no way indicative of problems in the general election; in fact, its usually the opposite, since primaries tend to glorify the more ideologically extreme of the two, and the moderate candidate will typically enjoy better odds in the general election.
And I believe Chafee would have stayed loyal. I don't have anything to support with, just as you have nothing to support your claim that he would have jumped.
But I don't want this to degenerate into a rehashing of 2006. I place a critical importance on the NRSC to help get our majority back in the Senate. You disagree with that aim, for whatever reason.
So, control of the Senate is more important than POTUS, or the House, or the SCOTUS. Interesting.
If Steven Laffey stood a better chance of keeping the seat, then the NRSC probably would have backed Laffey.
And the last challenger to a sitting Senator the NRSC backed in a primary was... ?
Your musings on the vulnerability of Chafee are rather dishonest...
Do you live anywhere near Rhode Island? Because I don't think anyone who lives any closer than, say Camden NJ could come-away with the conclusions you've drawn about the Chafee-Laffey/Chafee-Whitehouse races.
And I believe Chafee would have stayed loyal. I don't have anything to support with, just as you have nothing to support your claim that he would have jumped.
For whom did Chafee vote for President in 2004? And to how many papers did Senator 20-Watt run announcing said choice?
I place a critical importance on the NRSC to help get our majority back in the Senate.
Fine. Feel free to not sign the pledge and to donate whatever shekels you can muster to the NRSC. Good luck with that. Knock yourself out. Just please forgive those of us who put principle over party for not going along.
BTW, I would plan on being disappointed were I you but (to close the circle) YMMV.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
You've got to be kidding me! So we should all just be rubber stamps and do exactly what the President says without thinking for ourselves? I think that would be the definition of a Kool-aide drinker. Surge opponents like Sam Brownback are merely looking at this issue from an objective point of view, and they've come to the conclusion that sending more troops is a bad strategy. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a difference of opinion. Brownback is one of the most conservative Senators in the U.S Senate. The fact that he thinks for himself and isn't a kool-aide drinker doesn't mean that he's not conservative and that we shouldn't support his campaign.
16 min 40 sec.
Enjoy your brief RedState Experience™.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
I understand that those signing the pledge are doing so in the hopes that this will convince Republican Senators to oppose the resolution, but I still think that some have not fully thought through the consequences of what will happen if a few Republicans vote in favor of it. This is a non-binding resolution. It has zero impact on policy.
I can foresee possibilities for various different unintended consequences but little potential good. Let`s suppose, for example, that three Republican Senators facing reelection in 2008 vote in favor of the non-binding resolution. The national Party will support them anyway. If they win in spite of the lack of support of those signing the pledge, conservative e-influence will be nil. If they lose, our Senate minority will drop from 49 to 46 or less, as there is not a single Democrat seat that we are currently favored to take. This could mean that we will not have a chance to regain the majority until, at earliest, 2012. Worse yet, it could mean that people who have no business being in Congress keep getting reelected for decades because of the power of incumbency.
I can respect the desire of conservatives to hold members accountable, but I think that drawing a line in the sand on a non-binding resolution is political suicide, if not for the GOP, then for conservatives. I hope that those who have not yet signed will at least consider these reservations before they do so.
can not present a coherent position on Iraq with a Republican president in office, the NRSC's campaign efforts won't make a shred of difference in 2008. We will be decisively repudiated and should be.
Look, the party faithful are not sheep to be sheared whenever the alligator shoe crowd in DC needs more dough to win elections, only to go on and make nice with the lefty Democrats over an issue as vital as the war.
As citizens, the gators have a right to do what they want. But not with my money. Not a freaking dime!
I agree it'd be better if the non-binding resolution didn't pass. Not as much as some here claim, of course. Our government's wavering on Iraq is already broadcast daily on the news. Still, the resolution as written is clearly bad.
But that doesn't mean this pledge is helpful, either.
"I think if we can give General Petraeus what he needs, he can turn this thing around and we can win."
This is the critical question. I agree that victory is exactly what's needed. But if Republican senators doubt that this is the course of victory, isn't it their obligation to encourage improvements?
I don't mind seeing the Bush White House pressed to defend its policy to Republican senators. The very process might well lead to worthwhile ideas. That's especially so since the Bush White House is a bit close-minded. It's telling this surge policy came about only after a brusing electoral defeat.
The time to enforce party loyalty is after a plan is committed to, not before.
and sign if you haven't
There is the growing perception that the Republican Party can't get its act together and has no internal discipline. Our guys need to unify and put party ahead of perceived short term gain.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.