Things are not working out as Democratic congressional leaders expected. For the first eight months of this year, they struggled to find some way to shut down the American military effort in Iraq.
They took it for granted that we were stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, with continuous high casualties and very little to show for them. They pressed hard to get the Republican votes they needed to block a filibuster in the Senate and were cheered when some Republicans, like John Warner, seemed to lean their way. They worked hard over the August recess to pressure Republican House members to break ranks and vote with them.
But the Republicans mostly held fast. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell skillfully parried their thrusts in the Senate. House Minority Leader John Boehner persuaded most House Republicans to hang on. Then, over the summer, the news out of Iraq started to get better.
Mainstream media types tend to think that, while rising casualties from Iraq are legitimate news, falling casualties are not. But even so the word got out: The surge strategy was producing results. Anbar province, given up for lost in 2006, turned peaceful and cooperative in 2007. U.S. casualties and Iraqi civilian casualties were down. Brookings scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, no fans of the administration's conduct of the war, announced on July 30 (in the pages of The New York Times, no less) that this was "a war we might just win."
The congressional Democrats got ready for one more push in September. But the testimony of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker cut the ground from under their feet. Now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (who declared last spring that the war was lost) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi seem to have thrown in the towel. The Democratic Congress will not use its power to appropriate to end the surge or to bring the soldiers home.
That leaves the left wing of the party angry at its leaders and the party split on the war, much as it was in 2002, when about half of congressional Democrats voted to authorize military action.
Read the rest at the link above.
This is not the time to throw in the towel and elect someone just because they support the war. Rudy Giuliani is exactly opposite on all conservative topics but the war. How can this man be leading the polls.
I know everyone thinks he can steal votes away from Hillary because he is a liberal that supports the war. The only problem is, can he steal enough to make up for the conservative voters who will not vote for him. I do not believe he can. It would take a lot for me to vote for him. I don't know for sure if I could.
A lot has been made about his views on abortion. While this does hurt him with me, it is not my number one concern with Rudy. It is not even number two.
What is number 1?
GUNS. Plain and simple.
The courts are still trying to sort out the mess he made up there. He went after gun manufacturers and that is inexcusable to me.
It would take all I have to vote for someone that has or will screw with the Second Amendment. He can lay all the BS he wants to about what is good for New York might not be good for the rest of the country. I was fortunate enough to attend public schools when they were actually teaching. And one thing I learned was New York is IN the United States. I can even find it on the map. (both NY and the US). I seem to recall The Bill Of Rights applies to ALL American citizens, even the ones in NY.
This alone would prevent me from supporting Giuliani. I can not tell you he would not get my vote over Hillary. But I can promise you I could not boost him up in the general election like I could for Thompson, Huckabee, Hunter, etc...
The Dems are weak and vulnerable. We need to hold to our conservative principles and not elect any more "closet" liberals.