For Democrats Only
By Mitch Berg
OK. So now what are you going to do?
Seriously – yesterday, one of my commenters echoed what I’ve heard from more prominent Democrats; the Dems will “withdraw from Iraq with victory”.
Really?
And how do you plan on doing that?
Because I’ve heard a number of plans from Democrats…:
- Leaving in six or twelve or whatever months flat
- Pulling the troops back to Kuwait/Okinawa/”Afghanistan”, and, if the situation goes south, going back in and retaking the country
- Reinstituting the draft and sending a huge draftee army forth to win the situation.
- Negotiating with the terrorists.
- “Fighting smarter”.
Of course, 1 and 2 have nothing to do with victory (and are only “victory” in the most cynical possible sense of the term). 3, history (assuming Democrats bother reading any) shows, is the worst possible approach to fighting a counterinsurgency war, 4 is the kind of lunacy only a Democrat could say with a straight face, and 5 (like 4) is a campaign-trail platitude that only fools the terminally dim.
But by all means, Democrats, convince me. How is it you plan to get both “withdrawal” and “victory”?
Seriously. Dad gave you the keys to the car. Impress me.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
And now, a game I like to call, Stuffing the Strawman…
One of Mitch’s commenters (me) said that (since we won’t be preoccupied with the activities that have wrecked the Republicans, we’ll be able to) get our troops home in victory and hold the President and Congress accountable.
How does Mitch frame this?
“one of my commenters echoed what I’ve heard from more prominent Democrats; the Dems will “withdraw from Iraq with victory”.”
Notice the clever substitution of my words, “get our troops home” with Mitch’ sleight of hand, “withdraw”?
Notice also the subtle use of the quotes around the line “withdraw from Iraq with victory” as if to suggest that I actually said those words in the context he suggests.
This is then followed by the strawman, “How is it you plan to get both “withdrawal” and “victory”?
Again, notice the quotes around – both “withdrawal” and “victory”
Mitch, if you want to have a legitimate discussion about what the democrats might do differently, don’t go about asking the question in such a loaded, slanted and dishonest way.
BTW, I’m still waiting for one of you guys to define exactly what achieving victory means. And no, I won’t accept the typical victory means “we win” as an answer. You’ll have to better than campaign-trail platitude.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Oh and jbauer…?
Excellent post. I regret that it will fall on deaf ears but damn… You nailed it.
It was so good in fact that soon Mitch will be correcting a misspelled word and Paul will be waxing poetically about hunting for whitetail deer.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Guys, the lashing-out-from-victimhood pose only works when you’re the minority party. Now you just look sill(y|ier).
November 10th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Hmm. Use a surrogate – pay an army to do this for us, while we bug out.
That’s kind of an attractive idea, really.
And I like to brainstorm as much as the next bloke:
Assuming we could find an army that could handle the job and not just get slaughtered, or make the situation even worse (and it could be,) and that we could get the current Iraqi government to go along with this, and that their presence wouldn’t ignite some insurgent terrorist group or another –
Who? Who would we use? The Mali army? The Indonesian army? I agree that having a Muslim force might be nice – but what sect of Muslim force?
What kind of quality would we get for our money? How would we be assured of getting the results we want? How much would we pay them?
Why haven’t they stepped forward and offered to do this already, even if just for the money?
Hmm?
November 10th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Or as we bug out the radical Islamist will scream that they are right that the US is a paper tiger that can be beat by bloodying our nose. Then they kill all the collaborators (Iraqi officials and police, army etc..) then set up shop as a Islamic state and enforce Sharia law.
Those that don’t get killed or submit will flee Iraq in numbers not seen since the late 70’s in SE Asia. Just the same as what happened when the Dems abandond the Vietnamese South in ’75. Oh what glory to end another war.
Please JBauer explain how your plan will prevent this.
Dave
November 10th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
longwinded, ranting, not-very-smart…
JBauer, are you really PB?
November 10th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Y’know, Jack Bauer, I actually agree with you on points A, B,C, and D. Call it the Derbyshire school of foreign policy. Your point E, though, is complete bunkum. Reparations to the Iraqi’s? Victor’s don’t pay reparations. Funny that Doug agrees with you, though he still insists that “withdrawal with victory” isn’t utter nonsense.The whole “Murrah” thing is bizarre. If our goal was really about not making any more McVeigh types the response to the bombing would have been to dismantle the federal government, not put Timmy to death. When you say that we live in a “world of people mostly more similar to us than different” you’ve hit the bottom of aid the platitude barrel. These words could have come from any peacenik in 1938. In other words trying to get any meaning or wisdom from them is like listening to the wind blow.
“A superpower recognizes they have great power, and they also recognize the enormous obligation that power brings with it, including the obligation to not use it unless absolutely necessary”
Spiderman was a movie. A MOVIE. IT WAS NOT REAL.
“The rest of the world gets to live its life how it wants, not how we say, just because we want it different.”
So just which parts of H.J.RES.114 do you disagree with, Jack? The US was the de facto guaranteer of the UN resolutions Iraq accepted as price for ending the 1991 war. I guess if they decide to violate them at will it’s all just a matter of us seeing the world differently than the Iraqi’s? If we don’t want countries to subsidize people who plan to kill us or our allies we just have to live with our differences and accept the occasional mass murder of civilians within our own borders?
come back when you’ve grown a d*ck, little jack.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Sigh
Point 1, no Democrat in the entire country owes you anything, certainly not after you’ve so routinely behaved in a way that epitomizes “singularly unreposessing.”
Um, I’m a member of the electorate. You guys have control of Congress for a while here. I have every right to ask.
Point 2, AKLO may say foolish things like “pull back to the periphery,” but plenty of people have given you other options, including plenty of Democrats in the past.
However, recognizing you don’t have a good memory, here’s one for you.
Yeah. And they’ve all been stupid.
A. Terrorist represent 4% of the insurgency, so negotiating with them while wrong, would be pointless. The point in bringing it up, you created a worthless red herring, try harder to be relevant.
Pay attention, Mr. Bauer. I didn’t bring it up. Our Senator-elect did.
B. Long before we went in, our actual Iraqi expatriots who weren’t; Ahmed Chalabi or his minions, advised us the greatest mistake we could make was to stay. Topple Saddam, but get out, was the message, and not in 4 years, more like in 10 weeks. Get someone else to prop us up, keep the Iraqi Army if needs be.
Um, yeah. Other “experts” also said every other possible thing that could be said.
C. Since we failed to listen to either our own State Department, the CIA or those expatriots about point B, and instead Bush listened only to Wolfwitz and Cheney,
a. the CIA has a long record of incompetence in the middle east (among other places)
b. CIA and State are motivated by politics to the point where I doubt a conservative President would be well-advised to trust them.
we now have to face we are not wanted there. The Iraqi people, since the days of Abu Ghraib, have disliked us to the tune of 75% of their population seeking our near immediate exit.
Um, no. The population dislikes being occupied (understandably), but in every poll I have seen in recent months a majority supports our staying until the nation is moderately secure.
Consequently, we have to be ready to pay someone else. It’s called using a surrogate. We used to be smart enough to do it, but in the interest of imperialism, we forgot. Hire the Mali Army, the Indonesian Army, doesn’t much matter, but either have them be Arabs, or Muslims, preferably both.
BWAQHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The old Howard Dean “Moderate Moslem” plan! The supposed “135,000 moderate moslem troops!”
Gaaah, what a blast from the comedic past!
You assume the Indonesians and Malians have troops to spare, or that they’d send them in the first place!
OK, “Bauer”, you have officially forfeited any claim to being taken seriously.
And now, a game I like to call, Stuffing the Strawman…
Rubbish, Doug. You are trying to re-parse what you originally wrote.
Mitch, if you want to have a legitimate discussion about what the democrats might do differently, don’t go about asking the question in such a loaded, slanted and dishonest way.
Baloney. I gave you an open forum.
BTW, I’m still waiting for one of you guys to define exactly what achieving victory means. And no, I won’t accept the typical victory means “we win” as an answer. You’ll have to better than campaign-trail platitude.
No, Doug. The ball is in your court now. What does it mean to you?
You guys have the Congress. It’s your turn to stick your junk in the meatgrinder. No more copping out and pleading victim. Spit it out!
November 10th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
This is somewhat akin to the Republicans pooping on the carpet and than asking the Democrats to make a souffle out of it. No one said it would be easy, or that it could be accomplished in three simple steps. We just pointed out that Bush, Rummie et. al. were making a cow pie of it and some one else needed to take the helm. There is no easy answer, its not going to be pretty and I don’t think there is a win in it for us. Only a less ugly loss. What we leave behind will be a hornets nest for some time to come unless the Iraqis step up to the plate, and it doesn’t look like they want to or are able to do anything near that. We gave you the car keys, you ran it into a tree and we’re going to try to haul it home and fix it as best we can. Do not expect us to make a mercedes out of the Yugo you just totalled. Be glad you still have a car and that someone has taken away your license until you show you are capable of making better choices with Dad’s Desoto.
November 11th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Mitch said,
“Rubbish, Doug. You are trying to re-parse what you originally wrote.”
Nonsense Mitch. I wrote what I wrote. You interpreted it and challenged Democrats to answer a question based on your flawed interpretation.
It’s a strawman argument and not a very good one at that. You’re no Jason Lewis that’s for sure.
“No, Doug. The ball is in your court now.
Mitch, you had 3 long years to answer the question and you couldn’t. That’s because the premise was flawed from the beginning and the definition of what constitues a victory kept changing with every toppled reason.
Somewhere in the White House there are transcripts of a secret meeting that probably looks a lot like this…
WMD’s in Iraq… If we find them – Victory! No WMD’s…? Oh f*ck… now what… Ummmmm…
Let’s try, Create a new democratic state in that part of the world… We’ll have elections, democracy will flourish and then – Victory! What? Shiites AND Shia’s? Really? But they’re both Moslem? F**k it…
Ok… here it is… Saddam refused to comply with Resolution 1441.
-Sooooo… we went to war with Iraq to force Hussein to comply with 1441. Then Victory? Isn’t that kinda like a punishment thing? I mean, what’s the goal here? I mean, how do we know we’ve won?
OK. Scratch that. It’s because Hussein had documents that prove that he was going to restart a weapons program.
-Great! We find the Documents – VICTORY! So where are the documents?
We found them.
When?
Ummmm… well… at the end of the first Gulf war.
Alright. You guys don’t really know what the f**k you’re doing do you?
well… No not really. But we do know that Democrats will just cut and run, they hate this country and Ted Kennedy killed that girl when he was drunk.
-Ok, we’re going to leave now.
Ok, but before you go could I have another 75 billion? Rummy peed in the pool in the green zone so we have to build a new one where the Mosque used to be.
November 11th, 2006 at 8:18 am
So – endless bloviation from a couple of you, and we’ve got:
# Howard Dean’s delusion
# More of Doug’s “Bush Sucks” BS.
Not that I expected much better. But someone, quick. Surprise me.
November 11th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Still no answer from Mitch. But after 3 long years, why would we expect anything different.
The funny thing about this whole discussion is that for 3 years, Republicans have been saying Democrats have no strategy for how to conduct this bogus Bush adventure. We’ve delivered idea after idea – from pulling out to redeployment and everything in between.
Mitch and company are great at telling the world how bad the ideas are but have yet to deliver their own strategy – other than we’re going to stay the course and win by defeating the enemy.
That’s not a strategy guys. That’s rhetoric.
You couldn’t do it and now, just like the post Reagan / Bush 1 record debt economy, we get to clean up your mess.
The war in Iraq is a disaster and Bush’s own Accounting office is predicting disaster for the economy.
And isn’t it interesting that when the Republicans have dug themselves in to a hole so deeply they can’t get out – mysteriously, the exit polls across the country match the results? Gee… What are the chances of that?
It’s almost as if someone said, “let them have the House but we’re going to keep the Senate”
The only races that DIDN’T match the exit polls? Montana and Virginia.
Didn’t anticipate the independent vote did you Mitch?
Sure Mitch. We’ll clean up your mess again. We always do but we’re not taking the blame for your incompetence.
November 11th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Doug,
You are, as always, not qualified to condescend, and barely qualified to scold. This thread is about YOUR plan.
Which you continue to dodge.
I have given my side of this uncountable times in the past 4-5 years, and will do so many more times.
But this is in your lap, now. So if it’s not too much trouble (and I know, it always is), quit the stalling. Answer my question.
Neither you nor any other Democrat can, of course. But I’ll ask anyway.
November 11th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Mitch, You’re not going to get an answer to your ridiculous question because it’s not a legitimate question. It’s as loaded as my 97 year old grandfathers diapers and it smells just as bad.
You, in the collective Republican sense, haven’t defined what the goals of this war are and that’s what we have been asking for for 3 years.
There is no way to determine what constitutes a victory until the President or you or ANYBODY states the goals of this war. There’s no way to determine the best strategy until we know what the hell we’re trying to achieve.
November 11th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
jbauer: “Terrorist represent 4% of the insurgency”
Is that from Zogby or from the Minnesota Poll?
November 11th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
My, does Doug (The Artful Dodger) look great in those white-tailed dancin’ shoes.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:29 am
Doug,
Your self-coddling rhetoric doesn’t conceal the vacuity of your stalling.
I have defined the goals – over and over and over; including but not limited to the removal of terrorist safe havens (accomplished, twice), the spreading of democracy (in progress) to destabilize totalitarian, especially terror-supporting regimes in the area. That Iraq has degenerated into a counter-insurgency war with plenty of internecine conflict is a development in the situation that must be dealt with; that I do not trust the Dems to deal with it effectively is immaterial (albeit less so than your increasingly strained and ridiculous-sounding stalling).
You said the Dems would get the troops home and eke out some sort of “victory”. Big words – apparently not backed up by big thought, if you are any indication (and you are).
I think the message is clear, Doug – whether the Democrats have any idea what to do or not (and it will soon be clear they do not), you clearly do not, and have been reduced to fighting impotent rhetorical rear-guard actions.
November 12th, 2006 at 8:20 am
With Bush as Commander in Chief, and with Republicans in charge of the DOD and the State Department, the conduct of this war remains the responsibility of the Republican party. Period.
But I think Mitch issues, however theoretical, a fair challenge.
If I had five minutes of the President’s time, these would be my talking points:
1. We must convince the world that this war is being fought, not for US interests, but rather on behalf of the Iraqis. We should separate what is being done on their behalf (democracy, freedom, stability) from anything that smacks of American interests (fear of terrorism on our soil, oil and other economic interests) and do so in the clearest terms. We should no longer talk about the “War on Terror”, at least not in the context of the Iraq war, but rather speak only of Iraqi autonomy and freedom. The Iraqi government should given direct access to Bush’s inner circle, and Bush must publicly humble himself before the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people. Our clear message to the Iraqis must be that, “we are here to serve and protect you, that we do your bidding, and that we will leave the day you request that of us.”
2. There must be a massive infusion of money directly to the Iraqi people. (Congress can help the administration here.) Think Marshall Plan times ten. Until there is stability in the country, much of the improvements to infrastructure will be for naught, but on the other hand, stability will not come without such improvements. Many Americans have lacked emotional involvement in this war. A separate war-time tax will connect us to the war and serve as a very open message to the world.
3. Lastly, the government must broker a resolution to the Israeli-Arab conflict. This point has been shamefully neglected by the administration. Our stance should be adamant to the point that we would be willing to use military force against either side if necessary. God forbid.
November 12th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Mitch ,
not to put too fine a point on it , but expecting the Dems to come up with a plan now is asking them to run against form. After all they ran on “we most certainly aren’t the Republicans!” as one of their themes.
And Doug, Mitch is right , Y’all won, lets stop the partisan sniping… whats your plan?
To quote that hetero icon , Judge Elihu Smails “Well? We’re waiting!!”
November 12th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Wonderful. Now we’re getting somewhere.
The goals? Including but not limited to…
1) removal of terrorist safe havens (accomplished, twice)
Really Mitch? Accomplished? TWICE?
So, the first goal offered by Mitch has been attained. We’ve removed the havens for terrorists. Check.
And how’s that working out for ‘ya there Mitch?
2) the spreading of democracy (in progress) to destabilize totalitarian, especially terror-supporting regimes in the area.
And yet just another Bergian platitude which fails to answer the question but in itself is very revealing. The “goal” in Mitch’s meandering, half conceived fantasy is a western style Democracy in the heart of the Region. The result of achieving this goal of course, ideally is the spread of Democracy across the entire Mideast.
Of course, Ancient Rome had a word for this. It was called Empire.
Regardless, let’s work with what Mitch does offer.
Goal #1. Remove terrorist havens. Remember, according to Mitch, we’ve achieved that goal but terrorists aren’t Marshmallow Peeps Mitch. There’s not a limited supply. It’s not like, once they’re gone, they’re gone. Our policy and our presence is creating more terrorists and consequently, more terrorist havens. Your goal, earnest as it may be, is not attainable by the actions we’ve taken so far. Afghanistan is a disaster. Iraq is a disaster. Your plan to achiveve this goal has failed miserably and now we get to clean up your mess. You (Republicans and other supporters of the administration and the Administration itself) need to held accountable.
It’s not a realistic goal and i’m taking it off the table.
Goal #2. Establishment of a Western Style Democracy in Iraq. What needs to be said other than we’ve apparently achieved that goal as well? We’ve had elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember the pretty purple fingers? Now, we sit back and watch democracy spread to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia like an overflowing toilet with too much sh*t and paperwork stuffed into the system.
Again, the goal is flawed Mitch and what you’re asking us to do is propose a plan to attain a goal that you’ve declared.
I know you work in the technology field Mitch and I know you understand the concept of scope creep. I know, at least I hope you’re smart enough to understand what happens when scope creep gets so out of control that failure is imminent. You pull back, figuratively and you redefine goals that are realistic and you develop a strategy to attain those goals.
You’re asking Democrats to offer a plan to fix your scope creep. You’re asking for a plan based on your flawed goals. We don’t have enough information to do that because after 3 years, no one in the administration has offered a full accounting and honest assessment of what’s really going on.
I would hold out hope that you’re honest enough to acknowledge that what I’m saying is legitimate but I doubt it. I expect more charges of being condescending and dodging your “question”. So be it.
Apparently, there are other “goals” which you can’t share.
“I have defined the goals – over and over and over; including but not limited to…”
Come on Mitch. Please share. I’d really love to know. Lay out those goals for us so we can see what strawman you plan on knocking down.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:40 am
OK, understand something libbies. The radical muslims do not hate us for anything we ever did to them. They hate us because we treat our women like human beings, because we accept open homosexuality, and because we are not a theocracy. That is why they are our avowed enemy, in their own words. Lefties will never listen.
November 12th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Let’s see: Doug is dishonest, disingenuous, condescending…and arrogant too!
You very obviously cannot answer the question, Doug. With your arrogance, you would be rubbing our faces with the plan, then shoving it our throats with your hand deep down the front of your pants.
The fact that you keep calling it a ‘loaded question’ shows you have no plan except bashing the other side of the aisle.
Here’s your chance to show up all us ‘stupid Republicans’, Doug. You have an open forum to lay it all out. Show us your brilliance and cunning.
Or are you just a bloviating guttersnipe?
Are you only a stalling nincompoop?
Do you run from leading the way like a white-tailed deer from gunshots in the distance?
November 12th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Doug, I deleted your most recent comment. It was inflammatory crap.
As to this bit:
Really Mitch? Accomplished? TWICE? So, the first goal offered by Mitch has been attained. We’ve removed the havens for terrorists. Check. And how’s that working out for ‘ya there Mitch?
Doug, I’ll allow that either 1) your knowledge of history is deficient (otherwise why would you be a Democrat) or that 2) you might be more interested in snarking than actually learning something.
But if you honestly think that, to a terrorist, there is no difference between a nation where they can walk around in public, making their plans free from harassment by the nation’s intelligence and military (as was the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq before both liberations) and a nation where they have to move undercover, having no chance for respite, being in “combat” mode all the time, never sure that their night’s sleep won’t end with an SAS team blowing your worthless brains out or a bomb falling silently out of nowhere (see Zarquawi), then your ignorance is such that rational conversation is not possible.
Establishment of a Western Style Democracy in Iraq. What needs to be said other than we’ve apparently achieved that goal as well?
HOMER: “Bart, that’s one of life’s great lessons; whenever things get difficult, quit”.
See: Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Mitch said,
“Doug, I deleted your most recent comment. It was inflammatory crap.”
Well it’s good to see that you are fair in handing out your judgements…
For example,
“with your hand deep down the front of your pants.”
“Or are you just a bloviating guttersnipe?”
and…
“Are you only a stalling nincompoop?”
Oh wait… They’re still there. Nevermind.
You complain about me being condescending and arrogant?
Take a look in the mirror my friend.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
It’s nice to know a bipartisan group in Washington agrees with my assessment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/11/AR2006111100996.html
November 12th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Doug, your remark that “It’s nice to know a bipartisan group in Washington agrees with my assessment.” is condescending and arrogant.
If you’d bother to read the article you would noticed that the Iraq Study Group has few members with any expertise in foreign policy — it says so right there in the article — and that their apparent goal is to advise a course that will be politically palatable to the US, not the best for the Iraqi people. If you were the kind of person who engaged in deeper thought about these things, you might remember that it was Baker who pushed the plan to betray the Shi’a and Kurds and leave Saddam as head of state in Iraq in ’91. This betrayal and the sanctions regime Baker approved led to the death of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s. You might also wonder why the “bipartisan group”‘s conclusions are in agreement with the conclusions of a partisan lefty like, well, yourself.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
No it’s not Terry. It’s sarchastic.
What did Baker say shortly after the Iraq study group was formed?
“We ought not to think we’re going to see a flowering of Jeffersonian democracy along the banks of the Euphrates,” according to the Daily Princetonian.”
Really? Gosh thanks for that Jim.
Terry also said,
“You might also wonder why the “bipartisan group”’s conclusions are in agreement with the conclusions of a partisan lefty like, well, yourself.”
Ok… So a partisan Republican administration has failed for three and a half years to even articulate a strategy to get control of the situation as opposed to a four month old bipartisan study group that concludes a lot of what Bush’s critics have been saying for years…
Remember the definition of insanity Terry. It’s doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:29 am
Doug said:
“Remember the definition of insanity Terry. It’s doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
Well then, Doug, you must be insane, because you are still stalling and have yet to answer the original question of this post.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Paul said,
“you are still stalling and have yet to answer the original question of this post. ”
Paul, how many times and in how many ways do I have to tell you I’m not, nor should any Democrat answer a question that Mitch loaded?
Democrats didn’t set the goals. Republicans did and stomping your feet and demanding that we miraculously pull a strategy out of out butt’s to achieve the goals that you set ain’t gonna happen.
And by the way Paul, you’re more than welcome to answer the questions I posed to Mitch. Hiding behind Mitch and taking opportunistic pot shots is sooooooo pathetic.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:53 am
You might try looking at this, Doug:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
Notice the frequent use of the word “victory” in the piece. This should not be a dirty word to democrats when describing a desirable military outcome. FDR used it all the time.
BTW, the biggest failing that I see in the paper is that it puts too much emphasis on process and not enough on goals.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Republicans had the keys to the car. Not many wanted to be on the road at the same time.
I normally end up voting a split ticket. I voted partisan this time – something I usually detest but I did it because of the smirking of the republicans at running the House. NOT anymore. We have a republican president, and a republican governor. We actually will have some debate for a while, and some weighing of the issues, and less partisan pampering and sucking up.
I watched Pawlenty snickering and heckling at a debate one time on TV. I thought, good GOD. What maturity. He couldn’t even let the other guy talk. He looked like a jerk. VERY unlike his last commercials. I wonder who’s porch he was walking on while wearing his corduroy jacket and lumberjack shirt? Certainly not his. I half expected to see a shot of a table with cereal bowls and a door knocker in the shape of a muskee.
The playing field is alot more equal. It will be nice when the snarking stops and we actually look at the issues. I think Mr. Pawlenty is aware that he is going to have to be serious. What the party wants isn’t going to be a pushover anymore.
I’m thrilled. To start, I would love to have him to breakfast for cereal just to make sure he knows that there are a bunch of us who don’t shop at Lunds.