Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki is considering a run against U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in 2010.
Krolicki says he’s discussing the prospect of challenging Reid with his family and will decide by early next year whether to try to unseat the veteran senator and political powerhouse.
Krolicki says Republicans “got shellacked” nationally and in Nevada in the latest elections. He says the GOP rebuilding effort in this state must include an effort to get a first-rate slate of candidates for numerous offices that will be up for grabs in 2010.
Krolicki was elected lieutenant governor in 2006 after serving two four-year terms as state treasurer. He said he has received calls from Republicans at both the state and national level about a race against Reid, who he described as “too liberal and too partisan for Nevada.”
I have it on very good inside information that at least one other Republican will seek the GOP Senate nomination to run against Reid in 2010. Still, unseating Reid will be no easy task, especially as national GOP leaders will be wary of spending money in Nevada when the GOP will have a hard time defending Senate seats in Florida, Alaska, Ohio and Louisiana. If there is a big GOP wave in 2010, that would make things different - but by the time such a wave becomes noticeable, the chance to beat Reid may already have passed. Still, it is interesting that this early on we’ve got the Lt Governor plus the to-be-announced guy interested in taking on Reid, who has many vulnerabilities - not least of which being the way he’s entirely abandoned Nevada values and opted to become a lapdog for Pelosi and her San Francisco values.
As for Krolicki, himself, he’s a good man, but I wonder if he’s really got what it takes to bring a fresh perspective to the GOP. To unseat Reid will take an imaginative, conservative-populist campaign freed from adherence to the political dogmas of the past. And this goes for a recovering GOP all around the country - we can’t just retread what failed in 2006 and 2008 and expect to win in 2010 and beyond. The hackneyed phrase, “think outside the box” really does apply here. We’ve got to think anew and act anew. Adhering to core, conservative principles but also stretch out to apply those principles to thus-far ignored constituencies (socially conservative African-Americans and Hispanics, most notably - but there are other groups the GOP has ignored or been mostly unaware of). Especially given the media and funding advantage Reid will enjoy, only the most aggressive and different sort of campaign stands a chance.
One thing certain, we GOPers can do no better in 2010 than forcing Reid out - even if we otherwise fail to secure a Congressional majority, if we can beat Reid we can show we’re back on track and have learned the lessons of 2006 and 2008. We must not throw away this chance either because we’re afraid to take Reid on, or because we’re afraid to try new things and new people.
This just gets me thinking of something which may be fun:
In a separate survey on Election Day, 42% of voters had an unfavorable view of Reid, including 27% who said their view of him was Very Unfavorable. Twenty-eight percent (28%) had a favorable view of the Democratic senator from Nevada, but just six percent (6%) said that opinion was Very Favorable.
Over one-quarter of voters (27%) on Election Day said they didn’t know who Reid was. Even 30% of Democrats didn’t know him, compared to 23% of Republicans and 29% of unaffiliated voters.
27% “very unfavorable” vs 6% “very favorable” - and while there has been no recent Nevada polling on Reid, who comes up for re-election in 2010, the general consensus out here is that Reid’s approval rating is pretty poor amongst the folks at home. Reid is vulnerable in 2010.
To be able to take out someone like Harry Reid, you’re going to need a boatload of money, an energized base, superior campaign management, organization and the best darned opposition research money can buy. And there’s no such Republican on the Nevada horizon.
We GOPers got rather blown out in 2008 here in Nevada - the Assembly now has a veto-proof Democratic majority, John Porter was defeated in his House re-election bid, and the RINO governor is signalling his willingness to go along with Democratic tax increases and, at any rate, no one likes the guy because he was cheating on his wife with the wife of another man…a double creep (I called on him to resign when this all came out). The governor will probably be challenged by Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman - a former mob lawyer (his client was the man Pesci’s character in Casino was based upon) who normally wouldn’t have a chance, but I figure he a near certain winner, if he goes for it.
Bottom line: the Nevada GOP has no one available to go after Reid, and will be hard pressed to merely recover a bit from the 2008 drubbing. But we must go after Reid.
I wonder who will emerge to make a stab at ridding us of Reid?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent to send a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urging him to assist the Big Three auto makers by considering broadening the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to help the troubled industry.
The two top Democratic leaders in Congress are likely to make the request in a letter to the White House, which could be forwarded as soon as Saturday afternoon, said individuals familiar with the matter. President-elect Barack Obama is generally supportive of the appeal, but at the moment is moving on his own track to assist the industry, these individuals said.
Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with President George W. Bush at the White House Monday.
The White House has been reluctant to broaden use of the $700 billion program, which was created by Congress just ahead of the election to deal improve credit flows and calm turmoil in financial markets incited by the downturn in the housing economy.
“It was not set up for anything else,” said Bush spokesman Tony Fratto, noting the only assistance authorized by Congress for the auto industry is a $25 billion loan package meant to help the industry retool to meet higher fuel economy standards.
Democrats are worried that if the auto industry is forced to deal with economic reality it will result in fewer union members and thus less union swag for Democratic political campaigns - so, they want to bail out Big Auto and thus prevent any change to the way auto manufacturers do business. Now, don’t get me wrong here - Big Auto, at least its American component, appears to be the usual mush of corporate pinheads who, even with 12 million unit sales expected this year, have managed to run their cash machine up on the rocks. It isn’t hard to sell a car in America, ya know? Its not like they don’t have people knocking on their doors asking for their product, even if its a relatively crappy product which is over-priced and not fuel-efficient (I do like my Malibu Max, and thus I understand that GM is discontinuing the model…). Don’t anyone get the idea that I have any sympathy for the faceless blob corporations of the United States - devices to hide incompetence, that’s all they are…smaller is better, and if we can figure out a way to break up these big corporations without adversely effecting the free market, then I’m all for it.
Anyways - this is what we can expect from our Democrats; using taxpayer dollars to protect their electoral base. It doesn’t matter that the UAW and the corporations have made it almost impossible for our auto companies to swiftly react to changing market conditions, the only thing that matters to Democrats is the next election, and they want a lot of donations and no major union job losses, regardless of cost to the taxpayer and larger economy. This is what “hopenchange” really means, liberals - more corporate greed, union corruption and Democratic backscratching…
What the Congressional supporters of this bill fail to comprehend is that this bill bails out Wall Street AND Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the fiscally irresponsible unpopular President.
Tell me again why the House GOP should support this bill? And I write this as someone who supports its passage. If it’s that obvious to me, how freaking blind are Congressional leaders?
According to Bloomberg News, the Democratic-controlled Congress may just adjourn and leave the financial crisis to the Fed and Treasury… and Harry Reid says “no one knows what to do.”
It’s nice to know that Democrats would rather go on vacation than address the financial crisis.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was not happy with Sen. Joe Lieberman’s speech before the Republican National Convention Tuesday night.
“Senator Reid was very disappointed in Senator Lieberman’s speech tonight,” Reid spokesman, Jim Manley, told CNN. “As the American people have made very clear, the last thing this country needs is another four years of the same old failed Bush-McCain policies of the past.”
In particular, the Nevada Democrat took issue with Lieberman’s assertion that Obama has not crossed party lines.
Lieberman’s statement that “Senator Barack Obama is a gifted and eloquent young… but, my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record, not in these tough times for America” also drew Reid’s ire, Manley said.
Democrats are attacking Lieberman because his speech was undeniably effective. They are running scared…
The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.
Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.
The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged. Among Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month.
Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month.
Just 12% of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11% to 13% throughout 2008. The majority of voters (62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America.
These numbers demonstrate the failure of the Democrats to lead Congress. They came into power promising results and a new era of bipartisanship. Instead, they delivered incompetence and increased partisan bickering, and higher gas prices.
While many are quick to predict increased Democrat majorities in both Houses of Congress, it’s clear that the American people are rejecting the so-called leadership of elected Democrats.
Wouldn’t that be fantastic. Since Reid became the Democrat leader in the Senate, his approval ratings in Nevada have plummeted.
But, I think such a pick is highly unlikely. Besides Harry Reid does nothing to help Obama’s image as a far left partisan, I don’t see the Democrats being open to giving a Mormon their nomination for vice president.
Wanting to burnish her anti-American victory credentials, and taking a move out of Harry Reid’s (D-Morticians Union) playbook, Commander-In-Chief wannabe Hillary Clinton joined in the ranting of the rabid anti-war left and, with extreme prejudice, threw our soldiers and their mission under the proverbial bus:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Hillary Clinton charged on Monday the Iraq war may end up costing Americans $1 trillion and further strain the economy, as she made her case for a prompt U.S. troop pullout from a war “we cannot win.”
This week marks the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but voters now say the economy is their top issue in the campaign for the November presidential election.
Clinton, the former first lady who is trying to convince voters she has foreign policy gravitas, hurled criticism both at her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, and the Republicans’ choice, Arizona Sen. John McCain.
Foreign policy gravitas? Declaring the Iraq war lost, in spite of the successes of this past year?
Commander in chief, my backside.
The more and more I see these two demo-bozos slip into their real character, or lack thereof, the better and better John McCain is looking.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not fit to run a one-car funeral, much less the world’s most potent (and benevolent) military.
As Congress reconvened, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) walked into a trap. He permitted anti-war Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to bring up two Iraq troop-withdrawal amendments to the Defense bill, assuming Republicans would filibuster by blocking cloture. But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) did the opposite, forcing an unwanted war debate and sending Reid’s Senate schedule into chaos.
Harry Reid has the ability to screw up a one-car funeral, while simultaneously being able to stick his foot up his own arse.
Senate Democrats, lead by Harry Reid, are trying to strong-arm President Bush by refusing to clear a slate of appointees to the Federal Election Commission.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) just announced that the Senate will not clear four new appointees for the Federal Election Commission, meaning the panel that acts as a watchdog on political campaigns cannot function during the critical election-year period.
Reid is blaming the White House for refusing to withdraw to allow a majority vote on the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky for a seat on the commission. Republicans want von Spakovsky approved as part of a slate of four FEC nominees or they will refuse to consider any of the nominees.
Von Spakovsky was recess appointed by President Bush to the FEC, but his term expires at the end of the year. Democrats have refused to allow his nomination to move forward, arguing that his actions while at the Justice Department disqualified him for the post. Bush, though has not backed down, and the matter has been at an impasse for the last four months.
Now, with the Senate moving toward adjournment until mid-January, Reid signalled that Democrats will not move any FEC nominations if they include von Spakovsky, meaning the commission will only have two of its required six members. Reid said he offered the GOP a straight majority vote on all the FEC nominees, including von Spakovsky, but the White House refused to accept that offer.
How convenient that the FEC could be effectively shutdown during a presidential election year. Is this merely a case of Democrats trying to flex their muscles and appease their extreme liberal base, or is it also a way to protect Democrat candidates in an election year?
Tired of Republican crowing about winning on Iraq funding, the budget battle and the energy bill, Reid (D-Nev.) shot back on Tuesday afternoon.
“We hear a lot of Republicans boasting … because of their unprecedented obstruction,” Reid said.
Indeed, Republicans have gotten their way in the battle over spending, have forced Democrats to jettison rollbacks of tax breaks for oil companies, and have beaten back attempts to pay for expanded children’s health care programs with a tobacco tax increase. Even though they’re in the minority, the GOP, backed by President Bush, has used the filibuster to block Democratic priorities over and over this fall.
“Who’s winning?” Reid asked a group of reporters. “Big Oil, Big Tobacco. … Al Qaeda has regrouped and is able to fight a civil war in Iraq. … The American people are losing.”
Sounds like Harry Reid is saying Al Qaeda is winning. Of course, his comments completely contrast the assessments of generals on the ground and even some of Reid’s fellow Democrats, including Jack Murtha, who have admitted that the surge is working and significant progress is being made in Iraq.
I also can’t let this go without noting just how ridiculous Harry Reid sounds when he complains about Republican “obstruction.” Harry Reid lead his fellow Democrats in Senate in blocking many of President Bush’s judicial nominees. He even threatened Bush with a potential filibuster if he did not nominate a “consensus” judge to replace Justice O’Connor following the withdrawal of Harriet Miers. The fact is, when Democrats were in the minority, they supported all sorts of obstruction, with so many of Bush’s highly qualified nominees never getting the vote the deserved. John Bolton was never given a vote when he was nominated to be ambassador to the U.N., even after his recess appointment expired, and his performance was praised by many, Democrats stood firm in their baseless, partisan obstruction.
And Democrats have no right to blame Republicans for the majority’s incompetence. As the majority party, Republicans were able to pass tax cuts and the partial birth abortion ban, (just to name a few) despite the minority party’s rabid opposition to them. The Republicans could do this because they had leadership and the support of the American people on their side.
Last week, Harry Reid complained that President Bush was acting like a “bully” right before he decided to keep the Senate in session during the Thanksgiving break to avoid any “controversial” recess appointments. Roll Call reports that sources said “Reid made the decision after he was unable to strike a deal with White House officials that would have allowed swift consideration of several key Democratic picks for the executive branch.”
James Joyner of Outside The Beltway nailed it when he said:
One wonders why they’d do that, given how cooperative the Democrats have been in moving through Bush appointments…
Yes, it’s hard to comprehend how Reid can be serious about calling Bush a “bully” when Democrats have tried every tactic available to them to stall or block Bush’s nominations. Be it Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, or John Bolton, Democrats have abused the filibuster to prevent or delay confirmation of highly qualified people, solely because they were conservative and nominated by Bush.
In other words, had Democrats respected the Constitution and given Bush’s nominees the up-or-down votes they were entitled to deserved, recess appointments wouldn’t be an issue.
Another interesting point by James Joyner:
Given that both parties have been in permanent campaign mode for the last fifteen years or so, the traditional checks and balances process has gone from a system to force compromise to one used to bludgeon the other side and score points. That’s led to both branches using extraordinary tools like recess appointments and filibusters on a routine basis which, in turn, ratchets the pressure up another several notches.
I would also add that this “campaign mode” has gotten worse since the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the 2000 presidential elections. Because of these two events, Democrats feel justified in abusing the filibuster, delaying funding for our troops, leaking the details of classified anti-terrorism programs, etc. etc.
Compromise won’t exist anymore because of the Democrats. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, was confirmed in 1993 by a 96-3 vote. Think any nominee by a Republican or a Democrat will ever be confirmed by such a margin again? Don’t count on it. Democrats have assured that bipartisanship is near death or already dead in Washington, D.C. Harry Reid’s threat to keep the Senate in session during Thanksgiving break is merely a symptom of a disease his party is largely responsible for.
Democrats who lead Congress likened President George W. Bush on Thursday to a bully on Iraq war policy and vowed to spend no more on combat without a deadline for bringing U.S. troops home.
“He damn sure is not entitled to having this money given to him just with a blank check,” Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrats’ Senate leader, told reporters. “Americans need someone fighting for them taking on this bully we have in the White House.”
Meanwhile as Democrats cry to their mommies about Bush being a bully, they’re denying much needed funds for our troops.
Now it is being reported that Harry Reid is keeping the Senate in session in order to prevent recess appointments. So, Reid whines about so-called “bullying” from Bush, and then pulls his own stunt, which could easily be described a bullying tactic. And Democrats blame Republicans for the partisanship that plagues Congress. If there are positions that need to be filled, but no specifics names being floated for one position or another, then there is no justification for such a move. If Harry Reid wants to set the precedent that the opposing party of the president will block every and any action he tries to make, then Democrat will one day have to lay in the bed they’ve made.
Democrats have already abused the filibuster, how else are they going disrespect the Constitution?
Despite the exponentially growing tales of success, there are “the fifth column” of our nation who hope against hope that they can undermine and evince failure of the efforts of our troops and the commanders on the ground in Iraq.
Specifically, Harry Reid continues to choose to completely ignore all the successes made via the efforts of our troops, continuing rather to engage in the rhetoric and propaganda of defeat at all costs. Said Harry “The Undertaker” Reid today,
“We simply cannot buy victory in Iraq. This year has been the bloodiest year in the history of the war.”
Of course in that statement Reid refuses to acknowledge that the last few months, largely in part due to the efforts of our troops and their commanders, have produced some of the least number of civilian and military casualties since the war began!
And the willing shills over at CNN Radio News simply parroted Reid’s propaganda on their top of the hour newscasts, with no mention of recent and not-so-recent successes.
Earlier this evening, I was at the SD 15 BPOU meeting, where I lamented that I see no Republicans countering the defeatist, seditionist rhetoric coming from Reid and the other traitorous democrat scum that inhabit the hallowed halls of Congress and the Senate.
Thoroughly dejected, I spent the night wondering when someone on the side of victory would come to the defense of our soldiers and their mission.
And then my friend Gary Gross came through and emailed me this tidbit from a floor speech by Senator Cornyn:
Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues from Georgia, Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson, in talking about the news from Iraq. It’s important as we discuss the challenges that we still face and that the Iraqi people still face in Iraq to talk about the complete picture.
And unfortunately, while we have heard much of violence in Iraq and the challenges that face us, we have not heard enough about the successes that the American military and our Iraqi allies are meeting with in that country. It wasn’t that long ago that the surge that General Petraeus, the counterinsurgency strategy that he is the architect of and which he has executed was called a failure on the floor of the United States Senate.
It’s ironic, looking back, that sometimes it’s helpful to go back and learn from history. You don’t have to go back very far; actually just the summer and the spring of this year when leaders on the other side of the aisle called the surge a failure. And the most ironic part of it is that General Petraeus, who is the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, at the time said we haven’t even started the surge yet. So let me have a few months.
Well, General Petraeus has now had a few months, and the surge has now had an opportunity to make a difference. And in fact, there is much positive news to report. I have to think that the biggest mistake the nay-sayers have made is to bet against the men and women of the United States military. That’s always a mistake, because the the American military men and women have demonstrated that they can accomplish the goals that they set out to do, and they are making a tremendous difference in Iraq in eliminating terrorist strongholds as we continue to train the Iraqi military to take our place.
And as I’ve always said, Mr. President, we all want to bring our troops home. The question is: are we going to bring our troops home based on conditions on the ground and the Iraqis’ ability to secure and stabilize their own country or are we going to do it regardless of the consequences in a way that will create the potential for a failed state in Iraq, another terrorist haven, and encourage our sworn enemies in Iran and elsewhere, embolden them to think that America cannot be trusted and America will turn its back on our allies?
Mr. President, in May, one of our senior colleagues said the surge was supposed to bring stability essential to political reconciliation and economic reconstruction. But he said at the time it has not, and it will not. One short month later the Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House in a letter to the President wrote, “as many had foreseen the escalation has failed to produce the intended results. The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.”
We even bore witness to atrocious ads run by organizations like moveon.org, slandering General Petraeus before he even had a chance to come here and report on the status of the surge in September. Well, Mr. President, the numbers don’t lie. To the dismay of many Americans, some of my colleagues have chosen to conveniently gloss over and try to explain away the progress that’s been made by General Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy.
Far from being a simple increase in troops we learned, General Petraeus’ strategy was a new way to attack the enemy in Iraq. That is utilize support from both local Iraqi citizens and tribal leaders to form an offensive against insurgent and terrorist groups. And this strategy has met with a resounding success. It’s become a common story but one worth repeating that Al Anbar province, a Sunni strong hold, was virtually overrun and lost to American and Iraqi forces, because Al Qaeda basically had its way with that region, had terrorized the people so much that they would not stand up and fight them, and basically were being held as victims of terror.
Now, the so-called ‘Anbar Awakening’ has occurred. Tribal leaders have come forward and volunteered their people to serve in the Iraqi police force and the Iraqi security forces, and now Al Anbar province has essentially been rid of organized Al Qaeda strong holds. “The Washington Post” editorial page on October 14 recognized decreasing violence in Iraq and noted that the evidence of a drop in violence in Iraq is becoming hard to dispute.
In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52% from August and 77% from September. The Iraqi health ministry and the associated press reported similar results, and we are thankful that American casualties are down as well. Numbers recently released by the Pentagon corroborate the progress occurring in Iraq. In and around Baghdad, the DOD reports, terrorist operations are down by 59%. Operations targeting Iraqi forces, more than 60%. Car bombs are down by 65%. Casualties due to enemy attacks are down by 77%. And violence during this last Ramadan period was the lowest in three years.
But perhaps the most convincing evidence that things, good things are happening in Iraq is the fact that the Iraqi people are beginning to move back into areas that they had previously left behind, hopeless that peace and security could ever be accomplished. According to recent news reports, even cab drivers are feeling it’s safe tore drive around Baghdad neighborhoods where sectarian violence one made it impossible for them to enter.
Perhaps the most telling story of increased security in Baghdad is one told by the Iraqi people themselves. According to an Associated Press article from this past weekend, thousands of Iraqi refugees who previously fled their homes in heir home country. While it’s easy for skeptics to doubt numbers and statistics, it is nearly impossible to say not long ago Iraqis living in a foreign country now feel safe enough to come home. this clearly indicates that there are good things happening in Iraq. And around Baghdad. The AP reports that in a dramatic turnaround, more than 3,000 Iraqi families driven out of their Baghdad neighborhoods have returned to their homes in the past three months as sectarian violence has dropped.
The article goes on to quote one refugee who returned home to his neighborhood of Qadra. In Qadra, he said, about 15 families have returned. He said, “I’ve called friends and family and told them it’s safe to come home.” Where there was one widespread fear among Iraqi citizens, we’re now seeing something new — hope. Hope for a better and safer future. Nothing confirms this more than the return of refugees and the testimony that they’ve given that it is becoming safer in Iraq, while not yet safe.
No one is saying that the job has been completed, but surely an honest, objective appraisal would acknowledge the improvements in the security situation in Iraq as de demonstrated not only by these statistics, by these testimonials from Iraqis themselves. These heart-warming accounts of families reuniting in neighborhoods which not long ago had been written off as hopeless and businesses opening their doors is an important lesson for us all.
This strategy employed by this new commander, General Petraeus, has worked, and it’s continuing to work. The efforts of our military men and women who have put their hearts and souls into this mission are now paying dividends and producing results. These security gains are not a fluke. What we’re seeing is a direct result of a carefully designed strategy which includes ramped-up counterinsurgency operations, increased efforts to foster cooperation and reconciliation among local tribes and our continued backing of the hard work of the American military and our support for their families.
As we’re presented with funding requests by the Pentagon to bring about a stable and peaceful Iraq, we are ensuring that our soldiers have the resources they need to bring peace and stability to a tumultuous land. And my hope, Mr. President, is that we will not use the funding request from the Pentagon for continued support for our troops as another political football, as has been used in the past, particularly in the face of such hopeful and promising news, for which I would expect that we would be grateful and to thank our men and women in uniform and their families who have sacrificed so much to help bring this about, along with our Iraqi allies.
General Petraeus told reporters this past weekend that, in general, we think there are no Al Qaeda strongholds at this point. While he was quick to remind us that they are still a potent threat, his assessment of the progress in Iraq can be nothing but reassuring. Mr. President, I shudder to think of what would have happened had we listened to the nay-sayers months ago who said, we have to withdraw all our troops, even before the surge was able to be fully im implemented. So far, we have voted 59 times on Iraq-related resolutions, most of which are non-binding Sense of the Senate resolutions.
59 times we have voted, even before the surge had a chance to be implemented. Now we see once again what a mistake it is to bet against the men and women of the United States military and thank goodness those resolutions were not successful and thank goodness our American soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, coast guard were able to carry out this new plan under the leadership of General Petraeus, and we now see at least some hope in a land where hope was in short supply.
So, Mr. President, although many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle prejudged the surge strategy and continue to oppose our efforts in Iraq, some of whom call even today for cutting off funds to support our troops, we see now substantial evidence of progress, and it is my continued hope that these positive developments may yet change the tone of the national dialogue on the global war on terror, including the campaign in Iraq.
It’s time for all members of this body to take an objective look, not through our political lens, not through a lens which sees only to the next general election, but look objectively at what our troops are accomplishing in Iraq instead of focusing only on the challenges. We should at least be honest enough to acknowledge the accomplishments. Not the least of which are the indisputable gains in security that have been made through their sacrifices. I, for one, am proud to recognize and applaud the undeniable achievements of our troops in Iraq.
Their hard work and their tireless dedication has reminded us that a stable and peaceful Iraq is within reach. It’s my fervent hope that my colleagues will join me in acknowledging and honoring the successes achieved by our military personnel and renew their support for them, for their commander, and for the counterinsurgency strategy that is bearing fruit and to always remember their family — families here at home who wait for their loved one to return as soon as their mission is accomplished.
So, I was happily wrong in my assertion that there are no Republicans with the cajones to stand up for our troops and their mission.
Rather, there is a media cabal that is so hellbent on pushing their agenda that they haven’t the balls to present an opposing view that runs counter to their defeat-at-any- cost-so-we-can-crucify-Bush template.
Between the media and the democrats, I feel as if I have ceased being a citizen of America, and am instead a citizen of Wonderland.
The active sedition on the part of not only a critical mass of American citizens but of elected officials sworn to defend the Constitution is getting to be all too surreal.
