« Happy Birthday, Thirteenth Amendment! | Main | Sovereignty, Interrupted »

December 20, 2004

Comments

I hope you're right. It would be nice if the loyal opposition to Bush turned out to be Republicans as well as Democrats.

With "fun" like this, who needs fun?

A dollar short and a day late. Principled Republicans should have been vocal years ago.
I'm really curious about the attacks on Rumsfield. Is it because his disdain for the troops was embarrasing to the Republicans? His responsibilities for Abu Graib, covering up Abu Graib, bad post invasion planning, collaboration with war profiteers etc. should have brought principled Republican wrath down upon his head long ago but there wasn't a peep before the election. Are the attacks a sign of stored up discontent? or was the dissing of the soldiers just too embarrassing to be tolerated? Are the attacks a sign of the moderate Republicans finally re-emerging? (I kind of don't think so since Trent Lott is one of the attackers). I don't have much faith in the Republican party's ability to clean house. The Christian Dominion types have a lock on the grassroots even in liberal states like Washington. They will attack and attempt to distroy any moderate Republican who tries to get on the ticket during the primaries. At the national level what few moderates still exist have been very quiet. I appreciate Schwartzeniger's ( spelling?) remarks, but he would have shown more courage if he had spoken up before the election. Well I'm rambling here so I will stop.

A dollar short and a day late. Principled Republicans should have been vocal years ago.

Principled Republicans were vocal years ago, and especially vocal in the weeks before the November 2 election this year. Good for them!

These Republicans are, well...

Still, in practical terms, the more people who get up and say that Bush is an unprincipled dishonest useless disaster area, the better.

I'm really curious about the attacks on Rumsfield.

I believe (as several pundits said yesterday) that his answer to the armor question was inexcusable to many of them. Many folks are making a big deal out of those who were at the answer and question session not agreeing that the SecDef got grilled, but I think they're missing the point. It wasn't the question that raised all the eyebrows, it was the dismissive response.

We, as a nation, are asking our military to put themselves in harm's way for a war of choice. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for not giving them the very best of everything we can afford. Now word comes that they're increasing the production of armored Humvees...NOW????

Rumsfeld should resign because he's too arrogant to understand the most basic part of his job...he has the lives of American's husbands, wifes, father, mothers, brothers, sisters, etc, in his hands. He needs to display a great deal more respect than he's doing.

I happen to think that William Kristol's recent criticism of Rumsfeld was because the neocons are upset that the military situation in Iraq has made it unlikely that the invasion of Syria and the siege of Tehran will be accomplished in Bush's second term. Color me cynical.

Beyond cutting taxes and rewarding campaign contributors, the GOP has no real core values.

But JerryN has hit the nail on the head; Kristol is upset with Rumsfeld because he has failed to successfully complete the neocon science experiment in the ME. As one of the primary architects of this failed neocon experiment, Kristol is looking for scapegoats.

some of those GOP moderates want to move to the left.

The comments to this entry are closed.