A terrible realization re Repub strategy. Thoughts appreciated.

[Bonobo]

I just read a post alluding to the fact that the Repubs would now take an anti-war position since our party really didn't. At first I was quite puzzled as to why this might occur... a fracture right now within the GOP? Why!?

But then I realized that since the piece of shit is a lame duck, the Repubs need not worry about his reelection and thus can play "good cop, bad cop" with no negative results. They will make their tent larger and can always pick a candidate in '08 that will benefit from having 3 years to hold their finger to the wind. Meanwhile we will look like "me too" candidates.

This really pisses me off. To be outplayed on Iraq...that would be an all new low even for our pathetically mismanaged party.

[janx]

1. Where did you read this?

?

[Bonobo]

6. Here's the link to the thread I read. NYT article. eom

[Silverhair]

2. No Way. It would badly anger their base. nt

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

3. Excuse my language

but I don't give a fuck WHAT those bastards do. THEY WERE THE ONES WHO STARTED THIS IMMORAL SHAME OF A WAR ON A COUNTRY THAT DID NOTHING TO US AND POSED NO THREAT TO US.

Their credibility would be for SHIT. All the Dems would have to do is say "AND WHERE THE FUCK WERE YOU FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THIS WAR?????"

And if the candidates in question EVER EVER said or wrote anything publically supporting the war in any way, it would be used against them.

Let 'em try it. I'll giggle myself to death.

[Auntie Bush]

4. Please don't. (no giggling)

[Baja Margie]

5. I don't think 10,000

US troops surrounding and ready to strike Falluja right now is an anti-war statement.