|
|
|
« Lewis v. Harris | Main | Perceptions » October 26, 2006The New Democrat AdJosh Marshall has a copy of the latest Democratic ad, a play on the White House's recent shift in rhetoric on Iraq. It seems like a pretty effective ad to me, as it uses the words of the President and his White House against them and advances a simple, but logical message: we need to change course in Iraq. Naturally, the ad doesn't recommend how to change course, but that's a lot to ask out of a 30 second spot, and as I noted yesterday, I think the only viable change open to us is clear. The question is, will attacks on the White House, even highly accurate ones, affect House races that often turn on more local issues? Posted at October 26, 2006 06:33 AM
Comment policyI apologize for only allowing authenticated commenters, but comment spam overwhelms the site if I don't use those measures to prevent it. I reserve the right to delete any comment, although generally comments will only be deleted due to use of profanity or personal attacks on people. I have no objection to vigorous argument, but when name-calling begins, I'm putting a stop to it. In the immortal words of Eugene Levy, "People, people, let's stop this before somebody says something untrue!" If you want to call people names, I recommend you get your own blog. Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsI think it would be reckless to advocate the Democrats should take over foreign affairs and national security decisions in the US. The Democrats won't focus their attection on actually putting forth sensible solutions to solve the threat that North Korea, Iran and the world-wide Isalmic Jihadist movement poses to America and the free world. Democrats like Jimmy Carter will play the blame game with history for awhile, but history will find that Jimmy Carter had a failed presidency and an even worse failed ex-presidency. The Democrats will try to crush the Republicans politically by initiating hearing after hearing and investigation after investigation for political gain while the country needs LEADERSHIP to deal with al-Qaeda and other Islamofascist threats. The very dangerous nexus of Norht Korea, Iran and terrorist groups needs immediate wise attention. But, what we don't need incessant partisanship and debilitating gridlock, especially with regard to national security issues and threats. Nancy Pelosi said we wouldn't be any safer if Osama Bin Laden were caught. Our children's future is way too important to be left to those that not only cannot properly define the threats against the US and the free world acurrately, but also can't offer nor articulate a sensible, comprehesive strategy to defeat those menacing threats. Posted by: Denny at October 27, 2006 05:26 AM Denny: "... while the country needs LEADERSHIP to deal with al-Qaeda and other Islamofascist threats..." I agree, we need that. And in January, 2009, we might even get it. In the meantime, putting a leash on our 'Decider-in-Chief' is the closest that we can get. If you can't get positive leadership, at least limit the negative leadership. Posted by: Barry at October 27, 2006 07:13 AM I'm advocating that we split the government so that each branch keeps an eye on each other, the way they're supposed to, rather than the current arrangement where the Republicans all cover each other's sins. Posted by: Andrew Olmsted at October 27, 2006 07:56 AM Post a commentThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out) (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) |
