<p>My prediction - probably. It’s a stroke of genius really.</p>
<p>Notoriously short memories, self-centered outlook on the world. Too bad for the families of Iraq soldiers (what war? they ask).</p>
<p>Yeah, it’s possible. </p>
<p>Long live the shameful Republican Congress.</p>
<p>Of course they will be bought.</p>
<p>Nothing will bring the awful reality of this war home to the American people until there is some collective pain and sacrifice.</p>
<p>Until then, people can easily do “out of sight, out of mind”. That “fighting them over there” really works, as people drive off in their Suburbans to their McMansions, while yakking on their cell phones and drinking their lattes.</p>
<p>weenie,</p>
<p>I live in a military community with many soldiers who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the military families are overwhelmingly Republican.</p>
<p>Hmmm…why do I suspect this is not going to turn out to be one of those erudite, salon-like discussions that so many profess to crave? Those slash-and-burn conservatives seem to have derailed it in a mere two posts.</p>
<p>I don’t crave the erudite (well, only a little) or the slash and burn. I just like a little reality check.</p>
<p>Do you really think the average American thinks about the war in Iraq more than two minutes a week? I sincerely doubt it. It just doesn’t impact their daily life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On DNC sponsored sandwich boards and placards across the rusty grasslands of America:</p>
<p>“Vote Democrat in 2006 for Some Collective Pain.” </p>
<p>Though this will certainly lock down the S&M vote…it may be a long-shot for the dull-normals.</p>
<p>Puhleeze. The issue is that the collective American psyche cannot handle pain and suffering…so nah, I don’t think the S&M vote is going to be a big lure.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there is this small issue of “out of sight and out of mind”. Most Americans cannot think much further than the tip of their big toe, and this war is some other people’s problem…sure doesn’t affect the average individual (and we all like it that way, right? :)), as the Iraqi are busy killing each other at a rate of 100 a day (along with a few collateral US servicepeople) and we are ringing up a war debt at $11M an hour…</p>
<p>
Good for them. Guess you’d kind of have to be. The vets who are Dems are too busy speaking out against the policies of this dastardly administration and running for offices.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…was that “psyche” or “psycho” as applied to Americans; or, in “the collective liberal psyche” is this really a difference without a distinction? 
</p>
<p>
Have to be what? A Republican to serve your country in the military? I believe it to be neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for serving your country…being a Republican, I mean. Although it may make it a bit easier to explain your sacrifice and patriotism to your friends over tea. :)</p>
<p>Glen Reynolds linked to this Amazon description of the new book “Copperheads” this morning, and I share his view that it looks to be both interesting and relevant. As one who has noted the similarities between the Lincoln and Bush war presidencies, and in the interest of more salon-like threads, here it is:
</p>
<p>If there is genuine concern for military families, I think that they would ask that people put aside their political carping and efforts to undermine the war and to support the troops so that they can accomplish their mission and come home safely. Whether or not you think going into Iraq was a good idea, our military is now there, and I would hope that all Americans would like to see them be successful with as little bloodshed as possible. Unfortunately, political gain seems to be a higher priority for many.</p>
<p>"Hmmm…Will American voters be bought for 40¢ a gallon? "</p>
<p>On a a gallon of milk? a gallon of Budweiser? </p>
<p>What’s the 40 cents change? Federal taxes? States taxes?</p>
<p>It’s that magical Bush machine that can’t do anything right but it can control gas prices at the drop of a hat. Amazing.</p>
<p>Bush can’t. But GS can. (Actually doesn’t take very much.) Now who is that guy they say is the Secretary of the Treasury? What’s his name? Where did he come from? Who is that man behind the curtain?</p>
<p>Here is how it works…prices go high to make a HUGE profit, then it slides back, but not to pre-hike prices…so we are paying more, companies have made record profits, and then we are “grateful” that we are only payint 40cents more than a year ago, not a dollar more we have been paying</p>
<p>but hey, so long as during a war companies gouge us and then stop gouging us as much, we should be happy eh</p>
<p>The Bush machine DOES have a responsibility to ask about why prices skyrocketed like they did…</p>
<p>"I live in a military community with many soldiers who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the military families are overwhelmingly Republican. "</p>
<p>Funny, all the people I know who’ve <em>left</em> the military—my nephew (the orthopedic surgeon who did up to 100 amputations a day during his service in Iraq), the marine private who was a student of mine years ago, a family practice doctor who enlisted to “do his duty” after 9/11, a few others–they’re all voting and donating Democratic now.</p>
<p>Logosprincipal: The troops already accomplished their mission - three years ago. The President said so. Had a big banner and everything. Can they come home now? Because there’s no reason to believe that they can be successful at whatever “the mission” has become now no matter how much support they have at home. It looks to me like our soldiers are being left twisting in the wind by an Administration which lacks the integrity to either invest the time, money and manpower in the kind of national effort that would be required to conquer and subdue Iraq, or else admit that they were wrong about the consequences of their ill-conceived invasion and act in accordiance with reality. Do you really think it is “supporting” our troops to act like mindless cheerleaders while they are stuck in a no-win situation? Our troops have been left in Iraq with insufficient resources to impose order on an increasingly lawless nation, suffering ongoing losses with no real prospect of any improvement of the situation.</p>
<p>Mini, unfortunately your little theory ignores all the serious oil analysts who predicted that oil would return to balance once things such as weather(yes Bush controls that too!!??) and some supply glitches were corrected.</p>
<p>But enjoy your theory while the Republicans come back in control this fall. After all, if they are that masterful they should be in control, now shouldn’t they?</p>
<p>kluge,
Some troops have accomplished their mission, but the war is not over. No one is asking anyone to act as a “mindless cheerleader”, but it would be nice if all of our citizens had the good of our country at heart rather than looking for the worst in the war to further their political ambitions. I don’t hear the doomsday scenarios from the soldiers who have actually been there serving their country, but rather from those who seem to wish them to be true.</p>
<p>“But enjoy your theory while the Republicans come back in control this fall. After all, if they are that masterful they should be in control, now shouldn’t they?”</p>
<p>Yup. (Though last I heard, there is NOTHING up for control. If Dems win elections, the Prez can veto anything he likes. If there are split houses, little will get done. And if things stay as they are, little will get done. And the Iranians are much happier with the Republicans in control as well. It strengthens their government’s hand immensely, and their oilmen and the Texas oilmen can do the happy dance togther all the way to the bank. It’s a win-win!</p>