« Open Link Thread | Main | How Subsidies Change Your World »

November 01, 2007

The Next Iraq Election

I'm already on the record liking Dan Grant out in Texas's 10th District, but this ad shows why. There's no dancing around national security, no fear of engaging the issue. This war is an unpopular catastrophe, and the many, many Congressmen supporting the President's efforts to deny the will of the people on withdrawal should be attacked directly.

November 1, 2007 | Permalink


Who's his opponent. Goddamn CQ put 90% of tray.com behind a paywall, the bastards.

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Nov 1, 2007 4:59:49 PM

While watching the Dems debate, I kept on thinking that you'd never know that the Dems weren't part of President 24%'s backers. Not one of the Dem. candidates is explicitly running against Bush/Cheneyism and GOPism. All they say is that they'd do this or that and they're best because of something. No attacks on Bush, Iraq, imperialial Presidency, Executive lawbreaking et al.

Now, Bush/Cheney are not running in 08, but every one of the GOP candidates want to emulate Bush/Cheney (except Ron Paul), so attacking the model-in-hand sets the stage and drives the discourse for the model-to-be, as offered by the GOP.

I f'ing don't care that the conventional wisdom is that the parties don't attack the opposition until the candidates are chosen. That's 20th century wisdom and wasn't good thinking then.

The Dan Grant ad is good but not excellent. Even one sentence would help by saying Bush and Cheney brought us this nightmare without an end and it's time for a new team.

Are the Dems really afraid of the GOP/Bush/Cheney? Is President 24% really President Teflon?

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Nov 1, 2007 5:23:54 PM

His opponent is Michael McCaul, who is a nobody GOP rubber stamp who came into office thanks to Delay's corrupt mid-census redistricting. The fact that McCaul is a conservative lawyer from suburban Houston is a source of endless consternation to the northwest Austin liberals in district 10.

Posted by: UN Plaza | Nov 1, 2007 6:51:03 PM

"I'm already on the record liking Dan Grant"

Fine! How about creating your own ActBlue page for him?

Posted by: Gray | Nov 1, 2007 7:42:43 PM

Just what issue did he engage?

He says he thinks we have paid enough in Iraq, what does that mean? He plans to shut off funding the day he's elected? What exactly is his straight forward point?

He wants Iraq turned over to Al Queda? Is that his plan?

Vote for me because I show caskets and without seeing a casket your to dumb to know what a casualty is?

I noticed he doesn't bother comparing the casualities in Iraq to any war casuality numbers for war Democrats ran....must have been too embaracing to see how they treated our troops as cannon fodder compared to Bush.

Posted by: Patton | Nov 1, 2007 8:34:37 PM

Patton's comments remind me of Bob Dole's old line about "Democrat wars." It was a dumb line then, and does not make any more sense today. Each war is its own entity. Some, like WW2, are necessary; others, like Vietnam and Iraq, are terrible ideas.

Posted by: The_Question | Nov 1, 2007 8:48:48 PM

The Question. Dole's question just bothered Liberals because they think only they are allowed to use war casualties as a political weapon. So that's the template the media uses.

It is the left that wallows in body counts, it is the left wing media that wallows in the next big number.

So if they left thinks the number means something, then it must mean something in all wars.

You claim WW2 was necessary but you give no reasoning, we are just supposed to assume and not question Democrat actions.

You may think suspensding habeas corpus and interring Japanese Americans was necessary, but most of us find such actions abhorrent.

Of course no one on the left calls FDRa fascist so we just have to overlook little things like losing our rights when Democrats are in charge.

Posted by: Patton | Nov 2, 2007 4:17:30 AM

In fact, isn't Dan Grant part of the problem? Democrats are steaming mad that they elected left wingers to end the war based on the campaigns they ran before the election. Then they all went to Washington and said, Bush is right, we need to follow him.

We need to fund the surge, we need to vote for Petreas, we need to fund the war, we need to increase deployments, etc. etc.

Dan Grants ad makes no committment to do anything the left wants, all its says is he's tired of casualities and he's tired of spending money. He doesn't actually pledge to stop either.

Posted by: Patton | Nov 2, 2007 4:21:11 AM

"You may think suspensding (sic) habeas corpus and interring Japanese Americans was necessary, but most of us find such actions abhorrent."

It WAS abhorrent, but that doesn't mean the war wasn't necessary. Dropping the bomb on Japanese cities was abhorrent, but again.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

Posted by: Adrock | Nov 2, 2007 10:34:13 AM

Actually, McCaul is from suburban Austin, not Houston. But given his politics, people tend to label him as Michael McCaul, R-"Austin"

Posted by: Lee Nichols | Nov 2, 2007 12:21:40 PM

The point of the ad is to generate name recognition for Dan, so no, he's not going to go into policy in a 30-second spot. There will be other TV spots for that.

Posted by: sccs | Nov 2, 2007 12:44:45 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.