Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

4 GOP Senators To Be Targeted by DSCC Ads

In a move certain to stoke passions in this week's Senate debate over the war in Iraq, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee will go up tomorrow with ads hitting at least four Republicans up for reelection in 2008.

The commercials are set to air against Sens. Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Susan Collins (Maine), John Sununu (N.H.) and Norm Coleman (Minn.), according to information about the buys provided to The Fix by a Republican consultant who closely monitors the purchasing of advertising time across the country. The ad buy is initially small -- costing less than $90,000 total.

Matthew Miller, a spokesman for the DSCC, would not comment on the ads buys, which will be the first by Senate Democrats' campaign arm in the '08 cycle. The ads are set to run July 10-12.

All four of the senators being targeted with ads are seen as vulnerable by national Democrats. Coleman, Sununu and Collins have long been on Democrats' target list, but the addition of McConnell was unexpected. But Democrats may believe he is vulnerable given his leadership role in the Senate and the fact that Kentucky Republicans are on the defensive this year, with Gov. Ernie Fletcher facing a tough reelection fight in the wake of a series of ethics problems in his first term.

The Fix will post more information about the DSCC ads as it becomes available.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 9, 2007; 4:10 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Franken Impresses (Again)
Next: Endorsement Elite: Michigan Republicans

Comments

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Adult Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Adult Dating[/url]

Posted by: datindabv | September 2, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Adult Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Adult Dating[/url]

Posted by: datindopo | August 24, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Adult Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Adult Dating[/url]

Posted by: datindopo | August 24, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

thanks

Posted by: Anonymous | July 23, 2007 7:05 AM | Report abuse

SC never seems in play for the DNC, DCCC or the DSCC, but I have been on this corner active in politics for about 25 years and other than a re-election campaign of Fritz Hollings I have never seen a time when a GOP Senator from SC has been more vulnerable than the current US Senator Lindsay Graham. His own party booed him off the stage at the SC GOP convention over immigration debacle. Graham has tied his VP hopes to the dwindling campaign of John McCain. His only real threat within his own party was our state treasurer who is currently under indictment for having over 500 grams of cocaine. If the DSCC is truley serious about picking up an unexpected seat they will come to SC and recruit a conservative Democrat much like NC US Rep. Heath Shuler and throw enough money behind him or her to beat little Lindsay who made his politcal hay at the expense of the Clinton impeachment trials. But we will not hold our breath becasue they dont really think they can still win in Dixie with the retirements of Breaux, Edwards and Hollings. I know he can be beat, but it will take support from DSCC. I just dare you to prove m.e. wrong!

Posted by: m.e. | July 10, 2007 10:01 PM | Report abuse

SC never seems in play for the DNC, DCCC or the DSCC, but I have been on this corner active in politics for about 25 years and other than a re-election campaign of Fritz Hollings I have never seen a time when a GOP Senator from SC has been more vulnerable than the current US Senator Lindsay Graham. His own party booed him off the stage at the SC GOP convention over immigration debacle. Graham has tied his VP hopes to the dwindling campaign of John McCain. His only real threat within his own party was our state treasurer who is currently under indictment for having over 500 grams of cocaine. If the DSCC is truley serious about picking up an unexpected seat they will come to SC and recruit a conservative Democrat much like NC US Rep. Heath Suler and throw enough money behind him or her to beat little Lindsay who made his politcal hay at the expense of the Clinton impeachment trials. But we will not hold our breath becasue they dont really think they can still win in Dixie with the retirements of Breaux, Edwards and Hollings. I know he can be beat, but it will take support from DSCC. I just dare you to prove m.e. wrong!

Posted by: m.e. | July 10, 2007 9:58 PM | Report abuse

A pretty funny comment from the link posted above:

"Asked in March 2000 if she would be as forgiving as Livingston's wife, Bonnie, or Hillary Clinton if she learned her husband had an affair, Wendy Vitter told Newhouse News Service that she would not.

"I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary," Wendy Vitter said, referring to the woman who cut off her husband's penis after he allegedly raped her. "If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony -- trust me." "

I guess Vitter's wife is as big a hypocrite as he is. First she infers that she's somehow better than HRC (who had her own issues with 'normal' housewives) and then - surprise! - it turns out she isn't.

"Liberals who bring up Vitter's private life while dismissing any similar issues what come up regarding liberals (Monica) as an improper invasion of private matters are almost as hypocritical as Vitter is."

Razor, who on this page is doing that?????

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 10, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how many Americans understand that you can't pass legislation in America with 50% of the votes in Congress? How many of them understand that, outside of budget resolutions, you need 60 votes in the Senate? That a filibuster isn't a matter of Jimmy Stewart talking himself ragged for hours on end, but of merely declaring an intention to filibuster? And that this is done for all but the most routine matters? With the result that the 60-vote minimum is no longer reserved for occasional high-profile issues, but has been institutionalized for virtually all legislation of any consequence?

I figure maybe 2%.

It's why I think Dems really need to focus on exposing the Republicans' drive to block everything that moves. Voters hear Dems vow to tackle various legislative proposals, and then they hear that the bill failed. As far as Americans know, there's a Democratic House and a Democratic Congress -- why couldn't they pass the legislation they said they'd pass?

Senate Republicans, in the most cynical part of all of this, are basing their strategy on the notion that voters won't know better. They're counting on public ignorance and confusion to conceal their tactics.

The GOP has created a mess in the Senate. Dems need to make an effort to help expose those responsible.

Posted by: crooksandliars.com | July 10, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Razorback -- the difference is that Vitter ran as a moralist and continues to denounce the exact kind of "values" that he's engaged in. And, for that matter, some of us "libs" denounced Clinton's behavior as immoral from the get go. I never thought it was sufficient to warrant impeachment - just as I resist impeachment efforts against the current administration - but I thought Censure was appropriate.

Ironically, Moveon.org was originall created based upon the slogan "Censure and move on." So actually, mainstream democrats are on pretty solid ground criticising Vitter for not only cheating on his wife but apparently purchasing sex -- which is itself illegal.

Posted by: Colin | July 10, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Liberals who bring up Vitter's private life while dismissing any similar issues what come up regarding liberals (Monica) as an improper invasion of private matters are almost as hypocritical as Vitter is.

Posted by: Razorback | July 10, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

So,speaking as an Independent Voter I would just love to see the GOP respond the DCCC Ads with Ads Calling For Expelusion of Democrats Jet Set Nutty Nancy Pelosi and Steny Cockroach Hoyer and Robber Land Baron Harry Ried! Oh well I guess I can stil dream can't I now?

Posted by: Claudine1000 | July 10, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

So old Vitter is just a serial prostitute banger -- while posing as a family values man.

ROFLMAO.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 10, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

And the latest rightwingnut biblebeating Republican POS hypocrite is...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/10/vitter.madam/index.html

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 10, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it amazing how fast the pendelum has swung. In 06' Allen, Burns, Talent, Santorum, Chafee and someone else whom I don't remember DeWine all lost to turn control of the senate back over to Democrats. They won, they say, on an ultimatum for President Bush...who people just re-elected and put his party into power just 2 years earlier. Now, I think, the senate actually represents the majority of the American public: 49 Republicans, 49 democrats and 2 independents. Of course, Dick Cheney is the tie breaker. The senate, though, is indicative of our heavily divided nation. I believe so, anyhow.

Posted by: reason | July 10, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Reason -- Are you a "values voter?" If so, are you troubled by the fact that Vitters apparently had an extramarital affair with a prostitute?

To be clear, I believe in forgiveness and am generally of the opinion that marital infidelity - which deeply offends me personally - is no one's business but the offending individual's spouse and family. That being said, I do find it somewhat offensive that (1) Vitter's web site rails against "hollywood values" and (2) Vitter is a big defender of the sanctity of marriage, despite the fact that he's apparently far less committed to his own union than many monogomous and faithful gay and lesbian couples.

Just my two cents.

Posted by: Colin | July 10, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Is David Vitter up for re-election in '08? The answer to this is no, Vitter is up for re-election in 2010. Vitter was elected in Republican year 2004, when money was flowing, Bush was making sure he got re-elected and a wave overtook the nation to hand Republican's a great majority in the senate: Martinez in Fl. won an open seat when democratic icon former gov. and sen. Graham retired, Isakson won an open seat in Ga. when democratic icon Zell Miller retired and endorsed Isakson and Pres. Bush, Jim Demint won an open seat held by a democrat in SC when he retired, Republican Richard Burr won the senate seat of retiring VP candidate John Edwards here in my home state of NC, Vitter won in La. when dem. John Breaux retired, John Thune defeated then minority senate leader Tom Dashle. Obama was swept into power when Ill. senator Fitzgerald was in ethical trouble and dropped out of the race, the Republican party sent in Alan Keyes who lost horrifically to Obama. In Colorodo that year, beer magnate Pete Coors could not rally social conservatives to the cause and lost the senate seat of a retiring Republican Senator to democrat AG Ken Salazar, who ran a great campaign that undoubtably won over many values voters. They voted for a poor family hispanic with strong family/work values vs. a man who made his living getting people drunk. If only Shaffer had been te nominee...oh well. He may be this year. All of these people are up again in 2010, so Vitter escapes 08, but he's immensley popular in La. so he won't lose anyhow.

Posted by: reason | July 10, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Is David Vitter up for re-election in '08? The answer to this is no, Vitter is up for re-election in 2010. Vitter was elected in Republican year 2004, when money was flowing, Bush was making sure he got re-elected and a wave overtook the nation to hand Republican's a great majority in the senate: Martinez in Fl. won an open seat when democratic icon former gov. and sen. Graham retired, Isakson won an open seat in Ga. when democratic icon Zell Miller retired and endorsed Isakson and Pres. Bush, Jim Demint won an open seat held by a democrat in SC when he retired, Republican Richard Burr won the senate seat of retiring VP candidate John Edwards here in my home state of NC, Vitter won in La. when dem. John Breaux retired, John Thune defeated then minority senate leader Tom Dashle. Obama was swept into power when Ill. senator Fitzgerald was in ethical trouble and dropped out of the race, the Republican party sent in Alan Keyes who lost horrifically to Obama. In Colorodo that year, beer magnate Pete Coors could not rally social conservatives to the cause and lost the senate seat of a retiring Republican Senator to democrat AG Ken Salazar, who ran a great campaign that undoubtably won over many values voters. They voted for a poor family hispanic with strong family/work values vs. a man who made his living getting people drunk. If only Shaffer had been te nominee...oh well. He may be this year. All of these people are up again in 2010, so Vitter escapes 08, but he's immensley popular in La. so he won't lose anyhow.

Posted by: reason | July 10, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Mark,

I think that Clinton could have been that transformational figure if it were not for his personal foilbles and his missteps in the first two years. He was not very adept at dealing with the Democratic Congress that was to his left. His administration stumbled out of the gate and stupid controversies like nanny-gates and gays in the military undercut his efforts. Then they really fumbled the health care reform issue and lost Congress in 1994.

Clinton and Newt actually forged a good working relationship to the point that Armey and Delay thought Newt had sold out. However, partisanship reached a fever pitch with zealots like Delay pushing the House Republicans further to the right. Armey would only refer to Clinton as "your president" when dealing with Democrats. Clinton's personal foibles gave the right an opening and Delay made impeachment an issue of party loyalty. Clinton never got 50% of the vote and Gore ran away from him in 2000. Had Gore run as Clinton's heir and won, that could have started a transformation. I am sure Gore would have attacked Afghanistan and he would not have diverted resources to attack Iraq. Capturing or killing Osama would have wiped away the Democrats
weak on security image.

I said Obama has the potential to be transformational - not sure if he can. He is attracting disengaged people into politics. That is a key component, IMHO, of a political paradigm shift. It remains to be seen if he can maintain that appeal through a marathon political campaign.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 10, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

I'd rather see Webb stay in the Senate. He barely won the election in 2006. If he leaves the Senate after 2 years, it will make the Virginia Democratic Party look bad, and make it less likely for Democrats to be elected there in the future. And he really should serve the people who elected him for more than a year before seeking another office.

This makes me think about the role of the VP in the future. Cheney expanded the power of the office tremendously, taking over several areas of policy that would normally be the president's responsibility. Chances are the next administration won't be like that. But the traditional role of the VP (meeting foreign dignitaries, casting the occasional Senate vote, and waiting for the President to die) is pretty limited. Considering how many responsibilities the President has, it would be nice if the VP could help out, without forming a totally new branch of government like Cheney did.

Posted by: Blarg | July 10, 2007 10:12 AM | Report abuse

So Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon has been let off the hook by the DSCC?

Posted by: Razorback | July 10, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

I also think Clark would make a fanatastic VP choice. Truth be told, I had hoped he might run for Governor of Arkansas after 2004 to position himself for a more viable presidential run down the road. Regardless though, I hope to see him in the next administration. He's just too talented to be left off the stage.

Jim Webb, who I believe JimD brought up, is also an intriguing choice. His response to Bush's last state of the union was so pitch perfect I couldn't even contain myself listening to it. I agree he's something of a wild card, but that's also part of his appeal. I suspect he'll end up serving as a voice of intellectual honesty in the Senate - rather than on someone's ticket - but would be happy to see him as VP as well.

If smoke filled rooms still controlled the nominees, imagine a Dem ticket of Jim Webb and Clark. The GOP wouldn't have a chance...

Posted by: Colin | July 10, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Clark would be an interesting choice as VP. I read an article in 2004 suggesting that Kerry pick a retired general or other high-ranking military official as his VP, then assign him to work entirely on terrorism. It would have been a very bold choice, and I think it might have won Kerry the election. Obama would be able to do something similar with Clark. But Clark is a Clinton supporter, which might be an obstacle.

Posted by: Blarg | July 10, 2007 9:31 AM | Report abuse

I should have said "neocons and social cons"...

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 10, 2007 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, from my moderate perspective, moderates mainly serve in swing districts and swing states, not "safe" districts and states.

So moderates like Collins are always fair game. Moderates never seem to build up seniority in the House, because their districts swing too often.

JimD, I thought Bill Clinton represented a major break from D "business-as-usual" and that he learned to work across the aisle with Gingrich [even while he was suffering impeachment]. I think GWB represents a break from R "business-as-usual" largely because of the neocons, who were not a force to be reckoned with in previous R Admins.

So while I am intrigued by Obama, I do not think his breaking from "business-as-usual" will be "transformational". Ds will now run against GWB, a failure, for years to come, I suspect. All problems will be linked by Ds to the GWB years, and for awhile it will ring true.

I also believe Clark is a perfect VP candidate. He has proven to be an effective fundraiser for blue dog and vet D candidates, as a welcome adjunct to his experience as a 4 star General. I believe he is ineligible to be SOD.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 10, 2007 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Is David Vitter up for re-election in '08? He is suddenly vulnerable according to the info below. And the drumbeat of really bad news for the GOP just keeps getting louder....


Senator's Number on 'Madam' Phone List
By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 10, 2007; Page A03

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) apologized last night after his telephone number appeared in the phone records of the woman dubbed the "D.C. Madam," making him the first member of Congress to become ensnared in the high-profile case.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 10, 2007 9:04 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats ran against Herbert Hoover for over 40 years. The Republicans have been running against George McGovern for almost the same length of time. Reagan shifted the political paradigm for Republicans. It will take a transformational Democrat to shift it again.

I am not sure if any of the current crop of Democratic candidates can be that transformational figure. I had once hoped that Wesley Clark would be the 2008 nominee. Imagine a Democratic candidate who is a decorated four star general. The Republicans would have a hard time characterizing him as weak on national security.

The only current Democratic candidate who might have the potential to be the transformer is Obama. He seems able to reach people who have been turned off by politics. I mentioned some time ago that my wife and I know a proto-typical Southern redneck, NASCAR fan, small businessman in his late 40s or so. He had not even registered to vote for 20 years. He told us he had registered so he could vote for Obama.

Senator Clinton would, IMHO, continue the deep partisan divide. She is a very divisive figure. She might be able to win a close election in what is shaping up to be a good year for the Democrats but her presence on the ticket would be a drag on Democratic House and Senate candidates in swing districts and states.

I think if either Clinton or Obama is the nominee that Wesley Clark is the ideal VP choice. The Democrats need to project strength on national security. This will be especially true with a female candidate given the state of stereotypical thinking in early 21st century America.

Obama will also need to have a running mate with strong national security credentials. A four star general will also help to innoculate him against the inevitable "Barack Hussein Obama - wrong on national defense" attack ads.

Senator Jim Webb would be another good choice but might be too much of a loose cannon. I do not expect that either Clinton or Obama would turn to Richardson. I doubt we would see a double first ticket. Richardson would be a good choice for Edwards - whom I cannot see winning the nomination. He is my last choice except for Kucinich and the Democratic nominee most likely to make me turn to the Republicans.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 10, 2007 8:49 AM | Report abuse

"So, why bother impeaching Bush and Cheney... why not just try them as the criminals they are for ignoring laws they don't like, and trashing the Constitution." Truth Hunter

Bush and Cheney uphold the Constitution fine. They only burn the Constitution's ugly cousin...the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: reason | July 10, 2007 8:16 AM | Report abuse

The Warner guys in Va. are very close and Mark would only run for the Senate if John does not. I have the dems winning there and am still high on Mark for the VP slot with Hillary. Collins will be very hard to beat and I would target others more at this early stage. Ky. is a waste of time and money, that is a pretty safe seat for the repubs. I haven't looked at the Senate seats much yet, but with about a 2 to 1 up in 08, the dems should gain a few seats.

Posted by: lyleink | July 10, 2007 8:09 AM | Report abuse

ProudtobegoP,

Complete and utter blabber from the party of a 5-time deferred chickenhawk and no-show Guardsman.

If you had bothered to pay attention, which obviously you haven't, then you'd know that Ms. is no longer a member of the Democratic Party.

And even if she hadn't switched voting affiliations, she isn't exactly reaping enormous support in her latest endeavor.

Perhaps Lieberman will jump on board with her? Who knows.

There's a reason so many who have served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan have chosen to become proud members of the Democratic Party.

Until the day comes that you actually "get it", just keep soaking up those rightwing talking points like a thirsty sponge.

I'd feel for you - but in reality - you should know better.

Visit the Fighting Dems website sometime. You'll feel better for it.

Jaype- Governor Warner is indeed very interested in the U.S. Senate seat. Raising Kaine is generally very accurate when it comes to all things Mark W! Shame he didn't run this time - but he'll make a superb U.S. Senator!

Posted by: 10thMtnDivision | July 10, 2007 12:20 AM | Report abuse

ProudtobegoP,

Complete and utter blabber from the party of a 5-time deferred chickenhawk and no-show Guardsman.

If you had bothered to pay attention, which obviously you haven't, then you'd know that Ms. is no longer a member of the Democratic Party.

And even if she hadn't switched voting affiliations, she isn't exactly reaping enormous support in her latest endeavor.

Perhaps Lieberman will jump on board with her? Who knows.

There's a reason so many who have served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan have chosen to become proud members of the Democratic Party.

Until the day comes that you actually "get it", just keep soaking up those rightwing talking points like a thirsty sponge.

I'd feel for you - but in reality - you should know better.

http://www.democrats.org/page/content/fightingdems/index/

Posted by: 10th Mtn Division | July 10, 2007 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Rob, thanks for the info on Kentucky.

Mark Warner is an interesting one. I don't think he wants to join the Senate talk shop. He's an executive first and foremost, so running for Governor in 2009 would make more sense (and almost certainly he'd win it).

Furthermore, being Governor again would mean he's available for VP in 2008 (he's one of the 4 who are mentioned all the time: Vilsack, Richardson & Bayh are the others). Running for the Senate would kill his VP chances.

And on top of that, if he's Governor in 2009-2013 then he's perfectly positioned to then run for the Dem ticket in 2016.

Posted by: JayPe | July 9, 2007 10:31 PM | Report abuse

JimD I agree, its a shame that bipartisan bridges with moderates can't be built (ditto on the Republican side with the likes of Nelson).

Hagel would be a target for the Dems though (conservative, except for Iraq). He's unlikely to run again, and in an open seat there's always a chance, particularly with such a strong headwind in the national scene.

Posted by: JayPe | July 9, 2007 10:27 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats are targeting Collins because they think they can defeat her and add another Democratic vote to their caucus. It doesn't matter that she votes with them on the issues so often. It is all about control of the Senate. Adding Demcoratic Senators solidifies Democratic control. It takes 60 votes to accomplish anything of substance, so the Democrats are intent on picking up as many seats as possible.

I see no possibility of the Democrats getting to 60 seats in the Senate in 2008. Building alliances with Republican moderates like Collins, Specter and Snowe would seem to make more sense. Unfortunately, Republican moderates belong on the endangered species list.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 9, 2007 9:55 PM | Report abuse

JayPe, rumors abound that businessmen Charlie Owen, the 2003 Lt. Governor nominee, and State Attorney General and Lt. Governor candidate on Lunsford's (second place) ticket Greg Stumbo are both looking at the race. It is believe that the DSCC is hoping to get Stumbo in the race.

The main reason that the Democrats are targetting Susan Collins is because they have a strong candidate in Congressman Tom Allen. You don't abandon your good candidates so Collins is a target whether she should be or not. Both Oregon and Texas would be targets if the Democrats had a strong candidate to run. Unfortunately, all Oregon Dems have basically taken a pass except for a few, who they are still talking to and no one has stepped forward in Texas. Personally, I'd start to put some pressure on Virginia, Mississippi and Nebraska. The Dems need to drive Hagel, Warner and Cochran out sooner rather than later so Moore, M. Warner, and Kerrey or the Omaha Mayor who's name escapes me can get in the race.

Posted by: Rob Millette | July 9, 2007 9:48 PM | Report abuse

As I recall, Dems don't have a candidate to take on McConnell yet. So targeting him is interesting, is there someone waiting in the wings...?

Posted by: JayPe | July 9, 2007 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Austin says "Do we really want to take suggestions from Vietnam about how to handle the current situation?"

Yes we probably do, because the war at the moment is about as successful as Vietnam was when Nixon started drawing down.

Posted by: JayPe | July 9, 2007 9:27 PM | Report abuse

What's ridiculous is that Collins is a reliable pro-choice liberal. It's idiotic to target her. Republicans should target her in the primaries, however. She's a weak voice for Republican values.

Posted by: Stephen A. | July 9, 2007 8:04 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why the DSCC wants to waste resources targetting a strong moderate voice like Susan Collins. As a Democrat, I would prefer that she lose her seat, but if the DSCC wants to lay an offensive operation against vulnerable senators, it should start in places where we need to win in order to finish passing the '6 for 06' bills. That means targetting weak incumbents like John Cornyn and Gordon Smith that constantely oppose the Democratic bills instead of wasting money fighting against a senator like Collins that will support the Democrats on the big issues.

Posted by: Kevin Rodriguez | July 9, 2007 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Supporting the war is death to any candidate who hopes to receive their party's nomination. Regardless of the reasons why the United States chose to invade Iraq or even why a US presence remains there today, it is clear that the Bush Administration is putting too many of its resources--OUR resources-- into remaining there. To date, the war has cost over $340 billion dollars--money which could have been spent much more wisely and with better end results. It is estimated, for example, that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. In a time when the current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach. Thus, it is clear that the occupation of Iraq needs to end, and it needs to end now without regard to what this will do to United States interest in Iraq's oil. There are simply much more important issues that need to be addressed.

Posted by: Jessica | July 9, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse

"guiliani an ignoramus" -- Do we really want to take suggestions from Vietnam about how to handle the current situation? Considering what a terrible failure that war was I think we ought to look for a different approach.'

I think a potential potus should have some knowledge of history. otherwise we will have more of the same debacle.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Guiliani is natuarally whipping up the Iraq War. Like almost all Republican warhawks, he was a dedicated draft-dodger during the Viet Nam War. He had half a dozen deferments.

Posted by: NormanT | July 9, 2007 6:49 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP - Too bad. I already took my summer vacation; went to Europe and just returned over the weekend. Sheehan is a pacifist, however, and I most assuredly am NOT. I want a pound (or two) of flesh from the criminals that lied to the Congress and manipulated the facts and got this country into the mess that is Iraq. Oh, and I would, if at all possible, dearly love to identify and try the SS troops AND assorted fanatics and Nazi that blog for them, right up until the present. That would, of course, mean YOU Mr. proudtobeGOP! YOU are responsible for so much death and sorrow and destruction and harm and I wouldn't want you to feel left out for your part in these criminal activities.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

"guiliani an ignoramus" -- Do we really want to take suggestions from Vietnam about how to handle the current situation? Considering what a terrible failure that war was I think we ought to look for a different approach.

Posted by: Austin | July 9, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

TruthHunter and mikeB: Cindy Sheehan has your summer vacation plans already mapped out!... Vowing to Start Second America Revolution, Sheehan plans to walk from Atlanta to Congress beginning July 13 and ending up in DC on July 23 to "send the mis-leaders back home to face the music of justice in their own districts."

I know from your virulent posts that you'll be willing to help...You guys will put your (feet) where your mouth is, right?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 9, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

anonymous coward writes
"So CC gets inside info from the RNC? What a surprise."

A) The article in question discusses a DSCC ad buy, not something from the RNC.

2) Its Chris' JOB to ferret out inside info. Its called reporting. What are you looking for, a political blog that doesn't offer any inside info?

Posted by: bsimon | July 9, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter - Bush, Cheney, Rice, every member of this Administration is corrupt and criminal. SO are the Pentagon brass. ALl of them need to be blamed for the Iraq and Afghanistan messes and have their careers ended. All deserve public scorn and humiliation. And all, every one of them, needs to KNOW that one day soon we will reckon with them.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Today, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani delivered a speech to the Jewish Community Relations Council in New York:

[I]f we flee Iraq, if we do what the Democrats want us to do -- which is to not only flee Iraq, not only retreat in Iraq, but give them a timetable of our retreat.

Have you ever heard of that in a history of war? Have you ever heard of an army being required to give a printed schedule of its release to the enemy? It makes no sense, does it? Whether you're for the war or against it, you would never have an army retreat on a six- month, one-year, 18-month schedule explaining, We'll reduce the forces by 20,000, then by 30,000, then by 50,000. Gee, you can then figure out when the forces are depleted enough so you can really do damage to them.

Giuliani needs to brush up on his history. A publicly-announced gradual reduction of forces is exactly what the United States did in the Vietnam War. On May 14, 1969, President Richard Nixon laid out an "eight-point peace plan" calling for the gradual withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam:

Over a period of 12 months, by agreed-upon stages, the major positions of all U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would be withdrawn. At the end of this 12-month period, the remaining U.S., allied, and other non-South Vietnamese forces would move into designated base areas and would not engage in combat operations.

Some highlights of Nixon giving the enemy a "timetable of our retreat":

June 8, 1969: Nixon announces the redeployment of 25,000 troops, which would begin in the "next 30 days" and be completed by the end of August.

Sept. 16, 1969: Nixon announces a new "troop ceiling," meaning that a minimum of 60,000 troops would be withdrawn by December.

Dec. 15, 1969: Nixon calls for a "reduction in our troop ceiling of 50,000 more U.S. troops by April 15 next year."

April 20, 1970: Nixon calls for the withdrawal of 150,000 troops "to be completed during the spring of next year."

Oct. 12, 1970: Nixon announces the reduction of the troop ceiling by another 40,000 troops between "now and Christmas."

Nov. 12, 1971: Nixon announced to the nation, "Over the next 2 months we will withdraw 45,000 Americans."

Jan. 13, 1972: Nixon stated, "I am announcing today the withdrawal of an additional 70,000 [troops] from Vietnam over the next 3 months."

Apr. 26, 1972: Nixon announces that "over the next 2 months 20,000 more Americans will be brought home from Vietnam."

Whether it's blowing off Iraq Study Group meetings, showing ignorance about the root causes of 9/11, attacking Clinton for 9/11, or fear-mongering about sensible redeployment from Iraq, Giuliani talks big and thinks small.

Posted by: guiliani an ignoramus | July 9, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Mike B... The Pentagon brass are the stooges, the war criminals are in the White House.

So, why bother impeaching Bush and Cheney... why not just try them as the criminals they are for ignoring laws they don't like, and trashing the Constitution.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 9, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"Hadley increased latent fears of the U.S. military being made the fall guy...". Latent fears? No. Real, genuine, honest-to-god terror. The armchair cretans at the Pentagon, all of those three starr yes-men promoted by Bush and the idiot crowd he drags around with him can be quite certqin that we will not only hold them responsible for the Iraq fiasco, we intend to wreck their careers, and send the bunch of them packing. Count on that. Our soldiers have deserved better treatment than they have received at the hands of this crowd who awarded a lucrative contract to one of their corporate buddies for an anti-RPG system rather than buying a superior off-the-shelf system from an Israeli company, for permitting the sale of weapons and computer systems to China (only to find them in enemy hands in Iraq), for inadequate body armour for troops, for outsourcing food and other critical services to Hallburton (who rewarded our troops by serving them spoiled and rotten food), and much worse. If it were in my power, I would put the entire Pentagon crowd on trial and send many of them to prison. I'll settle for their mass firing and heaping blame and shame on them to the extent of wrecking their lives.

Posted by: MikeB | July 9, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley visited Capitol Hill just before Congress adjourned for the Fourth of July. Meetings with a half-dozen senior Republican senators were clearly intended to extinguish fires set by Sen. Richard Lugar's unexpected break from President Bush's Iraq policy. They failed.

Hadley called his expedition a "scouting trip," leading one senator to ask what he was seeking. It was not advice on how to escape from Iraq. Instead, Hadley appeared interested in how previous supporters of Bush's course had drifted away. In the process, though, he planted seeds of concern. Some senators were left with the impression that the White House still does not recognize the scope of the Iraq dilemma. Worse yet, they see the president running out the clock until April, when a depleted U.S. military can be blamed for the fiasco.

The tone set by Hadley signaled that the White House did not understand that Lugar, in his fateful speech on the Senate floor the night of June 25, was sending a distress signal to Bush that a change in policy can be instituted only by the president and that it is imperative he act now. Hadley was told that it is not too late to go back to the Iraq Study Group's 79 recommendations, neglected since their release in December.

Always deferential, Hadley took copious notes. But he did more than listen. Based on what Hadley said, one senator concluded that "they just do not recognize the depth of the difficulty they are in." That difficulty entails running out of troops in nine months.

Hadley increased latent fears of the U.S. military being made the fall guy -- a concern shared by many retired and some active senior officers, including a current infantry division commander.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Reid and Webb opened the debate today with discussion of military readiness:

"The war is headed in a dangerous direction, and Americans are united in the belief that we cannot wait until the Administration's September report before we change course in Iraq," Reid said. "Attacks on U.S. forces are up, Iraqi political leaders are frozen in a dangerous stalemate and a change at every front is required if we are to succeed. We cannot ask our military to continue to fight without a strategy for success, and we certainly cannot ask them to fight before they are ready to do so."

"Now in the fifth year of ground operations in Iraq, this deck of cards has come crashing down, and it's landing heavily on the backs of soldiers and Marines who have been deployed again and again while the rest of the country sits back and debates Iraq as an intellectual or emotional exercise," Webb said.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Bloomberg notes, "Four thousand U.S. service members have died in U.S. President George W. Bush's 'war on terror' in Iraq and Afghanistan 5 1/2 years after American forces ousted the Taliban in December 2001." AP adds, "All told, Congress has appropriated $610 billion in war-related money since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror assaults, roughly the same as the war in Vietnam. Iraq alone has cost $450 billion." The wars cost approximately $12 billion a month, according to a new Congressional Research Service report.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

So CC gets inside info from the RNC? What a surprise.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Where all the brave gop chickenhawks?

'Army recruiting slides again

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Army in June missed its monthly recruiting goal for active duty troops for the second month in a row, falling short by about 1,000, Pentagon officials said Monday.

The shortfall comes at a critical time for the Army as it heads into the fruitful summer recruiting months and as the service continues to be stretched thin as it's used as the primary fighting force in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army officials said that recruiters for the active duty Army missed the June goal of 8,400 by about 1,000 recruits.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company