Let's Just Say It Like It Is. . . . . .Great Progress In Iraq Means Less Votes For Democrats ... . Agree ?

Question

Let's quit pus$y footing around here . If great progress occurs in Iraq , then that spells big trouble for the Democratic Party . I watch Liberal news , I see liberal analysts and politicians admit it all the time . But people on here act as if this is some kind of 'talking point' generated by Fox or Rush !! Bull .

Facts are facts . The 'surge' is going well and hopefully will get even better . And if it does , the Dems will suffer greatly in the 2008 elections .

Agree ?
Or do you think that success in Iraq will help the Democratic Party ? (be prepared to really back-up that notion )

Map - Oh Great Job of providing facts or even fact based opinions . NOT !!

Answer 1

Well, the democrats have invested pretty heavily in defeat. So I understand your premise. But I think you are vastly underestimating their sheer political shamelessness.

Here, let me see if I can come up with some democratic talking points if we see victory in Iraq:

"America was only victorious because the brave and patriotic anti-war people kept up the pressure on the White House."

"America was only victorious because the brave and patriotic anti-war people let the Iraqi government know that they had to step up."

"The terrorists have quit because they are afraid of the new democratic leadership that is going to take over in 2008."

Believe me, if we were to loose it would be Bush's fault. If we win the democrats will find a way to take credit.

.

Answer 2

I guess this also depends on whether people base their consideration of party candidates on a single issue such as the 'success in Iraq' rather than the big picture of the entire time in Iraq, the situation at home as soldiers return and DOD personal that had to go because there were not enough military trained in certain areas. I'm not a 'party' person, I pick the person I feel will best provide leadership to the country. I'm not impressed with anyone at this point, it is too early in the 'game'.

Interesting article in the Washington Post concerning the lack of care provided to a DOD employee hit while riding in a Humvee in Iraq as a gunman. I blame all of Congress and the President - not just a party for this type of injustice.

'Service Civilians and the Wounds of War
Many Fill Vital Roles in Iraq, but Medical Care Can Be Spotty'

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; Page A01

Answer 3

I don't know about 'denial' - since it's hard to get any clear picture of what's really going on in Iraq - but, certainly, when things go badly (or are at least percieved to be going badly) in Iraq it means more votes for democrats, while 'victor' might salvage the fortunes of the republicans (don't count on it, Bush I was victorious in Iraq and lost his bid for re-election). The priority of each party does seem to be holding onto or expanding thier power in the federal government. Rather than try to figure out what's in the best interest of America, each party tries to spin the perception of events to make it look like thier agenda is what's best for America.

Answer 4

They are getting a bit out of sorts oh wise one. They did not hear the phrase that pays from Gordon Brown. Fewer deaths than expected this month. More arms falling into our posession. Brookings Institute stated that the war could be won yesterday in the NYT. Maliki hates our Generals because the Shia Militia is being taken out. Petraeus even has an End Game but it will be in 2009. The Surge is due to end in the Spring of 2008.

Answer 5

The Democrats have displayed their disdain for the military and proven that they do NOT have the staying power when times are tough. Their lust for political power has overwhelmed them and it is clear to everyone that they are a shallow amoral group of people.
Unfortunately, with Republicans around like Ted Stevens, the GOP will take another hit next year. When will they figure out that the American people do not want open borders, illegal aliens, crooked politicians and arrogance from their leaders.
The Democrats are presently wasting a wonderful opportunity to govern. If they had followed up on their claims to build an ethical bipartisan Congress, they would have cemented control for many years to come. Instead, the party is populated with short sighted opportunists and will probably not be able to elect their candidate next year.

Answer 6

I don't believe that success in Iraq would help the Democrats but I don't see anyway success in Iraq would be achieved quickly enough to have any effect on the upcoming election. I also don't see anyway way the Republicans can get around how horribly managed the war was. Not to mention the fact that a majority of the public believes we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place. That Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. That we created a terrorist state there etc etc.. Its now about Bush cleaning up a mess he made that he didn't have to in alot of peoples eyes. I think Bush fatigue will be playing a much bigger role in the upcoming election.
Besides its noting I didn't figure would happen anyway. More troops there equals greater security. Thats not to hard to figure out. To me it points out how badly Bush planned this thing out from the beggining. Not listening to the Generals. Not having enough troops in there to do the job or the proper equipment. I think if someone like say John McCain had been president Iraq would have been a much different story.

Answer 7

The last election, we gained a lot of power not just because of Iraq (though it was a large part), but rather because of Bush's failures. If Iraq goes well (lets hope it does.. it's time for some peace there) there is still the fact that it took him 4 years to do what he should have done from the start. And there are plenty of other failures to look at. Democrats would get to bring the troops home and Republicans would get to clean up the Presidents mess. It wouldn't, overall, hurt the votes for Democrat by that much... the frustration with the President runs deeper than just Iraq.. and it is that frustration with him that is causing so many to vote Democrat... in light of this. the best way for the Republicans to get votes is to distance themselves just enough from the President so as to not lose his supporters while at the same time regaining the trust of those who are leaving his side... that would be a hard line to walk.. but would be a powerful one none the less.

Answer 8

I would agree the democrats have invested too much effort in saying we failed in Iraq.

If it does turn around the polls will switch just as fast.

How are they going to be portrait in the election as those who wanted America to lose in Iraq.

No amount of spin is going to save Obama or Hillary.

The ranking democrat in the House already admitted it would be bad for the democrats if things do go well in Iraq.

You bet against the military is never a good thing.

Answer 9

Well earnie
I am a Democrat and I believe that success in Iraq is good for all concerned parties.
This is not about getting votes, but saving lives.
But if it means less votes, so be it.
I believe the "surge" is only a small part of a much bigger picture.
And how do you measure success?
The Iraqi Parliament is not up to the task of self governance. Hell, a good deal of the members rarely show up for work, some only to collect their pay. And they just took a month off, even though a progress report is due to congress in Sept.
Not to mention the poor relationship between the Turks and the Kurds.
Most members of Iraqi security work for the govt. during the day, but are generally loyal to their local militia the rest of the time.
This is a complex issue that you are trying to simplify.
Now why do you think this will greatly hurt the Democrats in 2008.
Do you think people want more of the same after 6 1/2 years of corruption, cronyism, and incompetency.
I don't think this will hurt the Democrat party very much, if at all.

Answer 10

Well, friend, that would be "fewer" votes; but otherwise I agree! Defeat-o-crats have been trying to make Iraq another Vietnam since at least the Democrat National Convention when John F(in') Kerry(who by the way, served in Vietnam) arrived in a Swift-boat in Boston Harbor. I guess he was more of a "conquering hero" there than he *really* was in 'nam!