Archive for October, 2006

You just can’t do better than that folks. Political junkies like me know that Pat Toomey is a conservative’s conservative. He’s the President and CEO of the Club for Growth, too. Those are pretty impeccable credentials. Now he’s endorsing Diana Irey. Here’s Toomey’s statement officially endorsing Diana Irey:

“I am very impressed. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, when Diana Irey wins this race in nine days, it’s a ‘two-fer’, we get two wins, because on the one hand, we get to put into permanent retirement a liberal, tax-and-spend politician. And that would be enough, in my book. But in addition to that, we get something else. I am convinced that we will have a new person in the U.S. House of Representatives, a new member of the Republican Conference, who will help bring the Party back to its commitment to the core ideas and values and principles that gave us a majority in the first place, the ideas that swept Ronald Reagan into office, that gave us majorities in 1994, and the ideas that unite us in this room, the reason we joined the Republican Party, because we believe in something.
“We believe in a set of ideas. We believe that the power of government should be limited, that freedom of the individual should be expanded, we believe in a free enterprise system, and lower spending and lower taxes, and we think that people know how to spend their own money much better than any government politician or bureaucrat ever will.
“We believe in the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of human life, and we believe in the traditional social and cultural values around which this great nation was built, and we believe in defending our nation, and staying in, even when the going gets tough, and defending our nation and sovereignty against any threats.
“Those are the ideas, and the principles, and the values that the Republican Party stands for when it’s at its best. And unfortunately, in some instances, some Republicans have wandered away from those principles, and I will tell you, it’s those Republicans who are in the most danger in a week and half, and we have an opportunity to hold onto the House, and to bring the Republican Party back to its roots, if we send Diana Irey to become a part of that.
“When I consider the extension of the Bush tax cuts, that gave us a very strong economic recovery; when I consider how very, very frightening and dangerous the threat that we face from the Islamic fascist terrorists; when I consider how important and how challenging these times are; and when I hear what Jack Murtha is saying, and when I see what he is supporting, and when I know, as I do, having served in the U.S. House, I can tell you, what’s on Jack Murtha’s mind right now is, how does he placate and satisfy a constituency that doesn’t live in the 12th District of Pennsylvania?
“Jack Murtha’s worried a lot about how the Charlie Rangels, and the Nancy Pelosis, and the John Conyers of the world, the most radical liberal Democrats in the entire House, he’s worried a lot about what they think of Jack Murtha, because he wants to run for Majority Leader when he THINKS the Democrats take control of the House.
“Let me tell you, that creates an enormous disconnect, not that there isn’t one already, but it aggravates and accentuates a huge disconnect between serving the constituents of southwestern Pennsylvania and placating the most radical liberals in America, from New York and San Francisco and the rest.
“This is why it’s so important that you do everything you can. I’m so glad you’re here today, and everything you can do for Diana’s campaign, the contributions you make, the yard signs you put up, the phone calls, the door-to-door work, everything that you do comes together in these last few days.
“She has done a terrific job. She’s got a terrific media plan that’s going to carry her through Election Day.
“And now it’s up to all of us, to do everything we can on the ground, to make sure that the next Congressperson from the 12th District represents the values of the 12th District, and not the values of San Francisco. Please join me in welcoming the next Congressperson from the 12th District, Diana Irey!”

I’d envy PA-12’s conservatives ‘options’ this November if I hadn’t been able to vote for Michele Bachmann, Diana Irey’s ideological ‘twin sister’. When the dust settles next Tuesday, liberals will have to contend with the ‘Dynamic Duo’ of Bachmann-Irey.

I definitely agreed with Mr. Toomey when he said this:

“…when Diana Irey wins this race in nine days, it’s a ‘two-fer’, we get two wins, because on the one hand, we get to put into permanent retirement a liberal, tax-and-spend politician. And that would be enough, in my book. But in addition to that, we get something else. I am convinced that we will have a new person in the U.S. House of Representatives, a new member of the Republican Conference, who will help bring the Party back to its commitment to the core ideas and values and principles that gave us a majority in the first place, the ideas that swept Ronald Reagan into office, that gave us majorities in 1994, and the ideas that unite us in this room, the reason we joined the Republican Party, because we believe in something.”

We do indeed get an old-fashioned Reaganesque conservative in Diana Irey. (Ditto with Michele Bachmann.) Getting rid of a looney lefty liberal like Murtha, who ‘earned’ Code Pink’s Man of the Year Award, is just icing on the cake.

Technorati: Election 2006, Diana Irey, Club For Growth, Murtha, Code Pink

Cross-posted at Murtha Must Go

I just deleted the first comment since LFR left the blogger system. Why? Because the commenter dropped the F-bomb & used another four-letter word in his comment. I don’t delete comments that dispute my views but I’ll guarantee that I’ll delete any comments that use swear words.

If we’ve learned anything about mothers who’ve lost children in Iraq, it’s that they’ve attained a higher moral authority, a la Cindy Sheehan. WCVB-TV, ABC’s station in Boston, is reporting of such a mother. Her advice to Kerry: “Learn a little bit about what our men and women in the military are actually made up of.” Here’s the full quote:

“In addition to apologizing, he needs to learn a little bit about what our men and women in the military are actually made up of,” Booth said. “We don’t want to send that kind of signal, that you only go into the military if you are not good at anything.”

Mrs. Booth is exactly right, though I think there’s little chance that the Boston Snob will do no such thing. To do that would be admitting that he’s clueless about foreign policy. History will show that Sen. Kerry was on the wrong side of most of the major foreign policy issues of his time in office. Why change that record now? It’s too late to salvage a legacy from his record.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has more on this story. Be sure to check their coverage out.

Technorati: John Kerry, Military

If there’s a dominant theme to this Prager column, that title is it.

One repeatedly hears that some conservatives and Republicans will either vote Democrat or not vote at all out of anger at the Republican Party. According to these Republican holdouts, the Republicans have governed as Democrats-lite by greatly increasing government spending and doing little about illegal immigration. Accordingly, it is better to have liberal government under liberals than liberal government under Republicans, and the Republicans need to be taught a lesson so that in the future they will govern as authentic Republicans.
Conservatives should file this thinking under the heading “Cathartic,” but not under “Smart.”

Let’s face facts. Conservatives aren’t happy this election. They’re feeling surly right now. Who can blame us, right? Here’s a suggestion: Bottle that frustration. Save it for the next primary when it’s R vs. R, not R vs. D. Unleash that frustration when the stakes aren’t Justice O’Connor vs. Justice Alito.

Compared to you and your conservative principles, real-life Republicans are indeed a failure. But compared to real-life Democrats, they are almost giants.

Repeat those seventeen words so often that they become your mantra. Repeat after me: “Real-life Republicans are indeed a failure. But compared to real-life Democrats, they are almost giants.”

Let’s examine the wisdom of teaching RINO’s a lesson right now vs. teaching them a lesson in the primaries. When do conservatives have the most to gain with the smallest risk? Isn’t it when we’re letting word out that we’re fixing on whacking a Republican that’s acting too much like a Democrat? If the RINO doesn’t get religion in a hurry, we replace him in a primary. If he gets religion, then we’ve gotten what we’ve wanted without risking anything.

I prefer acting in win-win situations. That’s what unleashing our frustrations during primary season is.

Technorati: Election 2006, RINO, Primaries

Cross-posted at California Conservative

That’s what JF Kerry appears to have done with this statement. As if he hadn’t already done enough damage.

“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they’re crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.

Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq.”

“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they’re crazy.

Did Kerry really think that we wouldn’t recall this testimony:

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Why would we think that someone who testified to such things wouldn’t denigrate our troops today? Sen. Kerry’s disgraceful statements shouldn’t be forgotten when voters enter the voting booth a next Tuesday. They should motivate conservatives nationwide.

Conservatives know that it’s the party of Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton that want us to slowly lose this war. Of course, they don’t use those words, instead using phrases like slowly draw down our troop levels and tell Iraqis they need to secure their own country.

Update: Here’s the headline to an ABC News article:

Kerry’s November Gift to Republicans?

Then there’s this AMVETS statement:

“For the Senator to suggest that today’s United States military is made up of uneducated men and women who didn’t ‘study hard’ or ‘make an effort to be smart’ is ridiculous and appalling,” AMVETS National Commander Thomas C. McGriff said Tuesday. “The men and women in uniform today make up the most advanced, highly-educated force ever seen. To suggest otherwise is a slap in the face to every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine and Coast Guardsman who has spent countless hours working to better him or herself. This is also an insult to every person and organization who has worked tirelessly to provide our troops and their families with education benefits.

“Senator Kerry should retract his remarks and apologize immediately,” McGriff said after listening to comments made by Senator Kerry at a political rally in Pasadena, Calif., Monday. “It is especially outrageous coming from a member of the U.S. Senate.”

Kerry’s statements touched something visceral. This isn’t something that’ll disappear anytime soon.

Technorati: Election 2006, John Kerry, John McCain, President Bush

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Sunday night, I posted this about the Kennedy-Klobuchar debate. I titled it “Kennedy Clobbers Klobuchar in Tonight’s Debate”, citing numerous examples of how Rep. Kennedy exposed Klobuchar’s nicely worded lines as focus-grouped mindless meanderings. Compare my debate analysis with the Strib’s coverage and the PiPress’s clueless coverage. Let’s start with the Strib’s coverage:

Tensions increased when the candidates questioned each other. Kennedy asked Klobuchar why she should be trusted when she won’t debate Iraq, when her office was reprimanded for failing to turn over public crime data to a Republican Party committee, and her campaign faces a federal investigation because of how it obtained an unaired Kennedy ad. Klobuchar said that when she found out someone on her staff had seen the ad, she reported it immediately. “That is more than I can say about this Congress when they found out somebody was soliciting pages,” she said.

Waiting 4 days is reporting it immediately in Ms. Klobuchar’s world? I guess it iscompared to the amount of time that it’s taken her to produce the crime statistics that the NRSC requested. You’d think that a law enforcement officer could do better than that, wouldn’t you? Should we view Ms. Klobuchar as an enforcement officer or a slippery politician? Let’s let the facts speak for themselves.

It’s interesting that Ms. Klobuchar thinks it’s ok to wait 4 days before reporting a federal crime in her office but then chastises Republicans for waiting 4 whole hours before running Mark Foley out of office. Isn’t it amazing that the Agenda Media didn’t mention that? Isn’t it amazing that they didn’t mention the fact that liberals groups had shopped the Foley information around for months?

Here’s a taste of the PiPress’s coverage:

Republican Mark Kennedy, a six-term member of the U.S. House, repeatedly hit Democrat Amy Klobuchar, the Hennepin County Attorney, with all he had, questioning her on how she’s managed her campaign, the war in Iraq, criminal justice in Minneapolis and her plan for prescription drugs. Klobuchar swiftly countered the blows from the opponent she has fought for more than a year. “Congressman Kennedy, so many attacks, so little time,” Klobuchar retorted at one point. She said many of his claims were patent distortions.

It’s obvious that she’s got an endless supply of cute little jabs but that she’s short on substance. Rep. Kennedy also clobbered Ms. Klobuchar on her perscription drug plan, noting that the dirty little secret of her plan would lead to rationing.

Ms. Klobuchar: so many statements, so little substance.

Kennedy also clobbered Ms. Klobuchar by asking why “Minneapolis’ violent crime rate” is “twice that of New York City”?

Sidenote: Isn’t it amazing that the PiPress’s gatekeepers didn’t catch it that Mr. Kennedy isn’t a 6 term congressman?

“Your campaign is involved in an FBI investigation as it relates to a stolen TV ad. If you won’t give Minnesota voters straight answers on these issues, why should they trust you in the U.S. Senate?” Kennedy asked Klobuchar. Klobuchar said she didn’t drag her feet when she found out about the purloined ad. “I immediately reported it to authorities.”

It’s worrisome at minimum that Klobuchar is ducking this issue. She’s a law enforcement officer. With all that’s expected of law enforcement officers, we should expect more of Ms. Klobuchar. I’d hate to think that she’s that big a procrastinator.

Technorati: Election 2006, Amy Klobuchar, Mark Kennedy

Simply put, that’s how I see it. No, I didn’t take notes but what I saw was a candidate that had perfectly rehearsed her mindless lines vs. a candidate with a clue.

One of Ms. Klobuchar’s rehearsed lines was “asking tough questions and holding this administration accountable.” Mark clobbered her by asking where the accountability is for Minneapolis crime rates being higher than NYC. He also asked where the accountability is in not turning over public documents about Minneapolis crime statistics. The net effect was to say “Amy believes in accountability for others, not for herself.” I’d doubt that that will play well with voters.

When Ms. Klobuchar said that “this administration has turned $250 billion surpluses into $250 billion deficits”, you could see Mark was gonna clobber that one like Justin Morneau jumps on a hanging breaking pitch down the heart of the plate. He didn’t disappoint, saying “What my opponent doesn’t take into account is telling you that it wasn’t the President’s tax cuts that gave us this deficit. It was the effect that 9/11 had on our economy.” He then listed corporate scandals, paying for the war on terror and paying for Katrina as other reasons for the deficits.

Mark also turned the tables on Ms. Klobuchar when she asked how we would pay for Bush’s tax cuts, saying that that’s a major philosophical difference between himself and Ms. Klobuchar. Mark said that Democrats think of tax cuts as a cost to the government while Republicans simply look at them as letting people keep more of the money that they earn.

Mark came across well in answering the Iraq questions too. He said that he didn’t always tell people what they wanted to hear because leadership sometimes means telling people the truth, not what they wanted to hear. He closed one answer strong by saying that Iraq policy should be seen through how this would affect Iran’s power in the region.

While Ms. Klobuchar talks about supporting our troops by thinking of 2007 as a time of transition, she doesn’t talk about winning. Why fight if our goal isn’t winning? What good are “times of transition” if they aren’t predicated on making us safer?

As I’ve told you all along, Ms. Klobuchar is the candidate with the nicely rehearsed empty-sounding soundbites. Mark Kennedy is the candidate with a clue. Ms. Klobuchar embarassed herself by sticking to a script even after Mark Kennedy ridiculed her for the mindlessness of her scripted answers.

On the question of judges, Ms. Klobuchar said that “I would look at the judge’s qualifications as a whole. I will look at each judge on an individual basis.” Does anyone believe that, especially considering how much campaign cash she’s gotten from NARAL and EMILY’S List?

By comparison, Mark said that he’d base his decision on ethics, competence and their adherence to the Constitution. I loved his line about justices being there to “call balls and strikes, not to take swings at the pitches.”

One last thing about tonight. Ms. Klobuchar tried playing the ‘he’s offering nothing but attacks’ card tonight. Mark Kennedy was undetered in exposing Ms. Klobuchar for the mindless politician she is.

Follow this link to view the MNGOP fact sheet on tonight’s debate.

Technorati: Election 2006, Supreme Court, Illegal Immigration, Taxes, Accountability

Simply put, Sen. Schumer has to say outrageous crap like that even though he knows it isn’t true. Why am I confident that he’s lying? Simple. Momentum has shifted onto the GOP’s sideline. BIGTIME. Menendez is faltering as Kean presses him on the attack. Ford’s ‘Memphis Meltdown’ revealed him to be a spoiled brat with a temper. McCaskill’s hopes died when the Democratic voter fraud scheme was uncovered.

That’s before we get to Michigan’s Mike Bouchard ridiculing Dangerously Incompetent Debbie Stabenow or Michael Steele beating Bland Ben Cardin like a drum.

Ford even had the audacity to tell FNS’s Chris Wallace this:

One of the reasons we believe and feel so confident about our chances here — and don’t get me wrong, we can’t let up these last 10 days — we feel confident because you can feel and sense the momentum all across the state. The sizes of our crows, wherever we may go — our internal numbers show a small lead, and although there’s a fund- raising disadvantage in other parts of the country, we’ve been very blessed here.

“We feel the momentum”??? After his series of meltdowns, starting with the Memphis Meltdown, then continuing with him calling Australia a nuclear threat to his outrageous statement that Republicans fear the Lord; Democrats fear AND love the Lord, it’s amazing that he’s within low double digits of winning.

The bottom line on Sen. Schumer is that he’s now recruited candidates that have positioned the Democratic Party for losing seats in the Senate.

The only way that Sen. Schumer should see reason for optimism with the Senate is through rose colored glasses or if he’s been on a Ted Kennedyesque bender.

Technorati: Election 2006, Schumer, Memphis Meltdown, Harold Ford, Michael Steele, Tom Kean

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Powerline has an interesting post about what Tradesports is ‘predicting’ about this year’s election. To be honest, I was more interested in what they said about various individual races than about anything else. Here’s what I’m refering to:

What about individual races? From the perspective of the GOP candidate, I’ll divide them into Favorites, Underdogs and Long Shots. As of this moment, here’s what the money says (per the last traded futures contract) in the Senate races that have attracted most attention (ours and others’):

Favorites:
George Allen, Virginia (72)
Bob Corker, Tennessee (65)
Jim Talent, Missouri (59)
Underdogs:
Tom Kean, New Jersey (37)
Michael Steele, Maryland (30)
Conrad Burns, Montana (25)
Long Shots
Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania (12.7)
Mike DeWine, Ohio (8.5)
Mark Kennedy, Minnesota (7)

The Tradesports betting line also places our favorite governor, Minnesota’s extremely successful Tim Pawlenty, in my Underdog category (33), trailing Democratic challenger Mike Hatch. It is a line that indicates to me how strongly the headwinds are blowing against Republicans this year.

I’ll respectfully disagree with Scott’s interpretation of what this is saying, especially with regards to Gov. Pawlenty. To me, this isn’t an indication of “how strongly the headwinds are blowing against Republicans this year.” It says more about how many people have bought into the Agenda Media’s storyline.

Based on real events on the ground, it’s impossible for me to put Michael Steele in the underdog role. He’s on his way to victory. PERIOD. Dean Barnett’s saying that Steele mopped the floor with Ben Cardin’s backside on MTP this morning, only slipping up on the Roe v. Wade question.

Putting Gov. Pawlenty in the underdog category is another joke. Hatch imploded when he ran the ad about illegal aliens in the trailer park. The RPM has jumped all over that ad. They’ve been going after Hatch on this for several days now yet Tradesports doesn’t reflect that implosion. At this rate, they won’t catch onto this trend until after the votes are counted.

Based on what Chairman Mehlman told us last week, there’s alot of positive activity happening in Pennsylvania. Little Bobbie Casey’s only two chances are (a) if the Rendell election fraud campaign manufactures enough votes for Casey and (b) if Casey goes into seclusion until his acceptance speech.

As I’ve been telling friends, it’s one thing to hide a candidate’s weaknesses; its’ another to hide that candidate’s stupidity. Bob Casey’s stupidity has been on display for awhile now. A prime example of his stupidity is something that I noted here:

In the first of a two-day series of speeches on national security, Mr. Santorum said Mr. Casey fails to recognize the danger of a threat that encompasses both “Islamic fascism” and leaders of countries who are “fully committed to our destruction. From everything I see, my opponent, Mr. Casey, is unready, unqualified for the office that he seeks at a very critical time in our nation’s future,” Mr. Santorum said in a speech at PRL Industries, a metal-castings supplier that counts the military among its customers.
In an interview with The AP, Mr. Casey called Mr. Santorum’s charge a “ridiculous assertion,” citing his current job as state treasurer and eight years as auditor general. “I’ve been a statewide public official in Pennsylvania for a decade,” Mr. Casey said.

Little Bobbie Casey’s response isn’t exactly reassuring. Citing his time as a number-cruncher isn’t the way to tell voters about his foreign policy bona fides. Only an idiot who can’t think on his feet would try telling voters he’s qualified to vote on foreign policy issues because he’s a numbers-cruncher. This is just more proof that Casey is an intellectual lightweight.

This is the best Democrats could do? They would’ve been better off with anyone other that this idiot.

How they categorize Conrad Burns as an underdog is beyond me. He’s pulled into a dead heat with uberliberal Jon Tester. Coupling that with a strong GOP GOTV operation and momentum clearly on his side and I’d put Tester as having an uphill fight.

I would state that Mark Kennedy faces an uphill fight but he’s closing fast, characteristic of Mark’s campaigns, and he’s got Ms. Klobuchar stumbling all over herself on the issues of national security and Iraq. To rate him a long shot isn’t supported by facts on the ground.

At the end of the day, Tradesports’ ‘predictions’ will take a pounding. The people ‘voting’ in the ‘Tradesports primary’ are voting based on the information disseminated by the Agenda Media, not by facts on the ground.

Technorati: Election 2006, Tradesports, Agenda Media, Amy Klobuchar, Bob Casey, Jr

Cross-posted at California Conservative

I just saw St. Patty’s ad that accuses Michele Bachmann of wanting to raise taxes 23% on TV for the first time. I’ve viewed it on the internet before but I noticed something new this time. That something is a caption in fine print that says St. Cloud Voters Forum 9/18/06. That caption appears as the narrator says “Michele Bachmann wants to raise your taxes 23%.”

I knew St. Patty was lying through her teeth when she made that statement but this fine print caption cast it in a different light. I attended that voters forum as did King Banaian. Here’s King’s notes on the taxes discussion:

What’s your position on the Bush tax cuts? Make permanent or repeal?

Bi: Tax cut as foolish as a tax hike. The Bush tax cut helps created capital gains, doesn’t help as much as fair tax. Need fundamental reform of the tax code.
W; Proposed incentives for middle class tax cuts. Production is up, people making more are not doing better – people no better off than in 1949.
Ba: Repeal capital gains and estate tax. Fair tax means every purchase you make you pay additional 23¢ per dollar.

Here’s what I said:

Q4. Bush tax cuts:

Binkowski: Making Bush tax cuts permanent is as insane as making tax increases permanent. Odd answer. He’s trying to triangulate too much. Advocates making the Fair Tax the law of the land and abolishing the IRS.
Wetterling: Wouldn’t make tax cuts permanent but she would repeal tax cuts on anyone making $337,000/yr. Touted her middle class tax cut plan. Either way, it’s still a tax increase.
Sen. Bachmann: would make Bush tax cuts permanent, eliminate the estate tax & the AMT, then saying that the economy is in great shape, citing the fact that not raising the state tax is the reason for Minnesota creating 10% of all new U.S. jobs in the past 2 months. Sen. Bachmann also cited Minnesota 3.7% unemployment rate. Very, upbeat positive answer, though the Wetterling crowd booed her saying she’d make Bush tax cuts permanent.

It’s perfectly obvious that King and I didn’t hear Sen. Bachmann advocate increasing taxes 23%. Considering King’s attention to tax policy, coupled with his integrity, isn’t it obvious that Wetterling’s ad is a bald-face lie?

I also saw a Klobuchar ad that talked about a wide range of issues, then mentions Iraq as an afterthought at the end. On Iraq, Klobuchar asks “don’t our brave forces fighting in Iraq deserve” to come home within a reasonable timeframe?

The emphatic answer to that is “NO!!!” Let’s turn that question around to include the consequences of “bringing our brave troops home” within a reasonable timeframe. If we leave before Iraqi troops can defend themselves from Iranian-funded militias, like Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia, aren’t we really saying that we’re ok with an Iranian puppet regime in Iraq?

• Ms. Klobuchar, why do you want to bring the troops home before we achieve victory?
• Ms. Klobuchar, isn’t winning in Iraq the only consideration in determining U.S. troop levels?
• Ms. Klobuchar, can’t you be a bit more specific in telling us what “a reasonable timetable” for withdrawal is?
• What specific benchmarks would trigger U.S. troop withdrawals?

Ms. Klobuchar doesn’t want to answer those questions because she hasn’t thought through the consequences. She doesn’t want Minnesotans to know that her line about “Our brave troops deserve to be brought home in a reasonable timetable” is a meaningless focus-grouped line.

The dirty little secret that’s getting exposed is that Ms. Klobuchar’s answers are all provided by Chuck Schumer because Ms. Klobuchar is Schumer’s Shill. She’s shown no ability to think on her feet or to explain her policies. That’s because they aren’t her policies in any real sense. They’re the DNC’s and the DSCC’s ‘policies’. That’s if you can consider them serious policies.

Technorati: Election 2006, Patty Wetterling, Amy Klobuchar