drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,

Where Does The Economist Get Their Blunts....

Because these Dudes Are So Way Over Quota on their
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
That we, like, dude, want to be that seriously Chronic...
FOUR years ago, as American troops rolled across Iraq, the Republican Party was on a roll too. Republicans not only controlled the whole of Washington (seven of the nine Supreme Court justices had been appointed by Republican presidents). They controlled the majority of governorships as well—including those of mega-states such as Florida and New York—and they were winning the war of ideas, thanks to a division of conservative think-tanks.
The war has eviscerated the administration's reputation for competence—and with it the idea that the Republicans have an inherent advantage as the “Daddy” party. An administration that once boasted about its clutch of CEOs will forever be remembered for phrases such as “slam dunk” (of WMD intelligence) and “Mission Accomplished”, or for disasters such as the failure to prepare Walter Reed and other military hospitals to deal with casualties. The same CBS News/New York Times poll found that only 28% of people approved of Mr Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq.
Mr Bush's mishandling of the war has damaged the Republican Party's two biggest advantages over the Democrats—its reputation for skilful foreign policy and for the unapologetic use of force. The likes of Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, George Bush senior and Brent Scowcroft clearly identified the Republicans with mastery of foreign policy. (Bob Woodward asked Mr Bush whether he had consulted his father before invading Iraq. The son replied that he had consulted a “higher father”.) By contrast, the peace wing of the Democratic Party clearly linked the Democrats with being soft on defence.

But the Iraq war has destroyed the Republicans' advantage of decades. The party is losing support even among the once solid armed services. Today only 46% of servicemen describe themselves as Republican, compared with 60% in 2004—and only 35% of them approve of the handling of the war. Voters are now much more willing to listen to the Democrats on war and peace. Barack Obama's statement in 2002—“I'm not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars”—is a perfect refrain for a resurgent party.

The Iraq war has also eroded the Republicans' advantage in the “war on terror”, not least because of Mr Bush's success in tying the two subjects together in the 2004 campaign.

[ cf Collateral damage
The Republican Party is among the war's victims

( emphasis Added to show How Stoned the Economist IS for being the Defeatist Cut And Runner Appeasers that they truly ARE!!!) ]
What if the Economist Had to "Just Say NO?" and like Follow like Britany Spears through ReHab to get past their little Anti-Christ Moment???

Ok, yeah, like there are like some folks who like do not Accept the Divinity Of Dubya, because, like they want to stab the troops in the Back Because they are God Hating America Bashers, but that doesn't mean that there are any real issues that could be considered in any way Under Positive.

I mean, what IS with them???

Where IS their Faith? Their Faith In the True Faith OF the divine Will of willingness????
Tags: religion, war

  • Who's Getting Who's Crazy On?

    Fox & MSNBC Reporters at Values Voters: Rude, Disruptive, Lazy - the folks at faith to action have another take on the values conference, where the…

  • The asymetric problem

    A friend of my recently raised the fear point - what happens when some stateless actor up and does a nuke strike on some american friendly space. { I…

  • Which family values?

    A man who had long been vocal in his opposition to abortion was shot to death Friday morning while staging an anti-abortion protest outside a…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.