First, the Democrats in Congress have secret information not available to us peons, that indicates the course the GOP has set in Iraq, specifically, and the War On Terror in general is the correct course of action. And the Democrats are just playing lip service to "opposing" it to appease their base..

This is believable, in part, because I don't think that ANY PARTY could be this politically inept and incompetent.

The second theory is that the Democratic Party is "throwing the game" so to give the GOP enough rope to hang themselves.. But that could very well backfire. As we saw with the Petraeus/Surge debacle (debacle for the Dems, that is) the GOP might just take that rope and make dozens and dozens of lifelines...

So, take your pick... I, for one, don't believe that things are as they appear. Because no matter how you slice it or what part of the political spectrum you are looking at things from, the Dems are getting their asses kicked all over DC.. It almost makes you think that the Dems are going for the sympathy/victim vote..

But, invoking Occams Razor brings us to this explanation. The very nature of the Democratic Party platform is NOT conducive to consensus.. Liberal ideals celebrate and encourage diversity. Non conformity is the rule, rather than the exception. Therefore, the Democrats cannot stay on a single message because it is not in their nature (as Democrats) to HAVE a "single" message..

The downside for them is that, in today's political arena, it is important, no.. VITAL... to have a single message that you can rally the people behind. Our society has become to "BRAND" conscious that we need "talking points"... We, as a society, have to have things scaled down to sizable and understandable chunks because, if we try to understand the enormity of the "big picture", we just get depressed..

Sadly for the Democratic Party, the GOP functions as a single "military" unit. Cohesive, dedicated and uniform. The Democratic Party functions as a bunch of little bureaucracies, each other fighting with each other one over the validity of their little fiefdom. Or, a more apt analogy would be that the Democratic Party is a bunch of different religions trying to rally under a single banner..

And, ultimately, they will fail. Because, to unite under a single banner, the Democratic Party would have to become the very anti-thesis of what makes them the Democratic Party..

I think we're going to see in 2008 that the GOP will regain control of Congress and retain the White House. Simply because, in time of war, this country NEEDS the type of leadership that (it appears) only the GOP can provide..

So, take your pick... Conspiracy theories all the way thru the basic and inherent "flaw" in the psy-makeup of the Democratic Party..

Michale......

I'm not going to answer all your posts point-by-point. Hey, it was unfettered optimism on my part to write the column, and the Dems lost, so there's not a lot more to say about it. I actually don't know the answer to whether it was a blanket "all troops in combat" or whether it said "all troops currently serving in Iraq and Iran."

But your last point, I fully agree with. Dems aren't great on PR. Maybe that's Reid and Pelosi's fault, I don't know. I will say (in tomorrow's column as well) that they were doing a heck of a lot better job of it last weekend on the Sunday shows than the previous week. They had John Kerry with John McCain on Meet The Press, which was forcefully argued on both sides (seriously, go see a transcript, it was one of the more intelligent debates on basic positions on Iraq and the Big Picture that I've heard yet -- from both sides). They had Carl Levin on Face the Nation, and they had Joe Biden on Fox News Sunday. I didn't catch ABC or any of the cable shows, but from the sampling I saw, I was much more impressed than the previous week. Which raises my hopes for this week a bit.

But I'm curious, you say "I have my own theories" -- so what are they? Why DO you think the Dems are so weak on basic PR and "staying on message"??

-CW

But have ya'all noticed something weird??

Despite the majority that the Democrats enjoy in both the House and the Senate and despite the overwhelming majority of Americans who (allegedly) are against the Iraq War in particular and the GOP in general.....

Despite all this, the Democrats are constantly on the defensive. The Democratic Party just cannot seem to be able to muster the courage and fortitude to actually make a difference when it comes to the PR campaign.. No matter how badly the GOP screws up, the Democratic Party always looks worse...

And the Left cannot blame it on the evil maniacal and diabolical political genius of Karl Rove either..

So, the only thing left to ponder is.... WHY???

Why can't the Democrats mount a single PR blitz that will put them on top where, ostensibly, the Majority Party ought to be??

I have my own theories....

What's ya'alls???

Michale.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297387,00.html

Some excerpts:
==================================================
Failure of the bill was a sound defeat for Democrats, who have been unable to pass significant anti-war legislation by a veto-proof majority since taking control of Congress in January. Webb's measure was seen as having the best chance at attracting the 60 votes needed to pass because of its pro-military premise.

But momentum behind the bill stalled Wednesday after Sen. John Warner, R-Va., announced he decided the consequences would be disastrous. Warner, a former longtime chairman of the Armed Services Committee, had voted in favor of the measure in July but said he changed his mind after talking to senior military officials.

Without more Republican support, Democrats are unlikely to pass other war-related measures.
================================================

As I said, the bill is unconstitutional as written...

Michale.....

A> The bias of the Poll Takers

and

2> That polls are useless

A perfect case in point..

According to the latest Zogby Poll, President Bush's approval rating is almost THREE TIMES that of the Democrat Controlled Congress...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070919/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc

What makes this so ironic is that those of the Left who swear by polls will, of course, discount this poll because it doesn't help them in their hysterical Bush bashing..

That's why I say that Polls are only good to show the biases of those who swear by them. Or in this case, lack thereof...

Michale.....

>I strongly urge anyone who lives in
>these four states (who also wants to
>end the Iraq war)

I would think that everyone WANTS to "end the Iraq war"..

The only point of contention is HOW we want to end it.

Do we want to end it (as the Democrats do) with the US in GREATER danger and where all that have died, have died for nothing??

Or do we want to end it with the US being SAFER and more secure and Iraq in the hands of a government that can provide security and stability to Iraq and to the Middle East?

THAT is the point of contention..

It's not that people don't want to end the war. Both the GOP and the Dems want to END the war...

It's just that the GOP wants to END the war by winning...

The Dems want to end the war by losing..

Michale.....

I see the GOP against ILLEGAL immigrants.. That's a distinction that the Left always seem to overlook.. Intentionally?? Maybe..

Again, I refer to one of the most hilarious quotes in the immigration mess. Of course, it was made by a Democrat..

"By and large, illegal immigrants obey the law..."

Say what!!???

That's like saying, "By and large, murderers don't hurt people."

As to your misreading of the Constitution..

"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces…."

This has, historically, been accepted as to mean that the US Congress has the authority to make the laws and the regulations that govern the Armed Forces in general.

It is NOT applicable in the sense that it allows Congress to take over tactical and strategic decisions.

In essence, your interpretation would have Congress running our Armed Forces.. Can you imagine how that would completely gut our military ability??

I have said it before and I will say it again. You simply CANNOT prosecute a war by committee..

If I read the Webb Amendment correctly, it is trying to push thru this military relief for this particular action only. And that is NOT within the purview of Congress. It simply is not, no matter how the Left wishes it were..

Now, if the Webb Amendment would actually be couched in the form of changing the entire directives of the US Armed Forces and not be IRAQ specific, then it MIGHT be legal..

But, as it stands, it's a directive on Iraq. It's not part of the "administration or regulation" of the US Armed Forces and is therefore not within the purview of the US Congress...

Michale.....