You lost. Get over it. Move on.

This is only the beginning.

Interesting letter, I thought. Nowhere is there any mention of WINNING!

Raker is correct, though, this is only the beginning. But, it not new, we have seen it before. It will be more of the same same we saw for 40 years as the country slipped further and further into socialism and political correctness.

In an abvious effort to mislead, Schumer and Emmanual sent out an email just today declaring "A New Era." Looking over this "New Era" activites and conduct we've seen it all before.

I opined more at Right in a Left World: Democrats Declare “A New Era”

"Democrats want this war lost, and they want a Republican to take 100% of the responsibility for the loss."

How much loss are you trying to pin on the Democrats? At this point we are headed towards a disastrous result in Iraq, and it will be the result of the failures of both parties and the media.

I have seen no evidence as to how a "surge" will help the situation. Even McCain was reluctant to say whether it would secure the situation.

By defining "victory" and "defeat" in such narrow terms, you are restricting reasoned debate, prolonging the problem, and setting yourself up for colossal disappointment in 2 years when Iraq is still a mess and when we should have gotten out years earlier.

Gar Wood

Mark,

I mostly agree with your analysis of why the Republicans lost except I would add a #5 bullet point in the list of major contributing factors. That would be the thorny issue of illegal "immigration," as the flip side to the same coin of President Bush's curious path towards fulfilling his oath to "...protect and defend... the Constitution of the United States against all enemies... foreign and domestic... So help me God."

Since 2001, on the issue of "immigration reform," both the President and the 109th Congress offered the American public a choice between a cup of hemlock and a poison pill in competing visions on how to proceed to respond to what can only be described as an unprecedented wave of trans-national migration - legal or otherwise. Since 2001, the President and the Republican party pursued an odd policy of globalization in labor, service and product with no apparent differentiation between the three. Nor, indeed was there any discernable sense that there would be any limit in sight. Just prior to September 11, 2001, the President announced that he was prepared to sign an agreement with Mexican President Vicente Fox which would have for all intents and purposes given all the provisions of the (later) McCain-Kennedy-Martinez immigration proposal full weight of the law. Then the unspeakable occurred, and all of that was - mercifully - put on hold as the President turned his attention to what appeared at the time to be matters requiring more urgent attention.

Since then, hundreds of thousands of specialized military personnel have been posted at one time or another in various venues in Afghanistan and Iraq. Serious attention seems to have been given to protecting the sovereign borders of those countries, yet until August of 2006, neither this Administration nor Congress had managed to craft any legislation or provide leadership of any sort in the issue of what to do about all these people among us who don't belong here and hadn't played by the rules to get here. Even though Congress appropriated funds to increase staffing along our borders since 2001, the Administration had not even hired and trained the people that it had been told it was authorized to do.

Neither the Republican leadership in Congress nor the President acknowledged what I continued to communicate to them since 2001 - that our borders remained unsecured and needed urgent attention. They even seemed to go so far as to have proposed extraordinary rights upon non-citizens over the rights of "ordinary" Americans. A comparison of one of the Amendments to the McCain-Kennedy-Martinez amendment to one Senate bill proposed an amnesty to any "undocumented worker" who "came clean with the system" in regards to identy theft via fraudulent Social Security identity documentation. As a native-born American, I would face severe criminal and civil sanctions if I had engaged in the exact same activity. But that was only one example of an egregiously flawed proposal on the part of the Republican leadership. When the writing on the wall become apparent late last summer to Sen. Frist et. al., they managed the muster up a bill or two for border fencing. Conveniently, the fine print didn't authorize any funding for said structure - just that it should be built. And that was the last straw as far as I was concerned.

Our Northern and Southern borders remain virtually porous, and alarming reports continue to surface regarding border violations. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of undocumented people and products each year are sneaking across our borders. Billions of dollars are being spent at the same time to secure the rights of Iraqis and Afghanis - a mission I wholeheartedly support. Yet the war is not also being fought "on the home front" to secure our borders against enemy infiltration.

I have sent scores of faxes, mailed dozens of letters, and spent hours on the phone since 2002 with my Congressional Representatives and with various Administration officials to express my sense of urgent concern over what I see happening in the community around me due to the effects of this trans-national transient population that finds itself in my neck of the woods. I've read about similar experiences and perceptions from others through blogsites such as this, and other issue-oriented websites.

I asked - nay, I pleaded - with my two Republican Senators (Isakson and Chambliss - Georgia) to do what they could to work against amnesty and unchecked borders. I guess they did what they could, but even over the past three years, as I contacted others Republican representatives in Congress, I kept getting this eerie sense that my message was being bounced off a marble wall and that the Vandals were at the gate...

Put that sense of frustrated anger on top of issues 1 through 4 that you so rightly critiqued, and you can probably understand why I wasn't going out of my way to vote for any Republican when given a chance. Did I vote Democrat? Absolutely not! Here in my local district (county level), the only game in town is Democratic, even though the State of Georgia is increasingly more conservative Republican than it has ever been. I certainly would never sit out the election, so it was never a question of not voting. Rather, it was a question of rewarding what I considered "bad behavior" on the part of Republicans in Washington, D.C. that was at issue. Given my ongoing dissatisfaction on issues numbered 1 through 4, issue number 5 became the dealbreaker as far as I was concerned. The war must be fought on many fronts, as I see it. As much as I support the objectives of the War on Terror, I feel that it has been botched in many, many ways. Similarly, I feel that the "homefront" has been pitifully ignored, be it by neglecting to secure our borders, or allowing the lamestream media to leak our nation's strategic secrets to al-qaeda or anyone who might be interested.

The sad effect of this double-whammy of ignoring the home front while bickering about foreign theatres of engagement is that nothing gets done of the first part, and any attempted progress on the second part is effectively thwarted. Throw in a cynical and sensationalism-oriented media, and you've got yourself a recipe for a made-in-Hollywood movie...

Clearly, corruption reeks over the Potomic River on both sides of the aisle - be it naught instant messages, backroom lobby deals, or convenient land-swaps-on-a-handshake. I didn't vote for a Democrat. I voted against the Republicans who talked the talked, yet never seemed capable to walk the walk.
The War in Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm completely behind them.
The economy? Way to go, Dudes!
Ethics? Huh?
Wielding political power? They just didn't get it.
Immigration? Don't make me have to cuss them out all over!!!

My bet is that it won't be a result pleasing to the left.

While I've had very little to be optimistic about as of late, I think you're right on this point.

Raker, you're a moron. Now, before you go whining to Mark about the "new rules" around here, I'm going to tell you why I feel as I do.

You say: You lost. Get over it. Move on.

Yes, you're correct; we lost. We lost Congress. Now, while Congress makes laws, and provides oversight, they do not set foreign policy. This isn't SS reform, PB abortion--which you're probably a result of--or gay marriage we're talkin' about here. This is the war on terror, a war that we just can't walk away from.

Maybe, when you're all grown up, you'll understand. However, as I said before, I haven't had a lot to be optimistic about lately...

If you take a look at history, you will start to see a pattern. At least over the last say, 35 years. Richard Nixon, many ways a good president with bad judgement, followed by perhaps our worst ever president Jimmah Cahta. We get a great President in Reagan. Followed by Bush 41. The people get restless. Ross Peroit appears on the scene. The Savior of the Left, Clinton wins with 43%. Two inept and highly corrupt terms later, we come close to a disasterous Al Gore presidency, but luckily Bush 43 wins. The republicans manage to squander all momentum to get things done and decide to spend like Dems (or take your pick, Drunken sailors.) Rather than focusing on entitlement reform, and tax reform, and judical reform, they let the Dems get the upper hand again. We lose the house and senate. The people are restless again. What next? Only time will tell, Maybe a President Hilary Clinton, or Obama. Shudder.

I forgot President Ford in that sequence. A great man, whose presidency was considered more of a caretaker presidency after the resignation of Nixon.

I was under the impression that the republicans lost due to the American people waking up and realizing they had been manipulated with fear and lies for the past half decade.

Here in Alabama, many of those who voted for King George in 2004 openly express regret and disgust at their actions. If it's like that here, I can only imagine what the political discourse must be like in that blue territories.

The republicans manage to squander all momentum

While my knowledge is limited, I will assert that they've all--current President included--managed to undo what Reagan accomplished. We're almost back to where we were when President Ford was in office. Is it gonna take another Carteresque malaise for this country to wake up? I hope not--I'm fifty and I don't want to start over. Hell, maybe if the Dems get all their welfare programs strengthened, I may benefit in the long run. Just kidding; I've got many working years left, and I don't need their hands in my pockets.

btw, all this legislation that Piglosi is running through the House, without Republican input, is theater. The House can pass all the bills they want to, but the bills must then pass the Senate. I wonder how many House bills died in the Senate during the past six years...

Great entry in your blog, Lew--right on point. I guess that's what the Dems in this country want. I was a new airman when Carter's malaise occurred; fortunately I wasn't affected by it. A new leftist malaise will affect me, and we're headed for it...

Mark,

I don't understand why Republicans don't have the news being reported on television with a bias that slants right. Most people on both sides agree the media is a very bad source of information (here in Detroit, particularly, even local, non-political issues are covered poorly by our terrible television and newspapers). I often watch NBC nightly news for infotainment while I eat supper at 6:30, but I can see the slant.
Also, my wife and I don't understand why there are no Michael Moores on the right, coming out with documentaries of their own... we watched Farenheit 911 as we do other movies. It was powerful. I think Republicans are poorly represented in this media from where, like it or not, many Americans get their impressions. Even if only 2% are swayed by the media (and movies), that can change an election.
I think Republicans need to come out with a series of "documentaries" and sell in video stores. I know the visits to this blog has got to be fewere than 100,000 per day, so how many are receiving the message you offer?
My suggestion is to create a free, public news source on television similar to Fox News on cable and pro-Republican documentaries.

I think there's another dynamic at work in the voting last fall (let's remember, only 22 months until we have another chance to turn it around). I mean, of course it's a distortion that the Democratic PR (Pelosi-Reid) team didn't mention leaving Iraq as part of their promised first hundred hours, just as it was a distortion they would concern themselves with reducing lobbyist influence, ethics, bipartisanship, the 9/11 commission recommendations as a whole, etc.

But the bigger picture here is the media and its influence. Let's be honest, fox isn't getting it done. That is, even the supposedly conservative network is focused more on the latest disappearance or celebrity court trial than they are in sending reporters around the world to cover the good news from Iraq and Afghanistan. So most of what they give as news is the stories from AP and Al Reuters wire reporters, just sometimes with a significantly different interpretation.

What we need is a conservative Reuters, a bunch of ground level troops in the media war to fan out across the globe and give the real story about Somalia, about Iraq, about Afghanistan. Right now, Fox News delivers one substantive hour a month, and besides Fox News Sunday they give more shows about Texas cheerleaders than serious political analysis.

Without a real conservative perspective, we'll continue to have problems with our politicians getting swept up in media drivel convincing those who need approval that the country hates them if they're conservatives. And we'll have the tune in once a year crowd seeing only the negativity they offer of Republicans. My theory is that people simply got tired of all the negativity which is 90% of what the Dems and the media offer. But remember this is our advantage now. Yes, the media align themselves against conservatives, but they also disdain government, and now the Dems are part of that ruling government. We can win in two years, that's not the real trouble. The real trouble is calling out the media, like Lynn Cheney, throwing out conservative perspectives with evidence as questions to the interviewers. We've got to stop allowing the myth that they're objective go unchallenged, our leaders have to call them out and watch them twitch when the truth hits home. We've got to hit them at the top of their media executive food chains with the mud they deny exists. But there's no obvious blatent bias until we have people to gather another perspective on the ground.

I agree, Morris--we may have a voice, but the DBM propaganda machine lives on...

The Pelosi/Reid letter scores even more points with Al Qaeda and their ilk. It's just what the terrorists want and were hoping to get when the Dems took over Congress. Must suck to have terrorists on your side of the isle.

Gar,

By what evidence do you assert that we headed for a disasterous result? By what means has the enemy defeated us militarily and thus we must work out the terms of our surrender in Iraq?

Must suck to have terrorists on your side of the isle.

Now, kimberly, you may want to read Mark's post about the "new tone." The kooks are gonna whine to him about your comment, for sure. Even though it's true that the terrorists benefit from the left's agenda, it's still hurtful for them to be reminded. Shame on you for opening these wounds...

btw folks, when someone on my "side" makes writing errors, I don't bother correcting them. You see, we Republicans aren't supposed to be very smart, so it's a miracle we can even use a keyboard. You libs, otoh, are supposed to be the academic elites, and you will be treated as such when you come here and rape the Queen's English...

dbogdan,

I don't know - two GOPers in Arizona who ran on a specific platform of strong border security went down to defeat. I'd say that failure on border security was a secondary contributing factor, rather than a primary source of our defeat.

It was, I think, just one more thing that the GOP failed to do which ticked off and depressed the GOP base, thus leading to the Democrats majority. It is my view that has the base not been angry and dispirited, we would be sitting with at least a four seat House majority today.

"Raker, you're a moron. Now, before you go whining to Mark about the "new rules" around here, I'm going to tell you why I feel as I do."

Glad I didn't have to say it..thanks Bama!

What many of us seem to forget it that we lost this election for the exact same reason LBJ decided not to run again...remember when McCarthy broke with LBJ on the war in 1966? The support for the war fell apart because the American people had no more stomach for war...period.

Sure, we could ignore history and think that the even though we believe the Republican party is the party of intestinal fortitude, this wouldbe enough, but as long as we allow the MSM to control the key issues by slanting them in the left's favor, we'll never gain back the house or senate.

So, it's my opinion that we need this surge, but we need an overwhelming surge, not some chicken shi* surge of a few thousand troops either.

History dictates that every time overwhelming force has been used, Americans stand behind the President and whenever we allow a war to drag on, we lose that support/traction with the American people.

My vote is to tell each and every human in the region that we're coming and they'd better either cough up the terrorists, the munitions, the little black books and the game plan, or all that will be left is a desert and a few camels.

I for one DO NOT CARE about being called a warmonger or a terrible human when the future of America is at risk and if we don't make at least one final push for victory, the rest of the world will undoubtably think we're a bunch of pussys!

Then guess what happens....we're back to square one...more terrorist attacks on the homefront.

Max: Care to elaborate on the lies and fear statement?

Nick: Have you seen Fahrenhype 911? It's an excellent documentary which points out all of the lies told in Moron Moore's movie.

Keef: LOL!!

Mark: I was surprised when the GOP lost two seats in AZ, considering all of the measures regarding illegal immigrants (ie, no welfare benefits, no bail, no suing, etc.) won by very large margins.

Navydad: I agree ... we need to kick some major butt. Reminds me of football and fair weather fans. When their team is losing or performing poorly, they don't stand behind their team. They bitch and moan and stop going to the games to support them. But ... when their team starts winning and showing immense improvement, they jump back on the wagon of support.

"...while President Bush is fighting a just and necessary war for our nation and our civilization..."

As long as this administration can keep enough people believing this, we as a nation are never going to get beyond the Iraq quagmire.

Semper Fi!

Lest you far lefties forget (as you're prone to do), this is what the blue states voted for:
"Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute, Lieberman said the increase in troops "must be robust. It must be substantial. And, it must be sustained." Lieberman and McCain recently returned from a trip to Iraq where they came away convinced the war is not lost. While they did not specify numbers, the two lawmakers said at least three additional brigades are needed in Baghdad and two in violence-wracked Anbar province, west of the capital. A brigade has about 3,000 to 4,000 troops.
Lieberman said failure in Iraq would be catastrophic because it would lead to an empowered Iran, give al-Qaida a base in Iraq and intimidate moderate voices in the Middle East."

If the Democrats were honest, then what they would do is call for a Congressional resolution advising the President that Congress will not approve funds for increased US troop levels - as well as stating that they will only approve future funds to pay for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq and attendant expenses.

Sounds like H.R. 4232 (which is sponsored by McGovern (D-MA) and which a lot of Democrats back). So your contention that Democrats are not pushing for this is false.

Myself, I would prefer an intensive focus on training Iraqi forces followed by a phased withdrawal from Iraq within a year (the Murtha plan).

However, whether we stay or go, the most important element that is missing is a firmly stated (and not periodically changing) and achievable goal. If I thought that the Bush administration had one (other than 'stay the course indefinitely') then I might even be persuaded to support keeping troops there according to a realistic timetable for achieving it. But right now I see nothing even remotely approaching a long term strategy or realistic definition of what a 'success' is.

I also believe that sooner or later there will inevitably be a three state solution-- (these people don't want to live with each other, never have wanted to, and have in the past only been forced to live together in peace by various monarchs and other despots.) The best role the U.S. could take would be to 1) recognize this and 2) work towards making this transition as smoothly as can be expected under the circumstances-- far better for Iraq, a multi-national state, to disintegrate into its natural components in the manner that the Soviet Union did than in the manner that Yugoslavia did (though unfortunately it seems to be following the Yugoslav model). The idea that it will (in tha absence of a strong monarch or dictator) be held together as a single country is foolish. The only question is whether it will become three countries through a violent civil war or through a negotiated political solution. True, there are at least three big and very difficult issues that would have to be dealt with-- namely 1) borders, 2) the rights of ethnic/religious minorities in each state and 3) the distribution of oil revenues. However working through a tough negotiation on these three issues is still more realistic than trying to put Humpty back together again (as you are apparently thinking you can do by sending more of the king's horses and more of the king's men).

Eli,

At least that is a proposed solution - something mostly lacking from Democrats. I'm aware of the McGovern proposals, but what I'm saying is that Pelosi and Reid need to bring it forward... Pelosi is Speaker and one of the privileges of the office is to bring things to a floor vote; she could do this on Monday, if she liked...if, that is, her rhetoric were something other than a political ploy.

The war was lost before Bush invaded because the U.S. had no legal justification for a pre-emptive strike. The U.N. Charter specifically defines pre-emptive attacks as illegal. Also, it is recognized international law that you cannot have fair elections during an occupation; therefore the current Afghanistan and Iraqi governments are illegitimate, and the courts formed under an illegitimate government are, themselves, illegitimate. Saddam needed to be tried by the ICC. Bush did not want him tried in The Hague because that would give Saddam an opportunity to tell how Regan sold him WMD knowing he would use gas on the Kurds. Rumsfeld would be held partly liable for the Iraq’s ethnic cleaning for supplying Saddam with those weapons.

The war was lost before Bush invaded because the U.S. had no legal justification for a pre-emptive strike.

Here we go with the redundant talking points, followed by tin-foil hat crap. You...are a moron.

"The war was lost before Bush invaded because the U.S. had no legal justification for a pre-emptive strike."

Christian Wright you are correct. There will come a day when the remaining 30 per cent realize they were duped. The Decider will likely be out of office, but the truth will come out.