The news media is in trouble now. After weeks of destructive accounts of a "deeply divided" majority party, Democrats are threatening to hold a vote on Bush's proposed troop surge that could signal strong Democratic unity and call into question the agendas or at least accuracy of major news organizations.
Just Tuesday, the New York Times wrote a feature story that declared in big font headlines: "Democrats Split Over Iraq Approach." While the article allowed that Democrats are "unusually united in their resistance to a troop increase," it emphasized a party discord owing to personal ambition.
"Democrats, either looking ahead to a possible presidential candidacy or their own re-elections," the article stated, "have also distanced themselves" from plans to withhold funding for a troop increase.
This article came hot on the heels of a Times "Week in Review" feature headlined "The Invasion of the Alpha Male Democrat."
That article acknowledged Democratic gains, "but now that the Macho Dems are walking the halls of Congress," the article warned, "it remains to be seen
whether they will create as many problems for Democrats as they solved." Can you just picture a pack of wild beasts roaming the halls of Congress to the chagrin of Nancy Pelosi? Can you see trouble brewing and a divide in the party "deepening?" If so, then your imagination is doing just what the Republican Party wants it to.
On Wednesday, however, the media grew silent about "deep divides" as it became clear the Democrats would likely hold at least a non-binding vote against a surge in troop levels.
The vote is troubling to the media because it would force them to print hard numbers that directly contradict their message that the Dems are splitting up faster than a Hollywood couple.
Far from hurting the Democrats, the Iraq War is decimating the Republican Party. In one of the most underreported stories of the month, support for the Republican Party has fallen to 46 percent among the US military.
At the end of 2005, a Military Times poll found that 56 percent of the military supported the GOP. At the end of 2006, that number had fallen ten percent.
In addition, only 50 percent of the US military think that success is likely in Iraq. That number is down from 83 percent in 2004. Only 41 percent believe we should have gone to Iraq in the first place.
It's also hurting right wing talk show personalities. Bill O'Reilly admitted yesterday on his radio program that "every time I talk about [the Iraq War] my ratings go down." Rush Limbaugh, perhaps feeling the same sting, told listeners the other day that he had other things to talk about besides the Iraq War. "You people keep calling in to talk about it," Limbaugh complained.
Moreover, the Washington Post reported yesterday that Republicans are falling apart.
Last night, in one of the worst political miscalculations of all time, President Bush drove another nail into his own political coffin by calling for an increase in troops.
President Bush told Americans that "we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties." Why? Because we are going to send more patrols out onto the streets of Baghdad.
Why do our fine soldiers need to be policemen in the worthless slum that Baghdad has become? Who cares if there is law and order over there when there is chaos at home among the families of the soldiers and the state of affairs in THIS nation?
Who cares about spending billions of dollars to give the Iraqis jobs, when Americans are out of work here in America? We already gave Halliburton billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq, and they wasted it and blew it and lost it all. Do they expect us to fall for that again? Shall America fall so that Iraq may live. Why is our President working only for Iraq? Why is he so obsessed with that country and not this one?
These are questions that the Democrats will unite to ask. In the meanwhile Republicans must choose either save their political careers or sink with their own Titanic.
Just Tuesday, the New York Times wrote a feature story that declared in big font headlines: "Democrats Split Over Iraq Approach." While the article allowed that Democrats are "unusually united in their resistance to a troop increase," it emphasized a party discord owing to personal ambition.
"Democrats, either looking ahead to a possible presidential candidacy or their own re-elections," the article stated, "have also distanced themselves" from plans to withhold funding for a troop increase.
This article came hot on the heels of a Times "Week in Review" feature headlined "The Invasion of the Alpha Male Democrat."
That article acknowledged Democratic gains, "but now that the Macho Dems are walking the halls of Congress," the article warned, "it remains to be seen
whether they will create as many problems for Democrats as they solved." Can you just picture a pack of wild beasts roaming the halls of Congress to the chagrin of Nancy Pelosi? Can you see trouble brewing and a divide in the party "deepening?" If so, then your imagination is doing just what the Republican Party wants it to.
On Wednesday, however, the media grew silent about "deep divides" as it became clear the Democrats would likely hold at least a non-binding vote against a surge in troop levels.
The vote is troubling to the media because it would force them to print hard numbers that directly contradict their message that the Dems are splitting up faster than a Hollywood couple.
Far from hurting the Democrats, the Iraq War is decimating the Republican Party. In one of the most underreported stories of the month, support for the Republican Party has fallen to 46 percent among the US military.
At the end of 2005, a Military Times poll found that 56 percent of the military supported the GOP. At the end of 2006, that number had fallen ten percent.
In addition, only 50 percent of the US military think that success is likely in Iraq. That number is down from 83 percent in 2004. Only 41 percent believe we should have gone to Iraq in the first place.
It's also hurting right wing talk show personalities. Bill O'Reilly admitted yesterday on his radio program that "every time I talk about [the Iraq War] my ratings go down." Rush Limbaugh, perhaps feeling the same sting, told listeners the other day that he had other things to talk about besides the Iraq War. "You people keep calling in to talk about it," Limbaugh complained.
Moreover, the Washington Post reported yesterday that Republicans are falling apart.
Last night, in one of the worst political miscalculations of all time, President Bush drove another nail into his own political coffin by calling for an increase in troops.
President Bush told Americans that "we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties." Why? Because we are going to send more patrols out onto the streets of Baghdad.
Why do our fine soldiers need to be policemen in the worthless slum that Baghdad has become? Who cares if there is law and order over there when there is chaos at home among the families of the soldiers and the state of affairs in THIS nation?
Who cares about spending billions of dollars to give the Iraqis jobs, when Americans are out of work here in America? We already gave Halliburton billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq, and they wasted it and blew it and lost it all. Do they expect us to fall for that again? Shall America fall so that Iraq may live. Why is our President working only for Iraq? Why is he so obsessed with that country and not this one?
These are questions that the Democrats will unite to ask. In the meanwhile Republicans must choose either save their political careers or sink with their own Titanic.
