Sunday, May 07, 2006
Key Republicans on Capitol Hill are already trying to ingratiate themselves with the anti-Bush crowd by criticizing Bush's first choice to head the CIA: Air-Force General Michael Hayden. The problem, they say, is it will give the impression that the military is running what should be an essentially civilian force.
Of course, this is more of the ridiculousness that has harmed Bush's second term. By such reasoning no former military man should be allowed to run for President, because that might give the impression that the military controlled the executive branch. In Latin America that is almost always true, but in the US all the Presidents who have served in the military tend to be the best: Washington, Jackson, Grant, TR, Eisenhower, etc. Of course what the Democrats are worried about is that the promotion of a military man might instill a bit more efficiency over in the woefully inept CIA, which would scuttle the ability of Muslim extremists to target Americans worldwide. Why Republicans go along with this, rather than support one of their own, is beyond me. In 2002 they stuck with Bush and won: ditto for 2004. Nothing will change for 2006. Republicans who stick by the President will be returned to office; if the Democrats take charge on Capitol Hill, it will be because most of the Republicans deserted their chief and pandered to the Left. This will, of course, be trotted out as proof that people are fed up with Republicans, but it is actually RINO's that Americans are fed up with and if the Senate is going to insist on being this way, it will find itself in different hands come November. My suggested strategy: cut your losses in the Senate and try to hold on to the House, the more important and compliant branch of the legislature.
Of course, this is more of the ridiculousness that has harmed Bush's second term. By such reasoning no former military man should be allowed to run for President, because that might give the impression that the military controlled the executive branch. In Latin America that is almost always true, but in the US all the Presidents who have served in the military tend to be the best: Washington, Jackson, Grant, TR, Eisenhower, etc. Of course what the Democrats are worried about is that the promotion of a military man might instill a bit more efficiency over in the woefully inept CIA, which would scuttle the ability of Muslim extremists to target Americans worldwide. Why Republicans go along with this, rather than support one of their own, is beyond me. In 2002 they stuck with Bush and won: ditto for 2004. Nothing will change for 2006. Republicans who stick by the President will be returned to office; if the Democrats take charge on Capitol Hill, it will be because most of the Republicans deserted their chief and pandered to the Left. This will, of course, be trotted out as proof that people are fed up with Republicans, but it is actually RINO's that Americans are fed up with and if the Senate is going to insist on being this way, it will find itself in different hands come November. My suggested strategy: cut your losses in the Senate and try to hold on to the House, the more important and compliant branch of the legislature.
// posted by The Pendragon @ 7:05 PM 
