How Fred Barnes measures success.
By on Jul 22nd, 2007 at 8:09 am
How Fred Barnes measures success.
Barnes writes in the Weekly Standard, “Bush and the Republicans aren’t dominant. They’re a minority, but an unusually effective one. One measure of this: At the end of 2007, there will be more American troops in Iraq than when Democrats took over Congress in January.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
and there’ll be fewer republicans in congress when they leave …
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:15 amThere’s also more people living in poverty.
They should throw a party.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 amFrom the link:
“the poll numbers for the Democratic Congress are anemic (13 percent approval in the Zogby poll). ”
This is another example of the Republican Noise Machine in action. (Read David Brock’s excellent book of the same name.) Notice that when he’s talking about poor approval numbers now, he uses the word “Democratic”. (Two-fold purpose: 1) blame the Democrats, and 2) finally do what they always asked and use the correct term, instead of saying the “Democrat Congress”.) I’m willing to bet that over the previous six years, if he ever referred to Congress’s low approval ratings (Congress almost always gets low approval ratings), he didn’t call them the “Republican Congress”, just “Congress”.
And another “measure” of his: “Democrats have momentum on no domestic issue, not even health care.” I think this is a flat out lie, and I also think he’s getting paid by the healthcare and/or insurance industries to say it. (No, I have no proof, but I do know Barnes is sleazy when it comes to making arguments.)
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:30 amAlso add more dead American soldiers due tot he lead weight of the “minority’ anchor.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:36 amWell, this makes sense. After all, Iraq is in serious trouble and the Iraqis aren’t doing enough to get rid of the al-Qaeda problem.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:36 amI strongly suggest everyone read Barnes’ article. (Warning, it may make some of you physically ill to think people like this exist.) Barnes reveals himself to be someone who does not believe in democracy or majority rule. He praises Republicans who have managed to obstruct the will of the majority and claims they “won” on issues where they had less than 50 votes. If Barnes really believes in Heaven and Hell, I wonder if he knows which way he’s headed.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:36 amWell, this makes sense. After all, Iraq is in serious trouble and the Iraqis aren’t doing enough to get rid of the al-Qaeda problem.
Comment by Mr. Kalashnikov — July 22, 2007 @ 8:36 am
I agree that “Iraq is in serious trouble and the Iraqis aren’t doing enough to get rid of the al-Qaeda problem”, but does that mean the only available solution is a military one? Especially an American military one?
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:38 amThe commander in chief is in the minority. Afraid not Fred. He and his GOP rubber-stampers own the failed wars and will be removed in ‘08 by the voters.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:40 amThe Republican party is in deep shit. All they can do now is act like a bunch of moneys. When they get caught they will sling their feces at anyone. This doomed party will only stay alive with the caging. If that is not corrected by next election cycle then we will have the same war mongers and buffoons.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:47 amFred Barnes in his own calculation suggesting more troops will be in Iraq by end of 2007.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 amIs he sending any of kids…? !can he mention any of the political, powerful and rich elites kids are enlisting to go to Iraq?
Does he know of any Neocons kids are now in Iraq or in their way to go fighting the war that Neocons and so called ‘warhawks’ are selling to Americans?
Especially an American military one?
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:50 amComment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 22, 2007 @ 8:38 am
—————————————————————–
No, but I don’t honestly think that S.A., Iran, or any of the other surrounding M.E. countries are interested in peace. Groups from within Iran and S.A. have apparently been funding various militant groups with sectarian interests.
Barnes is a board member of The Institute on Religion and Democracy: a conservative politically oriented religious group which seeks to change the public influence of the mainline Protestant Christian churches in the United States.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:52 amHe says these churches’ leaderships include “the pursuit of radical political agendas”. This is truly the pot calling the kettle black!
He is seriously flawed religiously and politically speaking.
Comment by Mr. Kalashnikov — July 22, 2007 @ 8:50 am
I won’t dispute what you said about “groups from within Iran and S.A.” (generic and unspecific as it was), but does that automatically mean that all the governments in the Middle East do not want peace?
And don’t forget, it’s not fair to blame a country’s citizens for the actions of its governments, especially when that government is acting against the wishes of its people. Many people around the world hate “America”, but they have nothing against “Americans” at all. They recognize that we can’t control what our government does and, being a peaceful people by nature, we aren’t going to take up arms in the streets to fight them (as some other people in the world do.) I also believe that lack of good education and exposure to the truth is responsible for a great deal of the hatred in the world, and not just American hatred.
It will be a long, uphill struggle to bring peace to the entire world, but I honestly believe that it is worth the effort. I also believe that the more we give up on peace, the longer it will take to achieve it. But we will achieve it in the long run.
One way or another, there will be a day when humans no longer fight each other. We just have to make sure that the reason isn’t because we’re extinct.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:06 amHere’s how Republican Polster Frank Luntz measures success. From the L.A. Times…
• The electorate is the most pessimistic in a generation. Just 19% of Americans believe that the country is headed in the right direction, while 75% believe that things are “off on the wrong track,” according to a “CBS News” national survey conducted last month. Most of the country is in a nasty, irritable mood, and incumbent parties are historically tossed out of power when expectations turn so ugly.
• The president’s approval ratings are barely hovering in the upper 20s, an all-time low, having plummeted since his reelection less than three years ago. In the last 50 years, only Richard Nixon had a lower approval score. And not since Harry Truman in 1948 has a political party maintained the White House with an incumbent so personally unpopular.
• When asked what party they will vote for in the 2008 presidential election — a “generic ballot” question that does not include any candidate names — voters choose the Democrats by a sizable 18 percentage points, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey. We haven’t seen such a one-party advantage since the Watergate era.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:23 amWayne: I believe that people are now ready to embrace a “peace agenda” (especially the largest bloc of people today – the Baby Boomers). We “should have” learned the lessons of Vietnam but we, obviously, didn’t and have essentially repeated them verbatim in Iraq. When will we learn?
I find this fact fascinating, however: We fought in Vietnam to keep communism influence out of that country (i.e. The Russians are coming/cold war) and now a communist country, China, owns well over 30% of our national debt, which basically means that they own one third of this country. How hypocritical can we, as a nation, get? Amazing stupidity and turn-about, isn’t it? Of course, the Iraq war made all of this possible.
Some years ago a candidate like Dennis Kucinich as his peace agenda would have been derided beyond belief but I am seeing that he is far from chided for his peace beliefs; in fact, I believe that a good percentage of people (those unaffected by fear, that is) are recognizing that it is the ONLY answer to today’s global situation.
War should always be a “last resort” and ONLY if the security of our country is at stake. Clearly, Vietnam and Iraq were imperialistic, offensive attacks – in countries who had nothing to do with our national security whatsoever. Of course, for years the Bush Cabal attempted to spin the drivel that Saddam had something to do with 911 when, in fact, they knew all along that he did not. (They’d have to since it was an inside job, at least to some degree.)
So, the question remains: Have we, as a nation, learned the lesson of war? Have we yet realized that it’s amoral and accomplishes little or nothing? Have we discovered the sad truth about ourselves that, when we allow fear into the equation, we trade our power for the illusion of security and lose both – security and power??
Time will tell but I’m optimistic that what I see out there in the small communities all across this country, is, indeed, the movement of the critical mass of peace consciousness….and it’s moving like a tsunami toward 1600 Penn. avenue.
We know who the traitors to this constitution are. We know what they’ve done to this democracy. And the people will bring them to the justice they deserve soon.
There is no other way when The People flex their collective muscle and take back this flagging democracy.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 amIf more troops in Iraqnam is the neocon measure of success then we have won this battle also. I just with all of the pro war neocon dirtbags had their children sent to Iraqnam for multiple tours.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 amAfter all, Iraq is in serious trouble and the Iraqis aren’t doing enough to get rid of the al-Qaeda problem.
Comment by Mr. Kalashnikov — July 22, 2007 @ 8:36 am
You mean the al-Qaeda problem that Bush’s illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq CAUSED? The Iraqis didn’t have an al-Qaeda problem before the invasion.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:46 amWas it Thomas Jefferson who said: When man trades his power for the illusion of security he loses both – security and power? Or something to that effect. If anyone has the quote, please cite it because it’s apropos to today’s situation in which americans find themselves.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:46 amG’morning Jane! Our time on the thread finally synchronized! Good to see you.
They call the proliferation of AQ “into” Iraq – Bush’s self-fulfilling prophesy. Saddam kept them out and we’ve not only invited them in but Bush believes that he can now somehow draw a connection once again to AQ in Iraq. The people are smarter than this doofus in chief, thank goodness. They know the facts, despite the lies and spin coming from the toxic mouths of the Bush Cabal.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:48 amGroups from within Iran and S.A. have apparently been funding various militant groups with sectarian interests.
Comment by Mr. Kalashnikov
By groups perchance do you mean the US?
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:50 amBen Dover: I think the people should make this a mandate – that anyone serving in Congress who wishes to vote on taking this country into war needs to, prior to his vote, enlist himself, his spouse, or a member of his immediate family into the battle. I think that the ability to empathize is critical; otherwise, this war becomes faceless and impersonal.
They can take a leave of absence from their Congressional seat and serve if they feel qualified to vote on engaging us in war. And, if they’re too old or mentally challenged (which eliminates at least half of our sitting Congress…hahah) then they can enlist one of their loved ones.
This would mean that Dumbya’s twins would have been in the first wave over in Iraq. Imagine that scenario? It’s only fair.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:51 amHaving everyone in Congress sacrifice either themselves to a senseless war or a loved one would level the playing field in a heartbeat.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:53 am“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor securityâ€
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:55 amBenjamin Franklin
Kalashnikov,
I’ve been kind of busy the past couple of days, so I’ve only had time to briefly scan over your recent conversations with Wayne.
From what I’ve read, I’m very impressed. I’ve often wondered if there’s more to you than meets the eye, and I think Wayne has helped show that there is.
I know you read almost everything posted here at TP, and I’m sure you must find some things to think about from time to time.
I encourage you to look deeper into yourself and find even more knowledge and understanding.
You’re a smart guy, and you have played your role very well. Put your energy toward goodness and light, friend, and help make the world a better place.
Peace.
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:01 am“Ben Dover: I think the people should make this a mandate – that anyone serving in Congress who wishes to vote on taking this country into war needs to, prior to his vote, enlist himself, his spouse, or a member of his immediate family into the battle. I think that the ability to empathize is critical; otherwise, this war becomes faceless and impersonal.
They can take a leave of absence from their Congressional seat and serve if they feel qualified to vote on engaging us in war. And, if they’re too old or mentally challenged (which eliminates at least half of our sitting Congress…hahah) then they can enlist one of their loved ones.
This would mean that Dumbya’s twins would have been in the first wave over in Iraq. Imagine that scenario? It’s only fair.
Comment by veritas — July 22, 2007 @ 9:51 am”
So, I take it from your comments, veritas, that you don’t support the idea of an all-volunteer armed forces, yet you DO support the idea of the draft and forced military servitude? Very progressive thinking indeed!
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:06 amI think a big step in avoiding wars would be to turn defense contractors and weapons manufactuters in Non Profit Organizations thru creative tax policies. War profiteering was anathema during World War II.
FDR’s famous World War II quote “I don’t want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster”?
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 amGood morning, veritas! I’ll be here for a little while, but I have some stuff to do today so my time is limited.
Hi, Egg–I’ve been saying the same thing to and about PiP/Mr. P etal for a while now. I just hope that his current mood continues and he doesn’t regress.
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:16 amSo, I take it from your comments, veritas, that you don’t support the idea of an all-volunteer armed forces, yet you DO support the idea of the draft and forced military servitude? Very progressive thinking indeed!
Comment by O. Bigfoot — July 22, 2007 @ 10:06 am
I agree that we should institute a draft so that the children of the wealthiest in this nation (the ones who benefitted the most from the “opprtunities” such as tax loopholes and such) could serve their country in return for what they have. Many of the wealthiest people did not “earn” their riches. (Sam Walton’s kids inherited what Sam “earned”.)
In an ideal world, there would never be a need for a military. But if you’re going to have one, why allow the rich and powerful evade service? (For the record, I am not one of those morons who believes that rich people deserve better treatment than the rest of us, or the even more inane idea that they must have gotten their money by doing something “good”. I believe the Kennedys got their wealth through illegally evading Prohibition.)
If you want to be nationalistic, then you should strongly support compulsory service. (There can be alternatives for those with true conscientious objections to the use of force as a means to resolve disputes.) I, personally, am not “nationalistic”, as I believe that arbitrary geo-political borders only serve to divide us as humans instead of uniting us as the common people we all are inside.
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:22 amHi, Egg–I’ve been saying the same thing to and about PiP/Mr. P etal for a while now. I just hope that his current mood continues and he doesn’t regress.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — July 22, 2007 @ 10:16 am
I know you have, Jane. The kid’s got potential. Maybe if we use a little more carrot and a little less stick, we can help him become someone we welcome to this site, instead of recoil at.
I wish I had one-half of the elegance and depth that you and Wayne bring to the table here. You two are truly a gift to TP.
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 amComment by Egreggious — July 22, 2007 @ 10:24 am
Don’t make me say “Pshaw” again! :D
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:27 amThanks for the quote, Badger! It’s Franklin and not Jefferson.
This IS the theme for what’s occurring in this country today.
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:31 amBadger: I like your concept about turning war profiteering groups into non profits! I love it! You’d certainly see less war then – it’s all about personal profit and greed anyway.
Hi Jane! I’m in and out here today, too. Expecting guests soon. Catchya later, buddies!
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:32 amA couple of things I can’t deny about Pee are that he has an incredible knack for getting to the heart of a matter and a slick sense of humor. I think this is part of what makes him anathema to many here. That and the fact that he has an uncanny ability to turn all threads into discussions about him.
I hope these comments I make this morning are a step in the direction of reversing that last stated trend.
That said, I now return everyone to the topic at hand. Have a great day. I just got off a graveyard shift and am headed to bed!
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 amEgg, go to http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/07/22/er-daytrip/
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 amCorrected: …the Iraqis aren’t doing enough to get rid of the al-Qaeda problem that we heaped on top of the already crushing problems of a destroyed infrastrucure, failed bureaucratic structure, and sectarian violence caused by our politically-misplaced, highly illegal invasion and occupation.
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 amApparently. Well, that’s what the propaganda says.
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:58 amBarnes has been wrong and on television since Vietnam. Another cowardice chickenhawk!
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:00 amMan-unkind will continue to have war as long as the ruling class can profit by it without having to pay the price.
Republicans are immensely successful for the top 1.5%.
The ruling class does not care if America implodes. They can, and will, take their money elsewhere. Halliburton’s move to Dubai is a prime example. So too is the purported Bush ranch in Paraguay.
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:04 amI don’t know about veritas, but that’s certainly what I want. As soon as the children of the cowardly Neocon cabal are forced to serve in-theatre, the ranks of the anti-war movement will swell and the “war” will end.
The same thing will happen with debt control as soon as the top 1 percent of earners in the US are forced to pay taxes like the rest of us.
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:04 amYou are right about this. The Saudi’s are pretty much the biggest contributor to the insurgents in Iraq. But, do you hear Bush threatening to bomb Saudi Arabia? NOT. And what makes it our business that the people in the middle east are not interested in peace? We do not live there. It is their problem not our problem, and it certainly is not our problem to solve.
The only reason why we have involved ourselves in the affairs of the Middle East is oil. And, rather than doing something to cut our dependence on oil, the Bush Administration (many of whom are getting very rich off of oil) thinks the solution is to take over middle eastern countries so that we can steal their oil. Does he really think that the rest of the world is going to sit idly by and allow him to do that? I don’t think so!
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:28 am#15 veritas
Excellent post. Bravo!
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:31 am“the Iraqis aren’t doing enough to get rid of the al-Qaeda problem”
The Iraqis don’t have an al-Qaeda problem. The Iraqi’s have an American problem. They are currently tolerating the 5% of the people fighting who are al-Qaeda because they are killing Americans. But, once we leave, the Iraqis will kick al-Qaeda out of their country in a heartbeat. The Iraqi people don’t like ANY foreigners messing with their affairs and will not treat any foreigner who messes in their affairs kindly.
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:38 am“That and the fact that he has an uncanny ability to turn all threads into discussions about him.”
Nothing uncanny about it. Any troll can do this. All you need to do is say stupid things over and over and over again. It’s trivially easy to derail a thread, unfortunately, and trolls have been doing it for years.
July 22nd, 2007 at 12:10 pmI tend to have a long-term view of things. Hence, the deeper Dubya digs, the better the coutry will be in the long-term. It will be decades before the country ever allow the GOP to control anything again. You see, the country, in 1980, had forgotten the lessons of have the GOP in control in the later 20s/early 30s. The country, has now, been reminded why the GOP should never be permitted to be anything other than the non-relevant party. Reagan returned to country to the days of Herbert Hoover. Well, we got the same results this time, even worse. It seems to me that we should take a lesson from post-WWII Germany which banned the NAZI party. We should not ban the GOP as a party considering that the GOP has done its best over the last 100 years to destroy this nation. In fact, I think the best result for the GOP would mirror the events of 1918 in Russia: line ‘em up, shoot them, and desolve the remains in acid.
July 22nd, 2007 at 12:58 pmHe’s right. They are the minority, yet somehow they got full funding for the Iraq war and the surge. Oh yeah, I forgot, most Democrats don’t really want to leave Iraq.
July 22nd, 2007 at 3:49 pmThese people are so dumb!
So the measure of success is how many people we have in Iraq? Particularly since the Democrats took the majority in Congress?
How is that a success? How illogical can these morons become?
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:18 pmHow Fred Barnes measures success.
One measure of this: At the end of 2007, there will be more American troops in Iraq than when Democrats took over Congress in January.†July 22, 2007 8:09 am | Comment (46)
No, that would be him measuring the failure of Democrat’s, rather than the success of Republicans, wouldn’t it ?
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 amUh, well, more troops in Iraq IS a success for the Repulican minority.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 pm