The cube

Part one out of nine here.

The Iraq war will end

This is a message to Democrats, such as Brian Baird, who are waning their original opposition to the war in Iraq, by support any minute positive news that will come from the surge.

The Iraq War will ultimately end.

This is not based on the presumption that people will recognize that this is an immoral and un-winnable war. It is based on the fact that troops WILL be pulled out of Iraq within the next couple years is simply because there isn't enough help. Most of the soldiers in Iraq are on their second, third, or worst case third tour.

As John Kerry had explained during the 2004 election, the only option if we choose to continue the fight in Iraq is to create a draft. Yes, a military draft. We have spread our current volunteer soldiers thin, to the point of suicide.

What our soldiers are going through is grinding. Day in and day out they are asked to patrol streets with the risked of having a suicide bomber killing them at moments notice. This isn't just over a span of a year, but over three or four years. They are tough, just not this tough; their endurance has been strained.

Those who want to plead that this is a moral cause and that there is a chance that stability can be restored have to be honest with the American people. The only way that the surge can work is if it is placed at the national level, which would require General Shinseki's original troop level at 300,000. In other words, we need a draft not only to double the current level, but to give a much needed rest to those troops who are already pushed to the breaking point.

This is a moral cause that will require more than politician's support, it would require the support of the American people. It doesn't look like they will continue to support this war. No one wants a draft, and very few want this war to continue.

This is a war that cannot sustain itself. The Iraqi leaders see this reality, but many in D.C. continue to believe that if we delay the inevitable with any glimmer of hope that we can turn things around in Iraq.

Even if there is somehow support for a draft, it doesn't give any guarantee that the Iraqi Parliament will start actually complete one benchmark.

To the point

With the whole Howard Dean "fiasco" far behind us we need to realize that the republican party is not in the position to put a presidential candidate that speaks the wishes of the masses (or as I like to say more figuratively, the hoi polloi. Their objective is not to put a great candidate up against a democrat in 2008, it is to find the democrat's weakest link and exploit it to the nth degree.

I found a good post that makes the case for Obama using this same logical fame work. Quite clearly it states,

Obama is more important than just the best Democrat. He is the best PERSON for our country.

The post isn't well written at all, but it is to the point. Quite clearly, it brings up a salon article that even in Frank Luntz poll testing, that republicans are likely to vote for Obama, while other democrats get no support whatsoever. This is incredibly important considering that the Iraq war is probably the issue that will garner the most amount of unity among voters. All the republicans are for it, while most of the public is against it.

The same overzealous, and non sequential, attacks on Dean share an eerie similarity to the repeated, and failed, attacks on Obama. The republicans want it, so they are trying their hardest to create a feud between Clinton and Obama, hoping in the process to taint the clean image of Obama.

I actually agree with Frank Luntz

I know, I know, another video! Sorry about that, but it does tie in to what I want to write in this post. Of all the times over the past couple years that I have written about his misguided "polik speak,"(see www.giantvolcano.com) I do agree with him on this one.

Democrats send way too much time bashing Bush. Its not helping. We know that our positions are shared by more Americans then he values that republicans spout. We have the advantage, yet politicians Like Darcy Burner continue to expose the connection expecting more votes next election season.

How is that going to win over moderate republicans? Simply put, it won't. It hasn't; just look at the 2006 election results. Why is it that the state of Indiana gets three districts to elect a democrat for the first time in over fifty years, yet in a liberal part of the state we still have Reichert as our house representative? They didn't attack Bush, they only stated that they were against the war in Iraq, wanted to raise the minimum wage, create affordable health care, and eliminate political corruption. All of these issues the democrats have the American public's side, yet inept politicians like Burner continue to believe that by simply attacking Bush it will win people over.

It didn't work in 2006, what makes these people think it will work in 2008?

Now I have an answer

So, in regards to my last post on Cheney, it seems that he lied to us back in 1994 in order to advance his plan to invade Iraq.

Why I am not surprised?

We need someone other than Darcy Burner

This visit does not hurt Reichert in anyway, only because the democrats still continue to use the failed strategy of making a connection of Bush and Reichert. Of course, there is a connection, Reichert does what he is told to do by Bush's cronies. But, that strategy failed in 2006 because voters are thinking at a more local perspective. It's difficult to make the argument that Reichert is the same as Bush since he can tout his "independent" voting record.

Why is Darcy Burner still using this failed strategy? She needs to attack Reichert directly on Iraq, Health care, and integrity. Just him. Do not utter Bush in any way. This puts Reichert on the defensive, rather then just allowing him to say to moderate republicans that the democrats are not addressing the issues; they are just "bush bashing."

Either she get rid of her incompetent advisers, or the democratic party needs to endorse someone better.

Materialism

I just finished a book called "the media monopoly." While I knew and/or assumed most of what it discussed, there is one important fact that I discovered; our materialism costs us as a nation $30 billion a year. Take an item like bleach. When you go the supermarket you will see that there are various different brands at vastly different prices. The simple fact is that bleach is bleach; there is little difference between each brand. Then why would someone buy a more expensive brand? The answer is that the type of color, or image conveyed in the ad tells us that we will be safe, or cleaner. New and/or lower priced companies will have to spend more money in research and commercials to compete with the big boys, which forces them to raise their price to cover the extra costs.

Please, stop being lame and buying more expensive products only for the sole reason that you have some sort of identification with the color blue. You're fucking it up for the rest of us.