Saturday, September 23, 2006

Wrong For Too Long: Farrell on Shays and War

The Farrell campaign has put out a new ad attacking Shays on Iraq and his 14 trips to Iraq.
Today's Courant profiles former Shays supporters who've defected over Iraq.
In his speech to the group in Boucher's living room, Shays advocated setting a series of deadlines for the Iraqi people to reach independence, and, once those milestones are reached, a "one-for-one step down" as each new Iraqi solider is trained.

He said the United States should withdraw and power be transferred when the country's internal security is restored.

At that point, Andrew Shopick raised his hand to speak. The stockbroker from Wilton, an unaffiliated voter, plans to support Shays but is deeply disturbed by the war. Shopick represents the outer rim of Shays' support. Beyond him are the defectors.

"Iraq is becoming such a nightmare," Shopick told Shays in Boucher's living room. "We've basically taken a country and destroyed it. You talk about not leaving until we provide security, but as soon as we walk away, chaos will begin."

Shays' response shows how politically volatile the war has become for him.

He said, "We destroyed their security and we have a moral obligation to replace it."

Shays may well have defined the moral clarity that the anti-war movement lacks, it is unamerican to destroy and not rebuild. It is also more defining that the Republican controlled three branches of government have yet to rebuild anything. Not the economy, not post Katrina, Rita and Wilma devastated areas, not Afghanistan, not transparent elections, not a balanced budget, and on and on.

So while Shays may be right, harkening back to Democratic controlled rebuilding efforts in previous post war eras, he's also hoping that voters ignore that his party has proven itself incapable of governing let alone rebuilding anything.

Courant Shays Feels Heat Of Message To Washington By JOSH KOVNER, September 23, 2006


Anonymous said...

Charming. Using a body count of dead soldiers as a prop in a political ad.

The only prinatable reaction I have to this ad is "shameless"

Anonymous said...

Ok, pick your poison:

Vote for the person whose political ad highlights a body count


Vote for the person whose political advocacy enabled the body count

Anonymous said...

what's there to choose. The Courant reports Farrell has the same position on Iraq...or has she decided to play moderate now and will go peacenik later?

Who is she lying to, the moderate voters or the crowd...she's playing somebody...and shamelessly...too

Anonymous said...

Diane looks like she needs to lay off the fried dough and funnel cakes...we're not even through "fair season" yet and she's already rocking the double chin.

bluecoat said...

Check out the picture on the right.
Only a test: Rehearsal for Bush visit causes stir in Greenwich

bluecoat said...

and I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Turfgrrl makes a cse for not voting for Joe, too.

And it won't do much good but I would remind everyone that Gen Abizaid, the Commander of CENTCOM, who oversees military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the region, refers to the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as missions not wars because that's what they are.

turfgrrl said...

bluecoat -- Joe is a Democrat. Republicans are the majority party. Joe's vote, along with the rest of the minority party votes do not overturn any decision made by the Republicans.

Anonymous said...

Turfgrrl-- Speaking of moral clarity, when you refer to Shays and "his party", you really are speaking of your Party too, right? Or did you recently switch your registration from Republican to something else?

And will you ever understand the concept of political cover? When Joe Loserman "crosses over" in the name of bi-partisanship, several things immediately happen. 1) Loserman brings several other "moderate" Dems with him. 2) He all but ensures moderate Republicans side with the GOP majority. (they don't want to be seen as to the left of any Democrats.) As such, Lieberman does tremendous harm to the Democratic Party.

turfgrrl said...

anonymous 10:38 -- Apparently you don't understand math. As long as every Republican votes along party lines it really doesn't matter what Democrats do. But of course it would never occur to some lefties that maybe the scorched earth ideological purity might be a bad strategy. You'd think that the obvious, getting moderate Republicans to vote against party line votes, would be more effective.

bluecoat said...

turffgrrrl - you make a case for not voting for Joe; I;ll remind you again that Liberfool did not vote for the Warner/Durbin Ammendmant late last year calling on Bush to bring about significant change in Iraq this year - the bill passed the Republican dominated US Senate without his yes vote. And the rest of the time he's a flaming liberal unless a lobbyist has him in the back pocket on an issue.