Republicans pretending to split on Afghanistan

[Einzige]

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/08 ... ive-schis/

Ann Coulter's recent column "Bill Kristol Must Resign" may have officially kicked off the next great schism within the conservative movement. At issue is the war in Afghanistan -- and, more specifically, whether Republicans should support President Obama's approach to a conflict that has now lasted for Americans far longer than World War II.

Mocking neoconservatives, Coulter wrote: "Bill Kristol [editor of The Weekly Standard] and Liz Cheney have demanded that [Michael] Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)"

Until now, there has been somewhat of an unspoken rule, adhered to by most on the right, that conservative Republicans would vigorously oppose Obama's liberal domestic policies while supporting his efforts to win in Afghanistan. After all, Republicans had staunchly backed George W. Bush when he made the case for fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Changing course now would seem craven -- playing politics with national security. And so, in foreign policy, Obama was criticized from the right only when he appeared to be showing weakness, not when he displayed toughness.

Coulter is not the first conservative to warn that Afghanistan could turn into a quagmire. George Will and Tony Blankley have raised that very point. But Coulter has made it in a way that directly -- and personally -- challenges conservative orthodoxy. And it's catching on. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough tweeted Coulter's column out to his followers, adding, "Thank you, Ann Coulter. She speaks out against the GOP now being for permanent war. She is right."

Clearly, things have changed since 2008, when candidates John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and even Mitt Romney represented the mainstream viewpoint, and when Congressman Ron Paul was essentially mocked for his isolationist tendencies and his desire for a "humble foreign policy." Today, Paul's positions are enjoying resurgence, and his son, Rand Paul, is poised to be elected to the U.S. Senate. How quickly things change.

To quote Trent Reznor: not this time, no, you don't. The Republican establishment isn't going to be allowed to slyly posture this way to pretend that they're the Party of peace without first doing some deep introspection into what their more fundamental priorities are, e.g. military spending.

[Ritterin Sophia]

The same Mr Coulter that suggest we should go over to the ME and convert them to Christianity at gun point?

[Terralthra]

The same Mr Coulter that suggest we should go over to the ME and convert them to Christianity at gun point?

I believe you mean Ms.

[Ritterin Sophia]

The same Mr Coulter that suggest we should go over to the ME and convert them to Christianity at gun point?

I believe you mean Ms.

[Terralthra]

If you ask any of our transgender members, they will tell you that even if you are right, and you have managed to detect a sign that Ms. Coulter is biologically male, referring to her as such is unspeakably rude.

But you don't like her, so that's ok, right?

[eion]

Considering Coulter's (I'm just going to avoid any honorific because Coulter deserves none of them) lack of respect or even basic civility/politness towards every member of the GLBT community and their allies I don't think xe deserves any politness of any sort.

The second she checks herself into hate-rehab, maybe we'll start treating her like a human being again.

[loomer]

Not this crap again - our transgendered members do not speak with one voice, as the thread devoted to this exact fucking topic - Coulter - demonstrated.

[Aaron]

Man, woman, trans-gendered, she's still a cunt. And if she's trans-gendered, that just makes her a hypocritical one.

Now all that said, she's right. Afghanistan is a quagmire and unless we want to significantly change our approach to it we may as well declare victory and bugger off home.

[Crown]

But you don't like her, so that's ok, right?

Yes.

... Get a fucking GRIP, Jesus, using Ann FUCKING Coulter as a beating stick for political correctness is just fucking BIZARRE.

[Molyneux]

The same Mr Coulter that suggest we should go over to the ME and convert them to Christianity at gun point?

I believe you mean Ms.

Because no woman has ever had an Adam's apple. Nosirree.

[Gil Hamilton]

Ah, man, we really need a thread that mentions Ann Coulter that doesn't ultimately come down to if she has a penis or not. Seriously. Her tiny chubby has nothing to do with Afghanistan or the topic.

On the topic at hand, Afghanistan is becoming a real annoyance for the GOP. I honestly don't think that many of them thought it or Iraq was going to outlive the Bush presidency; either because they thought we were going to absolutely stop the baddies to nothing such that we could leave or that they honestly though that if we just scraped off the Taliban/Saddam Hussein the people would sincerely be grateful and Democracy Would Take Hold. Since both countries are full of people that haven't realized they've been conquered yet, both GOP fantasies have been popped in the short term and Bush's legacy is now someone elses.

If that person would have ended up being John McCain, they wouldn't have a problem. They could just stoically declare that they are in it for the long haul and that the War on Terror never promised to be easy, then keep on going. Since its Obama, they've got a strategy problem. Their strategy with Obama is to oppose him on everything, no matter what or how petty or even if they are on record as supporting that exact position before Obama had it. The whole "getting behind the President in a time of war" thing was only their own smug little propaganda for when Bush was in power. Now that Obama's inherited alot of things that happened in Bush, they've got the ugly problem that they just spent the last seven years loudly pushing that policy and if they are honest, they have to continue pushing that policy, even if it means getting behind Obama on some things, or transparantly being hypocrites.

Thus, this is a good measure of who actually honestly believes their own message and therefore you can have a conversation with. The Ann Coulters you can't. They exist to be viciously contradictory. If Obama came out in favor of oxygen, they'd cite the fact that oxygen is toxic at high pressures and have a trimix political fundraiser where everyone wears SCUBA tanks for the new conservative organization to promote awareness of Obama's rusting away of American Values ("Families Against Oxidation!").

The ones who grudgingly admit that they've got to finish what they started are worth contacting. Even if they are against you on most things, at least they try to be consistent. You can work with your opposition if they are consistent in what they want.