How to lose an election in 60 days

[iplaw]

Charlie Rangel has decided that the Dems are going to cut funding to the troops if they gain power in November and if its up to Rep. Lynn Woolsey, it would be a 100% cut in funding.  You think the Dems would be smart enough to keep ideas like this quite until the elections were over.

Dems already carry the stigma of being the party that is weak on defense.  Why would they take the chance of reinforcing that belief right before an election by making claims like this?

Most people are pissed about Iraq as it is now, but suggesting that funding should be cut is probably not the brightest idea floating around out there.

What drives the Dems to consistently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/092606/iraqfunding.html

[iplaw]

TradeSports election odds 9/24/06

|09-24-06| 08:57 AM| Total Replies: 1
Betting odds for control of the Senate & House in the 2006 election as of 8:28AM Central Standard Time at TradeSports internet book:

Senate GOP--83 Dems--17
House GOP--58 Dems--42

[Chicken Little]

Its a stigma that you and Rove are happy to try and reinforce, I'm sure.  []

I can't get your link right now, but I will read it with an open mind; The Hill is good, messy, fun.

I always appreciate your take on reality, but mine's different:

1.  Don't be too surprised if secdef Rumsfeld isn't the next lamb offered up on the altar of election hypocricy.  A more deserving kabob their never was, btw; Rummy's still trying to fight this war for nickels, and our troops are feeling it:

quote: Earlier, it was revealed that Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, was facing a new challenge, after the US Army's Chief of Staff refused to submit a budget plan for 2008 in protest at the demands the Pentagon is placing on America's overstretched military.

General Peter Schoomaker argued that the service requires either a much bigger budget than the Administration has proposed, or relief from some of its worldwide commitments.  

Doesn't sound too "strong on defense" to me.  How 'bout you?

2. As for your new bud Chuck Rangel[], I still can't get to the article, but is this "cut" a pre-election stunt related to troop withdrawal? Knowing that guy, it is.  Chuck tried for a "mandatory draft" bill last year, if I'm not mistaken; this might be a new effort to put the focus on Iraq, where it needs to be.

/They don't call it the silly season for nuthin'.

[iplaw]

What can I say about my praise of Rangel...it was temporary insanity.[]

I didn't say it was true or false...  I merely stated the perception.  Most people don't bother to push past the rhetoric or bother reading a news story.  That being said, why would you risk it with the superficial nature of politics as they are?

The Tradesports stats are truly what Dems should be concerned about.  They are notoriously spot on.