Vote Republican!

We suck.

But Democrats really, really, really, really suck worse.

If you were really following what was going on, the complete vacuum of Democratic policies would make more of an impression on you. Their latest Big New Plan, "New Direction For America," is already folding up on them, and they may be postponing its release.

They've got nothing, not only on foreign policy, but increasingly on domestic issues. Major Democratic leaders are all over the map on things like Iraq. You been watching Hillary lately?

A proposal for withdrawal met with this response in the Senate today. If I'm counting right, the vote against it included a few Democrats.

As with the last time this came up for a vote, the Democrats are squalling "unfair!" and declaring that it wasn't a "real vote." As usual, their technique is to debate forever and generate sound bites, and never actually let a vote happen.

Meanwhile, the New York Times hopes for the worst in Iraq.

From Ankle Biting Pundits:

In their lead editorial yesterday, the New York Times called the killing of terrorist Musab Al-Zarqawi a “modest success” (the formation of a permanent Iraqi government was also given the same label).

Well it turns out that as a result of this “modest success” has led to what has been called a “treasure trove” of information. Not surprisingly, since Zarqawi’s death, US and Iraqi forces have made a total of 452 raids resulting in the death of 104 terrorists.

Now, does the killing of al-Zarqawi mean that we have “won” the Iraq war or that dark days are not ahead? Of course not. But why is it that the MSM, especially those who were against the war from the start, cannot admit when something goes well? I’ll tell you why. Because to them, every piece of good news that comes out of Iraq means that the GOP just might keep control of Congress. And it’s because of this irrational thinking that when something good does happen, all you hear is “Well, I guess it’s OK, but…..” (Hmm, I wonder who predicted that reaction just after Zarqawi was killed?), and their “goal posts” for success just keep getting moved back.

The title of the NYT editorial is “Too Soon To Cheer In Baghdad“. Why? A cheer doesn’t mean the game is over or that you’ve won. Hell, at a sporting event doesn’t the home crowd cheer when their team does something good when the game is close or it’s tied? Or especially when the good thing might affect the outcome of the game?

As I've said many times, you can tell by watching someone in the stands what team they're rooting for, or at least what team they want to see lose.