Forgive this shameless rant: 
 
Democrats are pathetic. Yes, I am collectively calling them as such because their behavior has warranted it. At least those Congress members who refused to stand as our President made the call and hope for victory in the State of the Union. As one Republic strategist termed it: media whores…AKA: They suck up for their photo op and in the name of the video camera and immediately start bashing President Bush the second they step out of the room. I’m tired of these people screaming that they support the troops. They are completely offended by any overt assumption that that is not the case, yet, is “to support” not a verb? What does it mean to them? It’s like saying you believe in God without ever pondering what it actually means. A verb requires action. If you don’t want America and Iraq to succeed in this, your “support” is a sham without excuse.

They don’t like President Bush’s surge proposal. Fine. But why would you not stand in hope for a small chance at victory? Ben Stein had some wise points to make in his column for the American Conservative last week:

“Most important of all, who would have ever been rash enough on September 12, 2001 to say there would not be one major or even minor successful terrorist incident against the U.S. homeland in over five years? Who would have thought we would escape without more massive terror? But we have, and it is a foolhardy person who would say that's an accident. Bush may not have done it by himself, but he had something to do with it…. My point: let's be aware that Bush has presided over a lot of success in addition to substantial failure. My second point: no one elected the media to anything. If we let them lynch the man we elected as President we are throwing out the Constitution with the war in Iraq. In the studios and newsrooms, there is a lynch mob at work. Let's see it for what it is. We have a good man who has made mistakes in the Oval Office. He's the only President we have, and I trust him a lot more than I trust unelected princes of the newsroom.”

Also note that the President gave a noble shot at bringing the parties together, focusing on issues the Democrats deem most important. They give him no credit. Novak had something to say about Bush’s agenda and the Democratic’s typically childish handling of the situation:

“It shows that the self-confident Democratic leadership is uninterested in being cut into potentially disastrous outcomes in Iraq. It wants to function as a coordinate branch of government, not as friendly colleagues in the spirit of bipartisanship… Instead, the president talked about goals, though not methods, dear to Democratic hearts: expanded health insurance, energy independence and federal aid to local education… Yet, Democrats immediately indicated all such Bush plans have no chance of passage.

Rep. Pete Stark, chairman of the relevant Ways and Means subcommittee, immediately declared that Bush's serious effort to improve health insurance coverage was dead on arrival, without the benefit of hearings.”

We demand perfection from our leader. And we are allowed to expect great things.”

And then there was the big war protest in DC today. So the big mouth celebrities, your typical Susan Sarandon and Jane Fonda were there, spouting off for “peace.” I don’t think everyone who participated in the event is ignorant or uninformed but most people are. Most people don’t have a clue what’s going on or what they are truly marching for. That is evidenced by the photos I saw of people, again, hold signs that said, “Impeach Bush” and “Liar.” Whatever you think about the war or the Bush presidency, those things are absolutely unwarranted. Lies is certainly not an adequate or even remotely truthful term. And for what should he be impeached? The fact of the matter is, the American people voted the President into office and that office holds a lot of power. We gave it to him…so the direction he’s gone with it was his right; in fact, his duty. If he did anything less that what he thought the best possible option for our country, he would have been doing us a disservice and disrespecting the office of the presidency. David Frum, in the Wall Street Journal, last week, had some good commentary on this matter:

“Perhaps the answer to all these questions can be found in this: The sixth and seventh years of a presidency are the years when presidents discover their office's limits--and their own. All presidents end up trying to stretch too little sheet over too much bed. We want them to be bold but not adventurous, flexible but not vacillating, resolute without stubbornness, confident without cocksureness. Above all, we want them to pursue great and uncertain goals--and yet to achieve consistent success. The men and women who seek the office believe themselves capable of all those things. They have to, or they would not dare. And then they, and we, know great disappointment.

But that is not usually the end of the story. The story ends much later on, when partisan rancor cools, when the results come in, and the record can be read in full. When that day at last arrives for this president, perhaps all Americans will be able to agree that this most divisive of figures united in himself both the first President Bush and the second, both the president who sometimes erred and stumbled--and also the man who nonetheless kept fighting. George W. Bush has always been at his best in adversity. Americans face no shortage of adversity now.”

I’ll say that Republicans nor Democrats have it all right. But when it comes to these two parties, or in respect to the conservative vs. liberal argument between them, conservatives and/or Republicans make a lot more sense when you put it simply. The ideals, aspirations, solutions, possibilities, and hopes of the right are those of victory, of power, of true justice, of, in my opinion, common sense. The things to which we are naturally inclined as humanity, are elevated in the many of the ideals of the right. The Democratic agenda is skewed and irresponsible and, though, nice in theory—unrealistic and impossible.

My friends at The Weekly Standard stand on the side of realism, so I urge you to read on the words on William Kristol and Frederick Kagan, especially that very last part:

“The president asserted that no one wants failure in Iraq. Understandably, the commander in chief wanted to avoid conceding how very real a possibility failure is, so he chose his rhetoric carefully. He spoke in the abstract about the bipartisan desire for victory and success.

And yet the Democrats for the most part sat on their hands, refusing to applaud, never mind rise in favor of such statements from a wartime president.

They're simply for a political solution, not a military solution. But Democratic claims that Iraqis must immediately find a political solution to their political problems are laughable in the face of the violence in Baghdad. Abandoning American efforts to control the violence in Iraq would lead to an increase in violence. This would in turn reduce the odds of peaceful and constructive political discourse, and would further undermine any spirit of compromise between the competing Iraqi factions… It's a far cry from the Democratic party that insisted on sending American forces to stop ethnic cleansing in war-torn Bosnia in the 1990s, to the one that now declares an Iraqi bloodbath no concern of ours… Republicans should not hesitate to point out how irresponsible their Democratic colleagues (and some Republicans) are being. Senator Clinton's troop cap is dangerously foolish. The nonbinding resolution of disapproval Senator Biden has proposed is irresponsible. The fact is that President Bush has, as he was widely and correctly urged to do, changed strategy. He's put a new commander, General Petraeus, in charge. Petraeus thinks the new plan can work, with the support of additional troops. He'll be confirmed by the Senate and sent out to the theater this week. Members of Congress should ask themselves, "What can we do to help Petraeus succeed?" Or would Senator Clinton and the Democrats just as soon lose?”

Dig out your common sense and use it.