GOP Refuses To Lead When It Has Power

Rather than implement a strategy in 2006, the GOP talks about what it might do. Talking about plans is one thing. Taking responsibility and leading in November 2006 is another.

The GOP remains in charge, and has the power to lead. The meaningless attacks on the DNC leadership doesn't send a signal that the GOP is serious about facing reality: They're still in charge, and still have no plan.

There's no reason to trust the GOP to create a new plan for '08. They can't create a plan, they just talk about things that they might do. Throw it back on the GOP and make the GOP majority lead in November 2006. They've chosen to fail.

* * *

Ref Amazing how the RNC, despite still having power in November 2006, uses the distraction of 2008.

Claims that the RNC is "plotting" a comeback are meaningless. the only way they can "come back" is if they face what they've botched. They haven't done that.

If the "coordinated attacks" on Pelosi were real, the GOP wouldn't announce them; they'd do it. The harsh reality, is the GOP has enough problems in-house (defections, loss of power) to contemplate what to do about the DNC.

Even if the RNC does have a plan for the future, what about the RNC plan -- in November 2006 -- to resolve the issues? Again, the RNC shows its true colors: It has no plan to provide leadership, only a plan to make excuses and distractions. That's not leadership, but more of the non-sense which Kissinger says has resulted in a defeat for American combat forces in Iraq.

It's premature to speculate what America "might" be like in 2008; the RNC has yet to face the reality of the mess of America that they have in 2006. How the GOP suddenly is capable of "looking forward" despite they demonstrated inability to do the same in Iraq remains to be explained. The GOP cannot credibly claim they offer something new or viable. They only offer the same: Excuses, distractions, and non-sense to hide their internal problems.

Whether the DNC candidates do or do not declare themselves is meaningless. The problem for the GOP is despite stating an interest in 2008, they haven't faced 2006: Either the election, or the reality. Had the GOP really had an intention of wining in 2006, they wouldn't be left fumbling in November 2006 trying to understand what to do. A credible leadership team in the GOP would have had a plan for either outcome; they don't have that. They planned on victory, and have no plan for victory or defeat -- that's more defeatism.

Whether the GOP does or does not prepare for the 2008 election is meaningless. The problem with the Republican party is that they believe they only have to run against one candidate. This is incorrect. The GOP has to run against the American Public, and make the case to all 300 million of us that they've got something more than the excuses.

IN November 2006, the Republicans have no plan to continue providing leadership. There's no sense in speculating about what may or may not happen in 2008. In November 2006, the GOP has given up, has no plan; yet they want us to believe they’re going to offer us something better in 2008. How can that be? They have yet to look at reality; they aren’t looking at what's gone wrong; the only way they can create a solution is if they focus on what's wrong, and build from reality. The GOP approach is folly: Ignore facts, but promise something. That's meaningless.

Notice closely, the GOP suggests they'll have an "easier" time of implementing tactics. How can this be? IF they were credible, they wouldn't announce anything, but just do it. Again, the GOP cannot face reality; they talk about plans, but aren't doing much to solve problems. Attacking a party -- the DNC -- that remains the minority party until January 2008 -- sends a clear signal, the RNC, when given the change to act in a bipartisan manner, prefers to use smokescreens.

___ Why isn't the RNC leadership pin November 2006 focusing on governing?

___ Is there a reason that the RNC leadership isn't focusing on reviewing what went wrong?

___ How can the RNC in 2006 suggest it offers something for 2008, but it hasn't taken the time to face the issues in November 2006?

* * *

It's an overstatement to suggest the DNC leadership is crumbling. It may not be unified, but that's alot more than the GOP can say: At least the DNC has a platform that's somewhat recognizable; the GOP is still shooting its own, and burying what remains of their failures. Someday, they may look at what they're doing, until then it's premature the RNC plan for '08 will achieve any result other than Kissinger’s verdict on Iraq: Defeat.

The fact that the GOP has to announce what it is doing, as opposed to doing it, sends a clear signal that the GOP doesn’t believe the manipulated will understand unless they are given a fair warning of what to expect: More distractions.

Today, it's irrelevant what the RNC does or doesn't do after 2007: The issue today is what's the RNC plan for November 2006. They have nothing; they only focus on the possibility of '08, not the reality of 2006.

The longer the GOP spends targeting people, and not focusing reality or solutions, the more We the People will be able to make an informed decision: The same failed GOP Party, which refuses to provide leadership in November 2006, remains unfit to be trusted for more power. They've had the chance to do what's right; they refused, and offer Americans only excuses and distractions.

The GOP's problem has nothing to do with whether Pelosi or Hillary Clinton are or are not targeted. The issue is whether the GOP can credibly maintain support, despite refusing to lead in November 2006.

Pelosi and Clinton are powerful, not because of what they have done, but because they dare to offer an alternative. The last thing the GOP wants is a solution; it might make their party realize that the GOP wasn't the source.

The DNC should not respond to the false attacks by the GOP. Simply turn it back on the GOP and make the GOP come to the table: They're in charge in November 2006; what may or may not happen between now and 2008 is irrelevant. The issue is what will the GOP do in November 2006 when they have the power and ability to solve problems. Pointing fingers at irrelevant disputes is meaningless. The voters figured it. The GOP lost in November 2006. The GOP is preparing to lose again. They have no explanation why they choose inaction while they're still in charge. There's no reason to give them more power in '08. They need more oversight and jail time, not a pass key for the White House.

* * *

Follow-up

There are a couple of problems with the Telegraph article:

___ Who were the anonymous/unnamed sources

___ Could the information have been from second-hand sources, actually from the GOP planning non-sense in the "reliable" UK press?

___ Why so much attention on two people the GOP don’t have to confront for a while

___ Does the GOP have an explanation why, despite still holding power in 2006, they have no plan for Nov-Dec 2006?

Judgments

The source of the article is from a GOP ally, hoping to distract attention with a false dispute. The problem is the GOP is in charge, and has no plan for November 2006.

Congress shouldn't go home until the GOP outlines their plan to address issues in November 2006. A Congressional decision to go home for the Winter Break will mean the GOP has given up in 2006, and cannot be trusted with more power in 2008.