Hell In A Handbasket

Touched on this last week a couple times, but Paul Begala expands on why the Democrats should not be playing defense come November:

"Being part of a party that has three or four different new approaches to Iraq beats the hell out of being part of a party that marches in lockstep off a cliff."

And if there's any doubt what three-word phrase is getting run into the ground, take note of the running theme of this letter in today's Tribune:

"The Democrats are being chided by Republicans for not having anything about Iraq in their New Direction for America plan. The truth is that the Democrats have too many Iraq plans. They have the cut and run immediately plan, the cut and run at the end of 2006 plan, the cut and run by July 1, 2007, plan, the cut and run by the end of 2007 plan, and the begin to withdraw troops at the end of 2006, followed by a cut and run at some later unspecified date plan.

The nation can always count on the Democrats to be with us at the start of a war, but after a short while, they always cut and run."

Got that? Six times! Nice job, Mr. Graham. Karl Rove, I'm sure, is very proud.