I did an amused triple-take when I heard that nouveau House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced she "might" block a call for a troop surge in Iraq. It looks like she is already being forced by her party to backpedal on that language.
For years, the Democrats have owned the argument, the insistence that we need more troops to get the job done right, apparently in hopes of looking more hawkish (and therefore more electable) compared to Republicans.
I remember their incessant harping on the idea because I wondered if it didn't secretly gall them to be the party of more troops (but then I remembered Democrats were in the White House as the Viet Nam war expanded and became a grinder for American GIs). I doubted they were sincere about it, but they committed themselves beyond anyone's ability to forget.
Now we are supposed to believe that anyone but Pelosi would be blamed if she were to make this anything more than a pointless bluff? I hardly think so.
Even if the press is as liberal as Ann Coulter says it is, there are still plenty of reporters, tv producers and analysts willing to remind the American people what Democrats have been saying about more troops in the last several years to make Pelosi's political posturing very transparent and fairly devoid of sincerity or compassion.
If this tiny tempest lasts more than a week, expect to start seeing file tape of Democrats with long faces and furrowed brows saying that if they were making the decisions, more troops would be dispatched ASAP.
If I were president, I'd be very inclined to say, fine, Ms. Pelosi, if you want to go against your own party line AND the commission's recommendations, be my guest. I'll take your advice in a spirit of cooperation and hold the line at the present level on your counsel.
Pelosi seems curiously anxious to climb onto the hot seat. I wouldn't turn up the burner on her, but I wouldn't exactly run to turn it off in this case.
These are our troops she's playing politics with.
I'm already wondering if the Democrats understand what the voters expect of them, and whether they'll surrender to their predictable compulsions and blow it by '08. If I had to place a bet, I'd remember history and bet against liberal zealotry.
Maybe the top tier hasn't received the memo about how the moderates (aka, those who are more conservative) are the new pop stars of their party? More likely, they don't give a damn about the new moderates. Regardless of party you may be able to see the truth in that scenario.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Fancy Nancy is teetering perilously atop the high wire of politics as the intoxication of power invades her liberal sensibilities.
Trust me, she just can't help but blow it. The election gave the party a reason to pull together, a unified front to beat Bush, but now that the battle is over chaos will ensue.
They just can't help themselves.
>They just can't help themselves.
I surely agree with that. If they could help themselves, they might have actually made a few changes after the 2004 trouncing, and stopped beating a few dead horses, maybe even sent a few of the old school radicals into forced retirement.
Instead, the old-time liberals concluded that if only they redoubled their efforts, they could shove their DOA agenda down Americans' throats before they end their careers. A clinically fascinating percentage of them seem to have placed their entire career eggs in some single basket -- total disregard of the 2nd Amendment perhaps, or normalization of truly radical sexual behaviors, or what-have-you.
The most intransigent of these radicals will never learn from election results, and those will die with their life dreams unrealized. As they should.
Post a Comment