Redstate

She slanders Meade just a tad, though.

By Moe Lane Posted in Democrats — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

It was General Meade's misfortune to be simply not a Grant, Lee, Thomas, Stuart, McPherson, Jackson or even Custer. He could function, which in the Union Army at the time was nothing to sneeze at...

What? Sorry. Civil War geeking is an occupational hazard among bloggers. Anyway, that was all sparked by a random comment made by Ms. Emery as she is merrily skewering the Democrats for the way that they've managed to step wrong on the surge (Irresolution) :

They have cut themselves off from all share in a victory, bought themselves a half-share in a loss, should one develop, and given the president they so despise an excuse he did not have before this. If a failure ensues, it is no longer his fault, in its entirety. Now it is his fault--and theirs.

Read on. After you read the whole thing, mind you.

Jeff Goldstein's analysis of the above section and its reasoning (H/T, by the way) covers the same ground that I would, only more Jeffish - which is, by the way, a compliment. So I'll focus on another section:

The one thing on which they are always consistent is their faithful adherence to polls--to the poll of the day and the mood of the moment, the problem being that the day and the moment can change. That's because their eyes are on regaining the White House next year. But the present, intense as it is, is often a poor predictor of what will come next. The great Republican landslide of 1994 was not predictable from a January 1993 standpoint; the Democratic triumph of 2006 was not predictable from a January 2005 standpoint; and the political mood in January 2007 may be a poor prognosticator of the political climate of 2008. Bush was a genius in 2004, and a dupe two years later, just as Clinton was a genius in 1992 and a survivor two years after that.

The 2008 election cannot be predicted, as it depends on too many things that can change without warning; Iraq, Iran, Korea, terror strikes anywhere, unlooked-for wins and losses; challenges and responses no one can imagine, much less strategize on in advance. What looks like smart, or save-your-rear politics in 2007, may look rather different before long. Did we mention this country is not fond of losing? Did we mention that the polls that showed a two-to-one margin against the surge option also showed close to a half-and-half split on its chance of succeeding, and that two in three hoped that it would? Did we mention that by nearly a two to one margin, voters believe that a resolution casting doubt on the president's plans would hurt troop morale and encourage the enemy? Poll-watching surge-bashers might want to keep this in mind.

And this, at bottom, is why House and Senate Democrats still haven't closed ranks and thrown down the gauntlet. Note this article: the House apparently plans to deal with the surge by trying to talk it to death. They'll be giving each House member five minutes to speechify on the subject. Let's do the math, shall we?

Five minutes for the speech itself. Add a minute for introductions / lost papers / random events. Add another two because Congress is a precious natural resource of hot air. And add another two because, frankly, the first assumptions were too optimistic. So. Ten minutes times 435 Congressmen equals 4,350 minutes equals 72 and a half hours of speechifying. Which can turn into two weeks of speechifying, easy*. Even if Pelosi cracks the whip - sorry about the image, there - and keeps the speeches down to five minutes that's still a whole week of nothing except 435 people talking, and talking, and talking. And not doing anything else, for that matter. And that's assuming that people sign off on that.

So what's going on?

Stalling, of course. Twenty years from now, when the first useful books on this Congress get written, I expect that the authors of them will be paying close attention to the way that the Democratic leadership mostly defaulted to the Once-and-Future Committee Chairs. In other words, a lot of the people in charge are also back in charge... and that is doing nothing to temper their natural inclination to play it safe.

And right now? Things aren't completely safe - by which I mean completely predictable. They have to do something, as they've got internal factions to worry about; but even the Congressional firebrands are tame enough (or been in Congress long enough; same thing, really) to dislike being too exposed. So they take their time, hash it all out and make sure that they're all on the same page; and if a shift has to be made, well. They have time, surely.

And this is the point where I reference the term "OODA loop", which will lead just about every Republican reading this to start grinning nastily.

Moe

*Yes, I know, I'm assuming an eight hour a day, forty hour work week; the article claims that Congress will get it all done in three days. Anybody here going to bet money on that?