In Which I Play Translator
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Democrats — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Consider this:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.
Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad.
"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.
Pelosi recently endorsed the proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for a swift redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq over a period of six months, but no other party leader followed, and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) publicly opposed her.
She said her support for Murtha was not intended to forge a Democratic position on the war, adding that she blocked an effort by some of her colleagues to put the Democrats on record backing Murtha.
Her comments ruling out a caucus position appeared to put Pelosi at odds with some other party officials. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean recently said Democrats were beginning to coalesce around a strategy that would pull out all troops over the next two years. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said on the day Murtha offered his plan, "As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we'll have a position."
Pelosi, one of the most liberal Democrats in the House, opposed the war and, as the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee before the invasion, argued that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States. She served as Democratic whip when Congress authorized Bush to go to war, and she rallied 126 Democratic votes against the measure when then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), the Democratic leader, supported the White House.
The translation is as follows:
We will not have a unified voice on Iraq because our positions would expose us as weak on national security in the eyes of the voters, thus setting us up for yet another electoral beating in 2006.
I mean, how else does one seriously interpret this comment? To be sure, this may be smart politics, designed not to give Republicans anything to shoot at. But it's hardly an infallible tactic and it can be easily exposed.
Behold how:
Meanwhile, House Republicans are planning to seek a vote as early as today on a resolution saying that an "artificial timetable" for the withdrawal of troops is "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq."
Think that's going to happen often, forcing Democrats to take a position on Iraq whether they like it or not?
Me too.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Bring it. — Comments (80) »
In Which I Play Translator 19 Comments (0 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
More Quantum Politics from the Democrats. If you know their spin, it's impossible to tell their position.
. . . the Democrats are a "big tent" party on the war, given that it'd be hard to get Sens. Lieberman and Nelson(s) to agree with Gov. Dean on this.
I know, I know. The record of consistent failure of third parties in the U.S. makes one want to avoid the subject normally, regardless of how one feels about whether a third party would be a good idea in theory.
But with a handful of centrist pro-war Dems (or at least not anti-war Dems) who don't seem to have much of a party anymore when it comes to foreign policy, and with the split in the Republican Party between realpolitikers and neo-cons, might it be possible to have a third party which favors a robust foreign and military policy while avoiding the extremes on social and economic policy and keeping a favorable attitude toward religion?
To provide one answer to my own question: more likely, such a party may form under the right kind of president, but more as an ad-hoc Congressional coalition than a formal party.
It is obvious from Pelosi's comments, that if the Dems win back the House all we'll see is gridlock. She is so proud that "we beat" Bush on Social Security reform. It is not about doing what is best for Americans. It is about beating Bush.
be serious.
The war only works as an issue if the Democrats are able to nationalize the 2006 campaign around it. Absent a coherent party policy the war is a non-issue because a large number of Dems are going to be running against the position of the rest. Right now, I'm assuming the "run away" caucus is probably the most numerous.
On the flipside, any Republican can either brand a Dem as being in favor of cut-and-run or make them repudiate a good portion of their leadership.
So I think Pelosi's position is the one I would have prayed that the Dems take.
Maybe Ms. Pelosi should think about her continued references to a culture of corruption in Washington, considering her $21,000 fine for illegal contributions to her congressional campaign.
You need a big tent to get Ted Kennedy's fat ass in it!
this is twice today you've been called to rein in what you post. A third time will be unpleasant.
that said nothing by a political leader. Her lack of leadership is a thing to behold.
Whoever said the House must keep running votes on the war is absolutely right. Put these morons up to vote early and often. Let the moonbats all explode when their brave "heroes" cut and run on their cut and run positions.
I mean, how else does one seriously interpret this comment? To be sure, this may be smart politics, designed not to give Republicans anything to shoot at.
There's already miles of video tape in the can.
More like a horse with two . . . I'll be charitable and say two front ends. This is just proof that the Dems can't lead.
for things like abortion policy or welfare policy. Big tents are not appropriate when it comes to fighting a war. Some things, like war, are black or white. You either support winning or you don't.
Pelosi and the Democratic Party does not support winning the war.
. . . Dem challengers unite around a "withdraw soon!" mantra led by all the Iraq veteran candidates like Murphy and Duckworth, whereas incumbents do whatever they feel like.
The uniting issue for Dems in 2006 will be the same reformist streak that helped drive the party out in 1994 -- the "this corruption is what happens when one party controls too much" meme.
The question is "what constitutes winning", and what's the most effective use of our resources.
may not need anything to shoot at. As long as the dems keep self-destructing with Dean at the helm