Tuesday, October 23, 2007
It's almost like they collectively look forward to taking the advice Dick Cheney gave specifically to Patrick Leahy
What is with the Democrats? And what is with "even the liberal" NPR?
So GW Bush has a new Iraq funding bill out. The Democrats need to make a stand against just throwing money at Iraq without benchmarks, accountability, etc. I'm sure if the Democrats would unite in saying such a thing in a clear and understandable manner, the American people would love the Democrats to complete electoral victory in 2008.
But do the Democrats do this? No. What do I hear on NPR? After I hear the President say something to the effect of "this bill presents an opportunity for the Dems. to show they support the troops even if they don't support my leadership", what do I hear from the Dems? I hear David Obey say "we ain't gonna let this bill outa committee". WTF? Obey should know better than to say this.
Of course, afterward NPR reports (doesn't play) a statement from Sen. Reid which makes more political sense (why didn't they just play the Reid quote? why the inflamatory Obey quote? it's like NPR wants the Dems. to look bad ... nu?) ... but the damage is done: we heard Obey all but say he's holding the troop funding hostage for partisan reasons and now Sen. Reid and the "liberal" NPR have to cover for it -- at least that's the impression given.
What's the deal with the freakin' incompetence, though? Obey was a whip, IIRC -- he of all people should know the value of message discipline. So why wasn't he exercizing it?
And you know what happens? Because the Democrats have failed to be partisan and present a unified front, they'll end up looking more partisan because of remarks like Obey's. Reid's message was pretty good -- it coulda been crafted a bit better and hit a few more salient points (pointing out "what's wrong with benchmarks? even the President says its the best way to ensure progress [in No Child Left Behind]", aping the President's words about an earlier Democratic bill and asking for the President to "send a clean bill"), but you need to tell the American people why your doing something like this ...
When the first Dem. response the American people hear to "support the troops by supporting my bill" is "ain't no way we're passin' this bill", they'll think Faux News is right about liberal patriotism. Why did NPR play his statement and not Reid's? I don't know ... but if we had party discipline, Obey would have stayed on message and it wouldn't have mattered (and, ironically, we'd look less partisan by being more partisan!).
*
Update -- it gets weirder: I just wikipedia'd Obey and it seems just about a half-a-year ago Obey got into a tussle with liberals arguing for defunding the war. So now Obey's flip-flopped on it? That'll be good press for the Dems ... or is Obey just trying to discredit this particular "liberal" point of view by implimenting it in a ham-fisted manner that'll be smeared as divisive and partisan? What's Obey up to? And why? Something is very odd here if y'all ask me ...
So GW Bush has a new Iraq funding bill out. The Democrats need to make a stand against just throwing money at Iraq without benchmarks, accountability, etc. I'm sure if the Democrats would unite in saying such a thing in a clear and understandable manner, the American people would love the Democrats to complete electoral victory in 2008.
But do the Democrats do this? No. What do I hear on NPR? After I hear the President say something to the effect of "this bill presents an opportunity for the Dems. to show they support the troops even if they don't support my leadership", what do I hear from the Dems? I hear David Obey say "we ain't gonna let this bill outa committee". WTF? Obey should know better than to say this.
Of course, afterward NPR reports (doesn't play) a statement from Sen. Reid which makes more political sense (why didn't they just play the Reid quote? why the inflamatory Obey quote? it's like NPR wants the Dems. to look bad ... nu?) ... but the damage is done: we heard Obey all but say he's holding the troop funding hostage for partisan reasons and now Sen. Reid and the "liberal" NPR have to cover for it -- at least that's the impression given.
What's the deal with the freakin' incompetence, though? Obey was a whip, IIRC -- he of all people should know the value of message discipline. So why wasn't he exercizing it?
And you know what happens? Because the Democrats have failed to be partisan and present a unified front, they'll end up looking more partisan because of remarks like Obey's. Reid's message was pretty good -- it coulda been crafted a bit better and hit a few more salient points (pointing out "what's wrong with benchmarks? even the President says its the best way to ensure progress [in No Child Left Behind]", aping the President's words about an earlier Democratic bill and asking for the President to "send a clean bill"), but you need to tell the American people why your doing something like this ...
When the first Dem. response the American people hear to "support the troops by supporting my bill" is "ain't no way we're passin' this bill", they'll think Faux News is right about liberal patriotism. Why did NPR play his statement and not Reid's? I don't know ... but if we had party discipline, Obey would have stayed on message and it wouldn't have mattered (and, ironically, we'd look less partisan by being more partisan!).
*
Update -- it gets weirder: I just wikipedia'd Obey and it seems just about a half-a-year ago Obey got into a tussle with liberals arguing for defunding the war. So now Obey's flip-flopped on it? That'll be good press for the Dems ... or is Obey just trying to discredit this particular "liberal" point of view by implimenting it in a ham-fisted manner that'll be smeared as divisive and partisan? What's Obey up to? And why? Something is very odd here if y'all ask me ...
# posted by alberich @ 9:48 AM 
