“I think that things are going well for the Democrats right now,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday, alluding to recent data showing that a plurality of poll respondents would prefer a Democratic-controlled House.
So why, she implied, should Democrats risk spoiling the mood?
She rebuffed the call by Sen. Russ Feingold, D- Wisc., to censure Bush for ordering National Security Agency surveillance of al Qaida contacts with persons in the United States without seeking warrants from a court.
“I have no idea why anybody would censure someone before they have an investigation,” she said.
Not that I support her party or most of the things they stand for, but they've been showing a penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory lately. I could change my support from Bush if the Democrats could provide a credible alternative. But they can't. They scream, they whine, they attack, but they don't every provide "a better way."
Not only that, it appears that even if they win they don't plan on doing anything productive:
Once the Democrats win the House in November, she promised, they’d seek to enact a job creation program, universal health insurance, more funding for public education, “energy independence, and real security for our country.”
But House Democratic sources said that if Democrats win the majority in November, Democratic committee chairmen would use their oversight, investigative, and subpoena powers to gather evidence forming the foundation for a range of potential anti-Bush actions, including censure and impeachment.
Indeed, their overall strategy seems to be anything but coming up with a better idea:
Feingold insisted that censure is not a diversion from the Democrats’ message, which is essentially that Bush and his administration are incompetent. “What I think some of my colleagues are missing,” he contended, “is that this (censure) actually fits in perfectly with this (Democratic theme of Bush’s alleged incompetence).”
What can you say about a party who continually fails to take advantage of the "incompetence" of their opponents? If you cannot manage to look more competent than an incompetent, what does that tell you?
Of course it seems that the Democrats are in a tough spot. Their "base" have even worse tunnel vision than they do:
But one Democrat who e-mailed me this week about Feingold said some party loyalists will stay home on Election Day if the Democrats don’t get behind Feingold’s censure crusade.
“The Democratic base is getting sick and tired of the whining, wimpy Democratic leadership at the national level,” said Darla Wilshire of Altoona, Pa. “We are the voters who will stay home in November, not the Republicans. Why? Because the party can't stand up for its principles, like those demonstrated by Russ Feingold.”
So it appears that the loyal Democrats would rather give the Republicans a victory (and continued control of Congress) than drop a rather pointless attack on Bush. What would censure really mean, anyhow? Didn't they censure Clinton? Did it stop him in any way? If they impeach Bush and manage to remove him from office, doesn't that just turn the reins of government over to Dick "Halliburton Hitlerette Puppetmaster Quick-draw McGraw" Cheney? This would be an improvement for them?
Evidently so. So would trying up the leadership of the country in an ongoing battle that could cripple our ability to deal with real threats. Even some of the Democrats can see this:
[Democrat Rep. Jim] Marshall, whose district Bush carried with 56 percent of the vote, said Thursday, “Many people in my district are concerned about the NSA spying and I receive regularly letters suggesting that I call for the president’s impeachment. And I regularly respond that I know of nothing the administration has done that warrants impeachment proceedings."
He said calls for investigating this and investigating that "tend to undermine our resolve with regard to what I consider the principle issue we as a country have to deal with right now, and that’s Iraq.”
I consider myself conservative, but not a Republican. I could perhaps bring myself to be a conservative Democrat if people like Marshall were the rule rather than the exception. But such is not the case. On the other hand, if the Democrats did take power, chances are they'd keep doing all the same things Bush has been doing--but now it would be a good thing, because they're not incompetant, and we can trust them.
Uh huh.
No comments:
Post a Comment