Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Democrats' Desperation

No Fitzmas?!! Bwahh!, Wahh! Bwahhah!!!! ..............T
With Democrats' efforts to criminalize policy differences over Iraq having failed, they have turned in desperation to politics, led by Harry Reid, the Senate's minority leader. First, over the weekend, Reid demanded the resignation of Karl Rove, the White House's deputy chief of staff. By this logic, Reid also should resign, since he, like Rove, has not been indicted.
Then yesterday, Reid and Sen. Dick Durbin engineered a partisan publicity stunt. The
Associated Press describes it:
Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, questioning intelligence that President Bush used in the run-up to the war in Iraq and accusing Republicans of ignoring the issue.
"They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why," Democratic leader Harry Reid said. . . .
Democrats sought assurances that Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas would complete the second phase of an investigation of the administration's prewar intelligence.
After about two hours, senators returned to open session having appointed a six-member task force--three members from each party--to review the committee's progress and report back to their respective leaders by Nov. 14.
Democratic senators are transparently playing to the party's moonbat base, who've been taunting them for years demanding that they "stand up" to the Bush administration and who were demoralized when they didn't get the indictment for the war that they wanted for "Fitzmas"--the Angry Left nickname for the day indictments were handed up in the Valerie Plame kerfuffle.
The problem with such base-rallying stunts is that they rally the other side's base too. President Clinton, an advocate of free trade, capital punishment and welfare reform, was never popular with the hard left of the Democratic Party, but they were his most fervent defenders once impeachment was on the table.
President Bush has just had a rough month with his political base; the Harriet Miers misstep brought to the surface disagreements over other matters such as spending and immigration. He repaired much of the damage with the excellent appointment of Sam Alito on Monday, and the Democrats now look to be finishing the job for him.
Republicans should welcome anything that rallies the bases of both parties, for two reasons. First, the Republican base is bigger (see
election results, 2004). Second, the Democratic base is totally insane. These people are now, according to the Village Voice, touting Cindy Sheehan for president. Democrats love to mock the Republican base for believing the Bible is true. Democratic basemen believe "Fahrenheit 9/11" is true!
Searchlight's Harry Reid, who backed Iraq's liberation, may not be the brightest bulb on the Fitzmas tree, but surely even he is smart enough that he doesn't believe all this nonsense about how BUSH LIED!!!! Indeed, like
John Kerry*, who also knows better, Reid is reduced to incoherence in trying to explain his putative position, as quoted by Fox News: "We know that there were no [weapons of mass destruction] now in Iraq. We didn't know it at the time. We know now that we didn't know at the time that there was no Al Qaeda connection. We know now that we didn't know then that there was no 9/11 connection. We know now that they had no plan for winning the peace. We didn't know that at the time." (Durbin, on the other hand, seems to be a true believer, to judge by his apparently sincere comparison of American soldiers to Nazis.)
Marshall Wittmann, a McCain Republican turned moderate Democrat, notes that pandering to the tinfoil-hat crowd carries dangers beyond a reinvigorated GOP base:
Will the American people have faith in and trust a party that claims that it was gullibly duped, or as George Romney claimed about another war--that it was "brainwashed"? Moreover, should the objective be re-fighting the reasons to go to war and making the Democrats the official anti-war party or should the goal be achieving reasonable success in Iraq? If you believe in the former than you would encourage more efforts like the one Senate Democrats undertook yesterday. If you believe in the latter, you want the opposition party to present a better plan for winning this war.
While the war is increasingly unpopular, the Democrats should be careful that they are positioning themselves as a party that is gullible, feckless and indecisive on national security.
The Angry left is right about one thing, though: Democratic politicians are wimps. After all, they won't even stand up to the Angry Left.
* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way has not been indicted for war crimes in Vietnam.