| « | The Precautionary Principle And Regulatory Incentives |
»
|
|
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Questioning Their Patriotism Dept.
While the Republican majorities in Congress have done little to no good at reversing, or even restraining, government growth, at the least they've been largely staunch about the Bush Administration's anti-terror initiatives, the keystones of which have been the overthrow of the Taliban and of Saddam Hussein.
Granted that, given their flaccidity in domestic policy and their indifferent support of the White House on judicial and Cabinet nominations, this is just barely enough reason to hope for continued Republican dominance in Washington. Nevertheless, your Curmudgeon maintains that it is enough. The nation can survive being overtaxed and over-controlled for a few years more, Three thousand of our countrymen failed to survive the Clinton / Carter hand-wringing approach to Islam-powered terrorism. The madmen of the Middle East must not be permitted to add to that tally.
So when the Democratic contingent in the House of Representatives, spearheaded by John Murtha of Pennsylvania, called for a Congressional resolution demanding a phased and scheduled withdrawal from Iraq, the nature and magnitude of the Republican counter became a matter of national significance. If botched, it could return the country to Democratic control and Clinton / Carter-style foreign policies. If handled with assurance, it could put down the whining Left for the foreseeable future while conveying a reassuring message to our troops in the Middle East.
This might be the political high point of the second term of George W. Bush. In many ways, the public-relations end of his administration has been neglected or mangled. Like it or not, our time expects the president to lead: that is, to take matters of national importance such as the anti-terror campaign to the people with a clearly conceived, forcefully expressed position, and to muster the nation's support behind it. Whether Dubya has been too busy with governing to attend to this other responsibility, or whether he's sloughed it as something to which underlings should attend so as not to split his attention, it's largely been muffed.
This time around, Dubya's legislative allies carried the ball for him. Whether at his direction or on their own initiative, they did what had to be done to prevent the amoral, hypocritical Democratic caucus from undermining the foundation of the administration's Middle Eastern campaign.
The most significant thing about the floor fracas was, of course, the reaction of the Democrats, who'd been conditioned to expect forelock-tugging appeasement from their colleagues across the aisle:
She told colleagues that "a few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp," an Ohio legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer. "He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."Dozens of Democrats erupted at once, pointing angrily at Schmidt and shouting repeatedly, "Take her words down" -- the House term for retracting a statement. For a moment Schmidt tried to keep speaking, but the uproar continued and several GOP colleagues surrounded her as she sat down, looking slightly dazed. Presiding officer Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) gaveled in vain for order as Democrats continued shouting for Schmidt to take back her words. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) yelled "You guys are pathetic!" from the far end of the Democratic section to the GOP side.
Just as matters seemed to calm a bit, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) suddenly charged across the aisle to the GOP seats, jabbing his finger furiously at a small group of GOP members and shouting, "Say Murtha's name!" Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who had led the chants for striking Schmidt's comments, gently guided Ford by the arm back to the minority party's side.
That's the preferred tactic of the dishonest man: to shout down any voice that dares to expose his dishonesty. If the reactions of House Democrats are a gauge, the House is well supplied with dishonest men.
Your Curmudgeon has been saying for years that in a public official, character trumps all other considerations. It's his conviction that, given the minuscule differences between the Left's averred policy preferences and the actual way the Bush Administration and its legislative colleagues have governed, the public returned the president and his Congressional allies to hegemony in 2004 largely on the basis of perceived character.
There can be no serious question about Dubya himself. Given the way he's been assailed by his enemies, and the patient, even courtly way he's responded to every assault, one can only be struck by awe. But the characters of key Republican senators and Congressmen have been at greater hazard. Their willingness to sacrifice principle and party discipline for even a momentary respite from the Democrats' slanders and the Old Media's sniping has all too often suggested that they lacked enough backbone even to be respected common citizens of the Republic, much less legislators in charge of the destiny of the greatest country in the history of the world.
Yesterday, for a brief, shining moment, they repudiated your Curmudgeon's doubts. Whether they can be marshaled into doing it again remains to be seen, but for the present, it's time for a round of applause.
Well done, ladies and gentlemen. Well done especially for having done in plain sight what has been so urgently necessary for so long: revealing the core of dishonesty that rules the Democratic Party, whose libido dominandi will balk at no measure, however vile, that might get them back to the levers of power:
Those voting yes on the resolution were Democrats Jose E. Serrano (N.Y.), Robert Wexler (Fla.) and Cynthia McKinney (Ga.). Six other Democrats -- none of them from Maryland or Virginia -- voted "present."Top Democrats attacked the GOP tactic. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the Republicans "engaged in an act of deception that undermines any shred of dignity that might be left in this Republican Congress." She called Hunter's resolution "a political stunt" and "a disservice to our country and to our men and women in uniform."
Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the GOP resolution was meant to prevent a serious debate on the war's prosecution, and that he lacked the words "to express the magnitude of my contempt with which I view this shabby, petty political maneuver."
After all, what better measure is there of how badly one has wounded one's enemy than the volume and pitch of his screams?
Will the Democrats learn from this disastrous defeat? Dubious. Will their behavior change? Even less likely. But at the least, they can no longer deny their aims, their amorality, or their complete surrender of the national interest to partisan gain.
Will the Republicans learn from this shattering triumph? Will they perceive that they who govern are expected to govern, and not to cower cravenly before the vitriol of their opponents?
Well, we can hope.
Comments
>> “...He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.”
A big hearty “WHEW!” and three cheers. That’s my Congressman—Jean Schmidt. And truth be told, we crossed our fingers when we voted her in to replace the ever-solid Rob Portman. I am SO glad to see her being solid on the war at least.
I wish our Senators would follow her lead. DeWhine and Voinobitch have oft been wobbly in favor of the Left. Most disturbing.
M
Posted by Mark Alger on 11/19/2005 at 08:33 AMLamp posts and rope, gentlemen. I know, violence is always never the only answer.
Posted by og on 11/19/2005 at 09:48 AMWill they perceive that they who govern are expected to govern, and not to cower cravenly before the vitriol of their opponents?
Think they can do it again, Fran?
Posted by Joe on 11/19/2005 at 10:12 AMShe should have said the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania; House rules are House rules, and I think the effect of what she was saying would have been even greater. A distinguished gentleman theoretically knows better than to ask his country to surrender in the middle of a war.
Posted by akaky on 11/19/2005 at 07:56 PMOnce again, your contempt for the truth speaks volumes.
The resolution the Republicans proposed had nothing to do with that of Murtha. Murtha called for a rapid phase-out and redeployment. If you had watched any of the proceedings or read anything about it, perhaps you would have understood this.
For your sake, it’s a good thing you’re not in journalism because you would be fired so fast, it would make Stephen Glass’ head spin.
Posted by Brad on 11/19/2005 at 11:05 PMBut, hey, at least the Republicans are clearly going to be gone by 2008, so who cares? This “reign of terror” is a lame duck.
Posted by Brad on 11/19/2005 at 11:07 PMYeah, so says Brad of “Brad’s Brain”, where he DELETES all comments that shoot down his total lies. Example:
He posted a statement that said not all racists are Republicans, but all Republicans are racists. When I shot down this obvious lie by posting many quotes by liberals which were plainly racist, he deleted the comment.
So he talks about other people’s spin, but he won’t allow anyone’s words on his page that he can’t argue with.
Take anything he says with a generous grain of “I’m a total hypocrite.”
Posted by CSC5502D on 11/20/2005 at 01:47 AMNo, Brad. Murtha’s bill called for the immediate termination of the deployment in Iraq, exactly the same as the GOP bill. The GOP bill was Murtha’s, stripped of the whereases and other provisions.
In his speech the previous day, Murtha specifically called for the “immediate redeployment” of the troops in Iraq. He used those exact words, in fact, he used them twice.
Congress voted on exactly what the Democrats were proposing, and they lost 403-3.
Posted by Pixy Misa on 11/20/2005 at 04:13 AMLet’s say that just for the sake of argument, Brad is correct. Murtha didn’t call for immidiate withdrawl, but a rapid phase-out and redeployment.
Tell me, just how is that different from immidiate? It’s different words with the same meaning.
And what people like Brad fail to take into consideration is that The New York Times, the Washington Post, and Al-Jazeera had “MURTHA CALLS FOR IMMIDIATE WITHDRAWL” on their front pages.
So people know exactly what Murtha was calling for, even if the Left can’t admit it to anyone but themselves.
Good bye, Brad. No matter how you phrase your words, you still lose.
Posted by Raging Dave on 11/20/2005 at 05:52 AMI delight in having a troll like Brad. What could better illustrate exactly the point I was trying to make? His reaction to my thoughts is to scream lies and insults at me. That makes him a prototypical left-wing Democrat.
Brad is a young man. The young are often both foolish and passionate. We older folks mostly understand this, which is why we tend to be forgiving of them. But I do hope that he matures a bit from here...and that once he’s outgrown his feces-flinging stage, he remembers with some discomfort the way he’s behaved today.
Oh, alongside that, Brad: Eternity Road readers are a tough, smart bunch. (You guys knew there was a reason I love you all, didn’t you?) So if you think your simian screeching will induce them to go silent about their own convictions, whether here or elsewhere, I’m afraid you’re badly mistaken...again.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 11/20/2005 at 06:52 AMMy dear Sir: Brad only does mistaken. He knows naught else.
Posted by og on 11/20/2005 at 03:32 PMJeez Fran, after reading Brads conclusions etc, I wanted to engage in a little “feces flinging” myself! What a complete and unadulterated ASS!
Posted by on 11/20/2005 at 05:50 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
