Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

I couldn’t agree more ...
Posted by: McQ on Monday, April 23, 2007

An editorial in the Las Vegas Review-Journal nails the general Congressional Democratic strategy and specifically, Harry Reid's part in it:
The Democratic strategy to use the ongoing violence in Iraq to their political advantage in the run-up to the 2008 elections requires some skill and nuance. But it's growing harder to believe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — Nevada's own — actually possesses those skills.

The Democratic strategy is anything but straightforward.

Sen. Reid and his colleagues know there is much political hay to be made by criticizing President Bush's planning and conduct of the post-war occupation. But they also know that while "cut our losses and pull out" plays well in Democratic caucuses, it failed in the Connecticut general election in 2006, when Sen. Joseph Lieberman and his anti-surrender stance handily defeated end-the-war candidate Ned Lamont — even though Sen. Lieberman had to run as an independent to pull it off.

That's the kind of "poll" that really counts.

Thus, the Democrats' careful strategy requires them to appear to oppose Mr. Bush's ongoing occupation of Iraq (to please their pacifist base), without taking any concrete, "binding" actions to change the status quo.

Enter Sen. Reid, flopping around in big red shoes like Bozo the Clown.
The Democratic strategy, as the LVRJ points out, is convoluted.

Take Reid's latest for example:
Friday morning, the majority leader returned to the Senate floor, supposedly to reiterate his Thursday comments. Yet this time Sen. Reid carefully avoided using the word "lost." Less than 24 hours after declaring Iraq a lost cause, Sen. Reid insisted, "No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats."

Um ... what?

What he actually meant to say is that Iraq is lost if we continue to follow President Bush's strategy, the Democratic leader explained — while once more carefully resisting the temptation to put forward any better strategy.

Sen. Reid then attempted the old cushion shot — "deny everything and make counter-accusations" — as he sought to shift the blame to those who had criticized him the day before.

"The partisans who launched attacks on my comments are the same ones who continue to support a failed strategy that hurts our troops," Sen. Reid said.

Ah. But it doesn't "hurt our troops" to tell them — and the enemy — that our Marines and G.I.s are risking their lives in a lost cause before they even suit up and start their engines for this morning's patrol?
He is trying to appease the base rhetorically while practically doing nothing to change the status quo. He's talking the talk, but has no intention of walking the "defunding of the war" walk.

That's because the objective is to avoid responsibility for the war. Defunding the war would leave the results of a "immediate" withdrawal squarely in their lap. That means if Iraq implodes, and that's a real possibility if we withdraw anytime soon, it will occur before the '08 election, and Reid, et al, know that will impact their chances to hold a majority in Congress and damage their chances to take the presidency.

Instead, Reid and others are engaged in complete and utter disingenuous behavior in an attempt maintain their political viability. It's a pretty pathetic show, but with the spineless state of politics these days, not particularly surprising.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Why is it the Democrats can’t just say what they mean?

Maybe it’s just selection bias, but the number of times I hear Democrats qualifying/retracting, or otherwise explaining how what they said wasn’t really what they meant to say, seems to out weight the same instances by Republicans.

And the Democrats are supposed to be the "reality based truth sayers???"
Written By: Keith_Indy
Reid’s comment was the same thing everyone says: we can’t win purely through military force, we need the Iraqis to step up, a political answer, blahblahblah.

The only disingenuous people here are those that burying the fact that Reid’s statement was identical substance to those by people all over the political spectrum (Bush included)
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
Umm, no it wasn’t...

Reid said the war is lost.

It was only later that he came out and "clarified"

And now, he’s doing even more clarifying.
Written By: Keith_Indy
"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week....I know I was the odd guy out at the White House, but I told [Bush] at least what he needed to hear....I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically"

(emphasis mine)
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
The reason the democrats can say what they mean, it is that what they mean is very much unpopular with the American people. In short, the democrats are trying a scam on the American people.

The reason that Harry Reid doesn’t possess the skills necessary for the purpose, is the American people are onto this scam being run by the democrats. I wonder if there’s anybody that is so qualified so as to be able to sell the same old scam.

Written By: Bithead
CAN’T say what they mean.
(Darn typo)
Written By: Bithead
Reid did say what he meant; yall just decided to elide the parts you didn’t like. That’s the modern GOP.
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
Reid did say what he meant; yall just decided to elide the parts you didn’t like.
Really? To which Reid "clarification" or version are you referring?

Petraeus has been saying the surge is about 80% political and 20% military. Might help if Harry started attending some of those briefings Petraeus gives so he can keep up and keep his percentages straight.
Written By: McQ
"I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically"
Harry Reid now gives credit to Gen. David Petraeus for this strategy. Now, it seems that the commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is returning to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi’s office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Wonder if Harry Reid will find time to speak to hear him out.

The New Direction .. See no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.

Harry needs to learn the last one.
Written By: Neo
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks