Spinning the spin Posted by: McQ
on Saturday, November 19, 2005
It's always fun to trip around the blogsphere after an event like the troop withdrawl resolution in the House last night and take a gander at the spin.
Calling it the "Fake Hunter Bill" Armando at the Daily Kos apparently doesn't understand the first vote:
The vote on the rule to bring the Fake Hunter Resolution to the floor for a vote passed 210-202, but every every Democratic representative who voted, voted against the rule and 5 Republicans joined the Democrats.
Obviously, the Republican attempt failed.
The vote itself was unimportant substantively. But politically, it blew up in their faces.
Huh? It got the resolution to the floor in the format favored by the Republicans. I 'm not sure how that "blew up" in the Republican's faces. Armando feels the result was:
The naked attack on dissent, this New McCarthyism, has been thoroughly discredited.
Seems McCarthyism is always the charge of the side which gets its bluff called or its ox gored. The fact is, if you watched that little charade last night, both sides got the opportunity to get their message out and on the record, not that anyone will listen. What is mostly chapping Armando is the fact that the overriding message, no to pulling the troops out now, will be the main message coming from the session.
Democrats - Sen. Harry Reid in particular - got a dose of their own medicine today. Perhaps they'll remember the foul taste for the next time they want to stage a Hill photo op by invoking some long forgotten Senate rule.
Of course politics is about such stunts. In fact its rules are tailor made for them. And on a pragmatic side and well known by both parties, it is the stunts which capture and focus attention. I'm sure, given the stunt the Democrats pulled in the Senate cited by Kevin Aylward, that they'd agree.
And using a football analogy, Aylward notes Americans hate quitters:
Democrats must know that while public opinion (as measured by polls) is is fickle and easily influenced by the media (see the Bush administration's success in convincing the masses that Social Security was a "crisis"), Americans have absolutely no stomach for quitters.
For too long Republicans have been playing "prevent defense," which as any football fan will tell you only prevents you from winning. Perhaps this week is a signal that instead of dropping into a two deep zone, Republicans are going to play man to man and throw in the occasional bum rush blitz. While they're at it they might want to drop the run out the clock ground game and take to an aerial attack. If they get ahead, Republicans would be wise to play the BCS game and run up the score every chance they get...
The message is clear - "finish the job" or "cut and run." There's no middle ground.
Guess which side of that equation takes home the trophy?
Sister Toldjah notes that after having their bluff called Democrats, and much of the media, are likely to focus on the words of Representative Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Republican who is the most junior member of the House, and who while presenting her one minute speech claimed to be relaying the words of a Marine COL who had phoned her:
“He asked me to send Congress a message: stay the course,” Ms. Schmidt said. “He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.”
Obviously there was an uproar in the House as one side chose to interpret it as a direct attack on Murtha. I can certainly see how it could be interpreted that way. Had she left off the reference to Murtha, it was a perfectly acceptable point. But, per Sister Toldjah, it will be the focus of the left since the "pull the troops out now" meme has been taken away from them. You can see the video at her site.
Joe Gandleman at the Moderate Voice is indeed of the opinion that it is that moment which will define what happened last night and will be the bite which will be seen again and again, much to the Republican's chagrin:
The likely impact: the contrast between Murtha, clearly agonizing over his position, and Schmidt, face twisted with rage, calling him a "coward" will be a sound bite played over and over.
And he further notes:
And it may get WORSE: according to reports, GOPers now want — you guessed it — an ethics investigation of Murtha.
Note that there was no call for an investigation of him BEFORE he broke with the administration.
But now he has broken with them, so some apparently feel it's vital that he be investigated. Translation: he's a threat so he needs to be politically taken out or, at least, discredited.
I'll go on record now saying any such attempt would indeed blow up badly in the face of Republicans. If they're smart they'll quit while they're arguably ahead.
Justin at Southern Appeal sees the whole thing as a net positive:
We can debate whether or not it was good for Congress as an institution, but tonight's debate on the floor over the withdrawal of troops from Iraq was some of the best television I've seen in years. Reality television be damned!
I, for one, was glad to see a little passion on both sides of the aisle. It's about time people stepped out from behind their fake smiles and got nasty. IMO, that is what this issue deserves. Let's talk about it; let's show the American public where the line is drawn and let them decide who's right. In any case, I suspect it's about to get even nastier in the near future...
Frankly I'm inclined to agree with him on all points. It is time it got talked about seriously in Congress. Surprisingly I found myself actually agreeing with Rham Emanuel last night when he pointed out that for 2 years Congress has been essentially silent on the war. I do agree it's time they talk about it and get engaged in their oversight responsiblity. But that doesn't mean they should attempt to usurp the responsiblity of the executive branch, but a little accountability wouldn't hurt in the least.
Reliably, Hugh Hewitt thinks it was all good for the Republicans:
The Democrats took their walloping last year and instead of resolving to return to D.C. as an opposition party that would work to craft alternatives to domestic policies while remaining supportive of the GWOT and of the troops, have spent a year digging deeper and deeper into anti-war conspiracy theories and committing themselves to Vietnam Syndrome 2.0. The GOP abetted their descent by failing to do what happened yesterday: Call them on their nonsense and debate it, in full view of the public, and not in MSM-mediated soundbytes.
The Chamber was full and the tempers high —as they should be when a great party confronts its opposite over a serious issue. The Democratic Party is committed to retreat, but they hate to be asked to defend that inclination. The Republicans are committed to victory, but seem hesitant because of the high costs of the war, even though the costs of retreat would be much higher still.
If the GOP stays the course of clarity, and keeps its purposes front and center, the elections of 2006 will be another milestone in the Democrats road to Whigdom.
While Mahablog thinks a backlash to this against the Republicans is inevitable:
House Dems are fighting mad. I think they’re going to fire up (finally) and start taking the fight to the Repugs. And I sincerely believe the GOP is way overplaying their hand. I predict a public backlash against the GOP.
In actuality, I think this will have little play in the weeks to come. It is the holidays and few if any of fly-over country will be focused on the shennigans in the House. Only we political junkies will still be batting this ball around in December.
My guess is, when all is said and done, what the public will remember, if they even pay attention, is the House voted not to pull the troops out. The fact that it was a Republican bill, or that it got heated on the floor, or that it was a political stunt, simply won't register. But it will be fun to watch the spin from both sides in the weeks to follow.
As to the ethics investigation... Consider the possibility tha this is now going on because he’s embarrasssed the Democrats once too often. You may recall, for example, tha Murtha was the one rasiing hell over reinstating the draft. When the bill came to a vote only he and one other moonbat voted for it; the other being it’s author, Rangle.
The Democrats ahve a history to breaking out the investigations against their own when they get embarrassed by the political stand of one of their own. Does the name James Traficant ring any bells? The Democrats protected him for years, until they’d reached their limit with how often he’d opened his yap. I suspect and suppose the same has happened to Murtha.
Murtha took an oath, as I did 59 years ago, that acknowledges the civilian control of the military. He forgot that when, asked about a comment of the Vice President, he launched into that childish chickenhawk crap. Murtha denied the right of the American people to chose their leaders. Perhaps even he recognized the swinish nature of his response, but then he committed the ultimate breach of combat veteran ethics when he wrapped the bloody shirt around himself to deflect deserved criticism. I wonder what he bought with his 30 pieces of silver - I suggest a Burka.
Obviously there was an uproar in the House as one side chose to interpret it as a direct attack on Murtha. I can certainly see how it could be interpreted that way. Had she left off the reference to Murtha, it was a perfectly acceptable point. But, per Sister Toldjah, it will be the focus of the left since the "pull the troops out now" meme has been taken away from them. You can see the video at her site.
Now obviously she didn’t call Murtha a coward. She said this other guy was calling him a coward. She was just the messenger. Anyone, she later said she wasn’t calling Murtha a coward, on TV, in front of the nation, with spittle on her mouth, and dressed up in the color of the flag. Geez, why are the Dems getting so worked up?
And remember when Bush said that British had learned Saddam was looking for yellowcake in Africa? Well, you can’t blame Bush if that turned out to be wrong and he might have even known it could very well be wrong. After all, Bush was merely reporting what someone else said. Of course the British are our #1 ally and presumably we share our intelligence with them and they with us. But why in the world would anyone think that Bush would have any insight into whether what they were saying is true, or any duty to report evidence to the contrary that he did know about? All Bush did is say what the British said. He can’t be blamed for that.
And then remember when Dick Cheney said that invading Iraq would strike a blow at the heart fo the geographical base of the terrorists who struck us on 9/11? Well, you would have to be a fool to believe that he was in any way implying that Iraq had anything to do with funding and supporting the 19 terrorists who flew those four planes. Geez, where would you get that idea? Just because he said "Iraq" and "geographical base" and "terrorists" and "attack" "9/11" in the same sentence.
Hey Dems, if you got the wrong impression, that’s your fault. Only a fool would believe that we tried to imply anything by what we said. We said what we said we said, not what you think we said, even though we felt the need later to go back and say that what you think we said is in no way, shape or form, explicit or implicit, what we said, because, after all, what we said can mean only what we later say we meant to say - or not.
And Murtha, yes, you are a coward. I don’t give a damm about your 37 years of service to this country, or your Purple Heart, or your tireless efforts on behalf of veterans, or your staunch support for active forces. You dared to suggest a strategy other than Bush’s "strategery." You dared to suggest that we should withdraw all our forces over the next six months. You did this, even though the Pentagon has given Rumsfled a plan that calls for a far smaller withdrawal beginning in 2006 - a little over a month from now. You dared to offer a different plan. You coward, you sniveling, backstabbing, son-of-a-bitch. You probably shoot your mother to save your own skin. You dared to offer an alternative, you criticized Bush, you are a traitor sir, of the first rank. COWARD!!!!!!!!
I think the most important aspect of the vote had nothing to do with the US. For internal policy purposes the vote could have passed 205 to 202 the same as the resolution to bring it up... but instead it passed what 403 to 3 or some such...
Internationally when someone questions our support for our troops oversees and the mission in Iraq - we need to point to that vote and say "Ignore the rhetoric - even those who are critical stand with us when the rubber meets the road. The US has those who may think we could have done it differently, or better, or whatever and we aren’t above making our opinions in that area known. But make no mistake we are staying till the job is done."
That’s the message I would like to see come out of this, because in the end that’s what the world, and in particular the jihadist’s of every anti-US organization need to understand.
I don’t know how this will play - the artificiality of the process makes it tricky. I noticed on the Web a headline, I think from a Kansas TV station: "Republican call for immediate Iraq withdrawal defeated in House"
I don’t know how this will play - the artificiality of the process makes it tricky. I noticed on the Web a headline, I think from a Kansas TV station: "Republican call for immediate Iraq withdrawal defeated in House"
Now obviously she didn’t call Murtha a coward. She said this other guy was calling him a coward.
Now come on. MK’s got a point. Anyone defending Schmidt’s remarks as just relaying the message is either fooling themselves or are themselves fools.
Imagine ,if you will, a Democratic congressman stood up on the floor of the House and said, "I received a call from so-and-so who wanted me to relay a message, ’Republicans are homophobic bigots who think that Americans hate gays.’" Yeah, I’m sure that the Republicans would sit there quietly and say to themselves, "Well, he is just relaying a message." Yeah, right.
Even though grandstanding is a staple for politicians, some things are still inappropriate. And the Republicans knew Schmidt’s comments were over the line, which is why they had her apologize and remove here remarks from the record.
Yes, I respect the man for what he did while in uniform.
The trouble is, that one acts bravely in the past, does not mean he’s incapable of misplacing his spinal column subsequently. Which, I’m sorry to say, Murtha has.
Yep, few flag officers in the history of American arms have a battle record to match that of Benedict Arnold. It doesn’t make him any less of a traitor.
Calling for the US Congress to direct a total withdrawal from a theater of combat, while denying the President any power to negotiate the conditions of the withdrawal with the foriegn governments involved, is flirting with formal treason.
You’ld think the Democrats would have learned not to put their posturing into a votable bill after what happened a little while back with the proposal to bring back the draft.
Democ-RATS or RAT-publicans are rats to the stem cells, red or blue matters not. What I’d like to know is " upon what meat do they feed that they grew that big".
