Posted on 12/08/2005 8:34:37 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
When it comes to Iraq, Democrats prefer shouting from the sidelines
By CHARLES REICHLEY Columnist
Potomac News Wednesday, December 7, 2005
I recently described how the Democrats are playing Monday-morning quarterback on the Iraq war, making false and baseless accusations, and undermining our efforts, in order to score political points. But this is just a symptom of the refusal of the Democrat leadership to take an active role in running the country. Instead of participating in important and difficult decisions, they choose to sit on the sidelines, watching and hoping government failure will convince voters to put them back in power. The debate over Iraq is the most obvious manifestation of this lack of participation. They complain about how the war is being fought, without offering a Democrat alternative. Instead they let individual rank-and-file Democrats float ideas in the form of attacks on the administration that the Democrats refuse to present for a vote.
Just before Thanksgiving, Democrat Rep. John Murtha presented a "plan" for immediate redeployment of our troops from Iraq. The next day, papers across the country proclaimed a serious proposal for a U.S. "immediate withdrawal" from Iraq - an idea which, if left to fester over the holiday, would have a devastating impact on the morale of our troops.
The Republicans called for a vote on the "proposal," but the Democrats had no desire to submit anything for a vote. So the Republicans wrote their own resolution mirroring the news reports generated by Murtha's proposal. The Democrats opposed voting on the resolution. When the Republicans prevailed to schedule a vote, the Democrats voted nearly unanimously with the Republicans against withdrawal (403 against, 3 in favor). Afterward, the Democrats denounced having to debate or vote on the issue.
In fact, Roll Call's Dec. 6 edition reports that "House Democratic leaders this week will try to block any effort by members to adopt an official Democratic Caucus position on the Iraq war, recognizing such a move would highlight internal party differences and invite new political troubles." It's safer politically to complain than to offer solutions.
With no plan, Democrats are free to present contradictory ideas whenever it suits them. Last week Senators Kerry of Massachusetts and Reed of Rhode Island announced that the presence of U.S. troops "presents food for the insurgency. And you need to reduce that presence." But on June 29, Kerry told the "Today" show that "we don't have enough troops in Iraq." And on August 18, Reed said in the Providence Journal that "the reality is we don't have enough troops, and that's another shortsightedness of the administration."
About all the Democrats agree on is they hate the President and anything he does. They have no idea how to do anything better. On issue after issue the Democrats have attacked the current policies of our government, but have failed to present an alternative.
Monday's Washington Post report on post-Katrina e-mails shows Democrats more concerned with making Bush look bad than in getting help for Louisiana.
Gov. Blanco's communications director wrote "Bush's [poll] numbers are low" and that President Clinton's press secretary McCurry predicted "a full-blown PR disaster-scandal" for Bush by the weekend. An aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats were eagerly "mobilizing big-time to push back on criticism of the state."
So while the country was mobilizing to help the victims, the Democrats were mobilizing to make Bush look bad.
This is how Democrats seem have chosen to carry out their responsibility to the country. Rather than offering ideas, they stand on the sidelines criticizing and actively opposing attempts to govern. They use language designed to destroy any possibility of compromise. They offer no plans, no policies and no alternatives. They have even boycotted the Katrina hearings. In short, the Democrats have abdicated their responsibilities.
On the Nov. 13 edition of "Meet the Press," Tim Russert showed Howard Dean, chairman of the Democrat National Committee, polls showing over half the independents, and a quarter of the Democrats, saying the Democrats have no clear message, no agenda, no vision for the future. Asked what the agenda was, Dean, speaking for the Democrat Party which wants to take back control of the government, said "Right now it's not our job to give out specifics. We have no control in the House. We have no control in the Senate. It's our job is to stop this administration ?"
And that unfortunately is all the Democrats have to offer - a plan to stop the government from succeeding. They will bad-mouth the war, talk down the economy, hold up nominations, block legislation, boycott hearings and do whatever they can to make the administration look bad. But they won't do their jobs. A Democrat party which says the country is failing, but won't lift a finger to help because it is politically risky, cannot be trusted with the reigns of power.
Charles Reichley has been a Prince William County resident since 1981. He can be reached at: criticallythinking@msn.com
Copyright © 2005 Potomac News
I've taken to posting my columns though when they deal directly with national politics, in the hopes they might help people write letters to the editor, etc.
OSTT Ping
Yep, that's their plan -- to have no single plan.
It's reminiscent of the "hall of mirrors" defense used during the years of the Clinton White House.
Whenever a Clintonian scandal surfaced, the Clinton folks broadcasted so many versions of what happened that it was almost impossible to pin them down, to determine their guilt, or to voice any specific disagreement with them.
Great column!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.