In the mean time Parker does it all correctly and has to fight just to get on the ballot in his race! These Rats must go!
Posted on 10/02/2002 11:23:03 AM PDT by Molly Pitcher
HAVING IT EVERY WHICH WAY:
The Torricelli bait-and-switch with Lautenberg is almost a leitmotif of the current Democratic Party. So what if we fully backed a guy we knew was a crook when we thought he could win? Now he can't win! So .... The same heads-we-win tails-you-lose posture is evident on the budget ("the tax cut is the problem - but we won't reverse it, in case the voters punish us") and the war ("we're against it in reality, but we're for it formally, in case the voters punish us").
But tonight I heard the first enunciation of what's in store if and when war erupts in Iraq. Any terrorist attack now or soon - by Saddam, his proxies or his allies - will be blamed by some Democrats on Bush. See, they'll say. His war-talk provoked this. But if no attack happens in the next few months, they will use that in turn to argue that war is unnecessary, that Saddam is no real threat, and so on. Similarly, if the war goes well, they are busy setting things up so that they can claim they were in favor of it. But if it goes badly, or casualties mount, they will milk it for all it's worth politically. On almost every issue, they're doing all they can to ensure they can't lose. The only thing they haven't done is stand up for any principle, contribute much that's constructive to the national dialogue, or show even a rote display of leadership or credibility. The fact that they behave this way at a time of war sickens. But, alas, it no longer surprises.
In the mean time Parker does it all correctly and has to fight just to get on the ballot in his race! These Rats must go!
hchutch, your phrase is getting traction!
I believe it has something to do with the lack of a "back-bone gene" which is a prevalent condition among the Dims....
Any terrorist attack now or soon - by Saddam, his proxies or his allies - will be blamed by some Democrats on Bush. See, they'll say. His war-talk provoked this. But if no attack happens in the next few months, they will use that in turn to argue that war is unnecessary, that Saddam is no real threat, and so on.
I always thought of this as the "heads I win, tails you lose" argument. It's non-falsifiable, since it involves irreversible conditions. In any event, it's intellectually insubstantial. We credit people with understanding when their forecasts are shown to be correct; knowledge of the past, though estimable, is not the same thing.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
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.