So THAT's The Strategy....
It's refreshing to read something in a major US daily explaining the Democrats new foreign policy stance in a way most folks can understand.
And, before the liberals who read the article I'm going to link to get their panties all bunched up, the author is an editor at large of New Republic, not exactly a conservative bastion. He also wrote the book "The Good Fight: Why Liberals -- and Only Liberals -- Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again."
Peter Beinart has great liberal credentials, and still uses his monthly Washington Post column to blast the new strategy of the Democratic party when it comes to the mid-east. Instead of "cut and run", Beinart calls it "Pander and Run". It has, according to him, become the standard operating procedure for the party. What ever the issue, if they can find a way to pander to a voter segment, and at the same time make it look uncomfortable for Bush, that's what they'll do.
Beinart has a couple of good examples, such as the suggestion by the Iraqi PM that an amnesty program of some sort is going to be necessary to quell the insurgency. Political reality in Iraq probably demands such a program, regardless of how distasteful it is to Americans, and many Iraqis, who's lost loved ones to the cowards.
That didn't stop folks like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid for trying to make it an issue. In fact, some are trying to use it as a election issue.
Beinart's other great example was the Iraqi PM's address to congress. Many democrats demanded he not be allowed to speak unless he denounced Hezbollah and acknowledged Israel's right to exist. While that is a wonderful thought, Jordan is the only country in the region to do so. Political reality in America demands you support Israel, or face a very hostile election. In Iraq the political reality is that supporting Israel vocally would lead to a very hostile election.
In the international community the PM would be seen as a Bush stooge (and held up as such by Boxer, Reid and Pelosi) if he did take such a stance. That's not exactly the way to build yourself as a "freely elected leader".
But what is the bigger picture that Beinart's article reveals? In my (never so) humble opinion, it's the start of the center of the Democratic party trying to reassert itself in a bigger way. Folks like Kos, and most of the whacko left, will of course be trying to have Beinart strung up for his blasphemous statements.
The truth is, though, the folks they have to attract as voters to win elections have already wondered if this wasn't the party's stategy. By voicing that opinion, I believe Beinart, and the center left folks in the party, are trying to start a dialogue of something other than "What ever Bush hates we like"; a strategy that's never won an election.
Technorati Tags: Washington Post, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Liberal, politics, Peter Beinart
And, before the liberals who read the article I'm going to link to get their panties all bunched up, the author is an editor at large of New Republic, not exactly a conservative bastion. He also wrote the book "The Good Fight: Why Liberals -- and Only Liberals -- Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again."
Peter Beinart has great liberal credentials, and still uses his monthly Washington Post column to blast the new strategy of the Democratic party when it comes to the mid-east. Instead of "cut and run", Beinart calls it "Pander and Run". It has, according to him, become the standard operating procedure for the party. What ever the issue, if they can find a way to pander to a voter segment, and at the same time make it look uncomfortable for Bush, that's what they'll do.
Beinart has a couple of good examples, such as the suggestion by the Iraqi PM that an amnesty program of some sort is going to be necessary to quell the insurgency. Political reality in Iraq probably demands such a program, regardless of how distasteful it is to Americans, and many Iraqis, who's lost loved ones to the cowards.
That didn't stop folks like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid for trying to make it an issue. In fact, some are trying to use it as a election issue.
Beinart's other great example was the Iraqi PM's address to congress. Many democrats demanded he not be allowed to speak unless he denounced Hezbollah and acknowledged Israel's right to exist. While that is a wonderful thought, Jordan is the only country in the region to do so. Political reality in America demands you support Israel, or face a very hostile election. In Iraq the political reality is that supporting Israel vocally would lead to a very hostile election.
In the international community the PM would be seen as a Bush stooge (and held up as such by Boxer, Reid and Pelosi) if he did take such a stance. That's not exactly the way to build yourself as a "freely elected leader".
But what is the bigger picture that Beinart's article reveals? In my (never so) humble opinion, it's the start of the center of the Democratic party trying to reassert itself in a bigger way. Folks like Kos, and most of the whacko left, will of course be trying to have Beinart strung up for his blasphemous statements.
The truth is, though, the folks they have to attract as voters to win elections have already wondered if this wasn't the party's stategy. By voicing that opinion, I believe Beinart, and the center left folks in the party, are trying to start a dialogue of something other than "What ever Bush hates we like"; a strategy that's never won an election.
Technorati Tags: Washington Post, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Liberal, politics, Peter Beinart
posted by Crazy Politico at 11:15 AM
6Comments:
I agree it's reality that an Iraqi PM can't be publicly supportive of Israel, BUT I see nothing wrong with the Dems making an issue of it when he addresses our Congress. And I love that the leftyloons have to pretend to be pro-Israel just this once in order to have a way to snark at Bush, which is all they really care about. It's great!
Soooo, before anyone addresses congress, should we find out what the "bitch du jour" is, and make sure they are lined up 100% behind us on it?
If folks think it's a lonely world now, try that reasoning for a while, and you'll see how lonely it can get.
When power becomes an end in itself then hypocrisy is a perfectly valid means to that end. We need to ask what such people would do with power if they had it.
There are issues and there are issues. He wasn't being heckled about gay rights. It's kinda significant that the guy we worked so hard to put in place there is opposed to something nearby that we support so strongly.
So should we stop the German Chancellor from addressing Congress because she supports upholding EU Farm subsidies, something we despise, and that caused the collapse of the last rounds of WTO talks?
And, back to the Israel point, if the PM of Iraq were to support Israel, it would probably cause his government to collapse within days. Now that would be a great thing, wouldn't it.
Maybe so on the German thing. I don't know enough about it. I'm not understanding your position, CP. Are we obligated to support the Iraqi guy now, no matter what asstarded position he might take? What if he decides to help Iran get nukes? We can't criticize him for that??
Post a Comment
<< Home