The history on this is clear; Republicans use any opportunity, no matter how contrived, to attack any Democrat who is in a position of leadership. Believe me, I know. It's a concerted, ongoing effort to leave the Democratic Party without leadership on the issues, without voices unsullied by "controversy." They thrive on destroying our leaders - we can't let them. Especially when we've got the moral high ground.
And on this one, as on so many other "controversies" manufactured by the GOP, the facts are clearly on our side. Arlen Specter has been to Damascus 16 times since 1984. The president and the State Department were both informed of Speaker Pelosi's trip before she left and made no objection. This was an ambush for political gain-- sad but not surprising.
All along I have said the Republicans are much better at organizing and keeping their party in step and in line. Very rarely do you hear a member of the GOP go seriously off message. They have strong and decisive leadership. The democrats as Senator Kerry points out, seem to spend more time in damage control, rather than focusing their leaders on the issues, and letting the soldiers fight the political war.
6 comments:
I do think things are beginning to change a little. Some GOP members are pretty worried about where the Bushies are taking the mood in the country. Also, I'm not sure there's unanimity in the GOP about the firings of the US attorneys.
Seev,
I hope you are correct, but the biggest problems the Dems have is that they are very rarely united on message and talking points and are therefore often made to look ridicolous.
Any cracks in the GOP armor can only be perceived by me as a good thing.
Thanks for the comment
Remember when McCain used to shake it up a bit. I'm not sure why he seems to be falling in line lately. I'm a little disappointed.
I think Democrats tend to be "free thinkers" and not a bunch of droids. That allows for some differences in their message.
Whit,
I dont understand why McCain, the classic maverick in 2000 has bolted so far to the right in an effort to cater to the hard core religious conservatives is beyond me. It is as if he had to check his balls in order to have a chance this year.
I think what people liked about him was his anti-establishment positions, and now he seems about as mainstream as anyone.
Good point about the Dems perspective.
Thanks for the comment.
Jeff
It's not far fetched to guess that Bush made a deal with McCain to support him in 2008 if he backed Bush in the meantime. I know, that doesn't say much for McCain. But what else would cause him to change so radically?
Of course, he was always a supporter of the war in Iraq, wasn't he?
Whit, I agree too that the democrats are a more representative and diverse group, unbeholden to a central authority, and that's why it's hard for them to have a common message. But I wish they would get one on Iraq.
Seev
I know that politics make strange bedfellows, but I am not sure what McCain can possibility achieve by tying himself to Bush.
Goldwater conservatives have begun to abandon Bush and the religious zealots who have tried to commandeer the GOP and turn it into G-d's party. Bush's overall popularity is as low as it ever has been, and his credibiility is falling even within the rank and file.
The Dems have a golden opportunity to get the ram by the horns and take a lead on the Iraq situation, but so far they seem completely incapable of even doing that.
Thanks for the comment
Post a Comment