Bright Paper Werewolves

It is just not all that complicated.

The Democratic Party is quite obviously deluded in a highly annoying fashion: don't make deals with crazy people is a basic life principle and they'd damned well better start remembering it: and Bush is far more a mad dog right now than a mere crazy person. On the war, Bush needs to be told "stop it." Now. In no uncertain terms. Electorally, 2008 is going to be about Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq, and the American people (not to mention the Iraqi people) want this senseless occupation over. Yesterday. Those who oppose the war will win. Those who get wishy-washy in the face of the Bright Paper Werewolves of this fake-tough, discredited, disliked, and dismal administration will lose. It's a matter of smart politics, as well as a matter of principle.

The only good news in all this is that the GOP is just as deluded about 2008 as the Democrats. To wit:

House Republicans have a fairly simple plan to reclaim the majority: Blame Nancy.

The National Republican Congressional Committee launches its first national advertising blitz Thursday with a drive to tie freshmen Democrats to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The GOP's cash-strapped campaign arm will launch a mix of radio ads and automated phone calls targeting 18 freshman Democrats for allegedly marching in lockstep with the speaker, a California Democrat who is regularly depicted by Republicans as an out-of-touch liberal....

The targets include Reps. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, Christopher P. Carney of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Steve Kagen of Wisconsin, Tim Mahoney of Florida, Jerry McNerney of California, Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire, Heath Shuler of North Carolina and Timothy J. Walz of Minnesota.

According to a script, the ad (there are two versions, depending on whether the targeted member voted for the Democrats' budget) opens with Pelosi's speech last November declaring the country had "voted for Democrats to take our country in a new direction."

The announcer goes on to assail the speaker and the featured members for paving "the way for one of the largest tax hikes in American history" and approving "outrageous pork-barrel spending on peanut storage and transporting tropical fish."

The announcer also takes a shot at Pelosi for her recent trip to Syria before closing, "Well, Speaker Pelosi ... we'd hate to see what's coming next."

The GOP has no credibility at all on "outrageous pork barrel spending," nobody but the wingnuts and punditry gives a shit about the Syria nonsense, and 2008 is not going to be about Pelosi: it's going to be about Iraq. All any of these Democratic "targets" need say is: "Outrageous spending? How much have we spent on a failed war that's destroyed our international standing for no good reason, failed to do anything to solve the problem of terrorism and indeed made it worse, and diverted much needed funds from the real needs of American citizens?" And that's it.

Whether or not they'll actually say it, well, that's another story.

But they'd fucking better if they know what's good for them.

And this goes double for anyone running for president as a Democrat. Pledge to end the war and mean it, or no votes for you, much less money. And if you don't end it, well then, one term for you.

Period.

Comments

[Mestizo]

good stuff.

[rabbit]

I was listening to NPR on my way to work this morning and I was actually YELLING at the radio as the various democrats explained why they had to deal with the White House. Which was ridiculous, because they don't. The president can veto all he wants, but at the end of the day, no money and no authorization of war means that he can't do shit. He should be the one begging them for concessions, but they're so used to being in the minority I think they don't even realize it. If they keep this up I'm going to really start believing that they're every bit the wimps they've been painted to be.

On the point of pork barrel spending and the GOP's lack of credibility on such, regardless of the GOP track record, it is still a little lame of the Dems to be shoving all that unrelated crap into the war-funding bill. Makes you look bad, guys.

[rigel]

i was pretty upset about the whole thing, until i read the rude pundit today.

basically, his thesis is that lieberman is the joker in the deck, a hypothesis that seems to jibe with the recent statements hes made regarding not wanting to be "forced" into switching sides. kind of a vague threat there, wonder why hed be making it out of the blue now. that, along with reid's reversal smell very fishy to me. i'd like to try and elucidate what role lieberman actually had in this - the prospect of losing the senate on his whim is the elephant in the room, i think.

[mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari]

Thers

your Representative vvoted to continue to fund the War today. unfortunately, mine did too. 216 House Dems roilled over today, along with all but 2 Thugs.

a black black day. the War funding continues.

[SteveB]

Would I be out of place if I tried to inject a note of optimism?

Today, there were 142 "no" votes in the House. In September, when Congress voted $70 billion for the war, there were only a handful of "no" votes - about 20, I think, and in the Senate there wasn't a single "no" vote. This time, in the Senate, Russ Feingold has committed to vote "no", and, in an unusual twist for him, he won't be alone.

Oh, also, that September vote? Reported on page A23 of my New York Times, under the headline, "House Passes Abortion Bill On Minors". They didn't mention the $70 billion for the war until paragraph nine.

I don't mention any of this to be a polyanna. It's just that if you're trying to build an antiwar movement, it's good sometimes to recognise when there's, you know, movement.

[Thers]

Mrs I: Our rep is Hinchey, and he voted no.

I have no problems with Hinchey.

SteveB, I might feel better tomorrow...

[merlallen]

A record surplus to a record deficit is outrageous spending.

[low-tech cyclist (formerly RT)]

If the GOP is still running on this BS a year from now, I can't wait for people to ask the freshman Dems' challengers, "so what was this huge tax hike anyway?"

Novakula tried to make the case for its existence earlier this week, and I couldn't follow him, so I'm not expecting Joe and Jane Sixpack to follow anyone else's reasoning that Pelosi passed some huge stealth tax increase that hasn't affected them in the least, but they ought to be mad about anyway.