Politics is, by its very nature, a partisan endeavor. Elections have winners and losers and we all want our guys and gals to be the winners.
Partisanship has ebbed and flowed over time and while I can't say there haven't been other periods of extreme partisan combat, I do think our current era must be in the top 2 or 3. Now, I'm a Republican and a partisan, so I think you should consider my views in those contexts, however, I believe the current Democrat majority in Congress to be the most purely partisan group of politicians I have ever known.
I can barely think of an example of a Democrat program or statement that does not have gaining political advantage as its primary purpose. The recent rants by Howard Dean and Chuck Schumer regarding the "scandal" of the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys are perfect examples. Alberto Gonzales fires 8 of 93 U.S. Attorneys and Schumer and Dean call for resignations and investigations. Funny, I don't remember their outrage when Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office.
Clearly, though, the War in Iraq has been the primary front on which the Democrats are waging their partisan war on the President and the GOP. How many plans have they proposed? How many non-binding votes have been taken? What is the purpose of these plans and votes? Is it to end the war? No, it is to beat up Bush and the GOP without risking any real action which might backfire on them. Even the Washington Post has their number. In a recent editorial entitled "The Pelosi Plan for Iraq", the Post pointed out the primarily political purpose of the Democrats latest plan.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gave a recent speech in which he pointed out the Democrats hypocrisy on the War in Iraq. Here are some relevant excerpts:
"Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, my good friend the Majority Leader himself said this, "As for setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that’s not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don’t want us there, and it doesn’t work well to do that."
Six months after that, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, said this: "A deadline for pulling out … will only encourage our enemies to wait us out" … it would be "a Lebanon in 1985. And God knows where it goes from there." That was our friend, Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
And three months later, Senator Clinton made the same point when she said, "I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal," said Senator Clinton. "I don’t think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you." That’s the Majority Leader, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and a prominent Democrat presidential candidate.
Surely Senators Reid, Biden, and Clinton have not changed their minds about who would benefit the most if we set a date certain for withdrawal. They know just as well as I do that this is what the terrorists have been waiting for — and just what our allies in Iraq, and the entire region of the world have feared".
(Hat tip to PowerLine)
So here we see prominent Democrats advocating an idea which they previously thought wrong-headed. Why? There only seems to be one answer. They have read the polls and they have concluded that the American people want out of Iraq. They no longer care what's best for the country. They only care about what's best for their presidential aspirations and the prospects of the Democrat party.
I won't claim that Republicans are free from partisan motives, but I really can't think of any examples as cynical as these of the Democrats, particularly at a time when we have troops in harm's way.
I have previously noted my awe at visiting Washington, D.C. and viewing the buildings and monuments of our republic. I particularly marvelled at walking through the old House chamber where placards denote the places where the great statesmen of the past had their desks; Lincoln, Daniel Webster, John Q. Adams, Henry Clay, and so many others. One can only wonder, where are today's heirs to those great men? Where are the modern day equals of the founding fathers?
They certainly don't appear to be in Washington.
Update: 3/16
This Andrew McCarthy article from The National Review speaks quite cogently to the issue of politicizing the firing of the Federal prosecutors.
Update II: 3/16
Check out this excerpt of David Brooks NY Times column on the Democrat's Iraq pandering from Real Clear Politics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Let's see - as I munch on an apple during a break. Without engaging my mind, what comes to mind:
-Travel-gate
- Did Clinton murder Mr. Foster?
-Haircut at LAX
-White House computers destroyed by Clinton staff
- Clinton Presidential pardons to big donors
- Clinton selling secrets to China
- Rape- did Clinton rape that woman?
- Whitewater Investigation
- Hillary destroying files at the Rose Law firm
- Hillary making money ($29,000) on a $2,000.00 investment.
and of course- Articles of Impeachmenet voted along partisan lines
But you just can't think of examples of Republican partisan politics. As Reagan said, "There you go, again!"
Anonymous:
You are missing my point. I am not suggesting that Republicans haven't leveled partisan charges against Democrats (particularly, the Clintons).
The difference is that Democrat lawmakers are using their positions on matters of policy for purely political purposes. This is far different than the rantings of the lunatic fringes of both right and left.
The Iraq War is the obvious case. The Democrats claim the war must end but they won't try to actually stop it by cutting funding. Instead they use "symbolic" resolutions to try to harm Bush without taking any responsibility for their actions.
The Senators quoted by Mitch McConnell in the piece I cited, are clearly flip-flopping on an issue of national security for partisan political purposes, not because they have changed their minds on the efficacy of a withdrawal timetable.
The list of political attacks you recited were attacks by pundits and partisans. Only the Impeachment proceedings were an example of governmental or policy action which arguably had political gain as its primary purpose.
The current Democrat Congressional majority has taken that to an unprecedented level. And I do think you will have a hard time finding a lot of Republican examples of the same. The closest one I can think of was the Medicare Drug Benefit Plan. That was legislation that many GOP members of Congress didn't really like but they went along with it because President Bush twisted their arms off.
These days, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer barely utter a word that isn't a criticism of the President. Their goal is to bring down the GOP and they don't care what else is damaged to get to that goal. That is elevating partisanship toan unacceptable and dangerous level.
Post a Comment