Not a good weekend for Republicans supporting GOP talking points

August 14, 2006

It’s important for Dems to forcefully denounce the more spurious [tag]Republican[/tag] attacks, but I always find it uniquely helpful for Republicans to break party ranks and support the [tag]Democrat[/tag]ic line. This weekend, there were ample examples.

For example, last week, Dick [tag]Cheney[/tag] lashed out at Dems, saying Ned Lamont’s primary victory would encourage “[tag]Al Qaeda[/tag] types.” The man [tag]Bush[/tag] hand-picked to oversee domestic security after 9/11 rejected Cheney’s argument publicly.

Dick Cheney, darkly warned that the Connecticut primary victory of antiwar candidate Ned Lamont over Sen. Joseph Lieberman would only encourage “Al Qaeda types.” (Interviewed by NEWSWEEK, former Homeland Security secretary Tom [tag]Ridge[/tag] bridled at his former colleague’s remark: “That may be the way the vice president sees it,” he said, “but I don’t see it that way, and I don’t think most Americans see it that way.”)

Similarly, Tom [tag]Kean[/tag] Sr., the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission was pressed on whether the war in Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror. Reluctantly, and after significant prodding on Meet the Press, the former Republican governor of New Jersey conceded the point.

NBC’s David Gregory: [Y]ou’re sensitive on this point. The direction question is, do you think [the war in [tag]Iraq[/tag] is] a [tag]distraction[/tag] from meeting the priorities that you’ve outlined?

Kean: Any time you’re spending a tremendous amount of money in one area, Lee is right, it distracts from another. But we think that the number one priority has got to be the defense of the American people, and that’s this war on terror in the United States. We’re not protecting our own people in this country. The government is not doing its job.

When Gregory followed up by asking whether the war in Iraq is failing to protect “the people of the United States,” Kean nodded.

And, finally, while nearly all of the officials calling for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation have been congressional Democrats, over the weekend, the Dems got some help from an unlikely source.

U.S. Rep. [tag]Jo Ann Davis[/tag] has joined the growing chorus of those who believe Defense Secretary Donald [tag]Rumsfeld[/tag] should be out of a job. […]

The unusual aspect of Davis’ stance is that she is a Republican. In her most public comments on the issue in her district, Davis said she has felt this way about Rumsfeld for awhile.

“I’ve made no bones about it the last two years,” Davis told members of the Hampton Roads Chapter of the American Society of Military Comptrollers on Thursday. “He’s probably a nice guy, but I don’t think he’s a great secretary of defense.”

Later she amended her “nice guy” assessment by saying Rumsfeld had come across as arrogant in her dealings with him, which stretch back to committee work during her freshman term in Congress, in 2001.

I suppose my point here is a rhetorical one — when Dems denounce Cheney’s talking points, or call the war in Iraq a distraction, or urge Rumsfeld’s ouster, it’s expected. When Republicans do the same thing, it’s indicative of a subtle shift in the Dems’ direction.

Not a good year for Republicans, if you ask me…

  • David Gregory did a good job pressing those guys, but he must’ve used the words “Democrat Party” fifteen times. If it wasn’t on Sunday Morning, I could’ve turned it into a drinking game!

  • Jo Ann (protect the Christmas Trees) Davis is quite a shock. On the other hand, the top of her district splits Quantico VA (Marine Corps) and the bottom stretches towards Newport News (Navy). She has probably been getting an earful from consituents about how bad Rumsfeld has been.

    This whole Republican’t talking point for the last week has been a mystery to me.

    Republican’t: This whole plot proves that terrorists are still out to attack America.
    Democrat: So why are you spending $300,000,000,000 on Iraq and practically nothing on homeland security?

    Republican’t: This plot has all the hallmarks of an al Qaeda planned attack, which proves how dangerous al Qaeda still is.
    Democrat: So why in the nearly five years since 9/11/01 have you not found or killed Osama bin Ladin?

    Republican’t: See foiling of this plot was by intelligence and police action.
    Democrat: Just like Kerry said in 2004 and you scoffed at?

    Republican’t: Some people don’t think the war on terror is really important.
    Democrat: Well, if your conservative friends believe that, name names. Democrats have said al Qaeda was the biggest threat to American since before 2000, and we told your Bush Administration that during the transition. We just don’t think you know who are enemies are and what their objectives are and you have proved that time and time again.

  • “when Dems denounce Cheney’s talking points, or call the war in Iraq a distraction, or urge Rumsfeld’s ouster, it’s expected. When Republicans do the same thing, it’s indicative of a subtle shift in the Dems’ direction.”

    The right has been so effective at destroying liberal credibility in the press (and among many in the public) that arguments from the left aren’t treated with any seriousness until someone on the right defects. It’s as if one person on the right carries as much weight as the entire opposition — reality be damned.

  • The “good people” of the Republican party today can easily be likened to the “good white people” of the South during Jim Crow. These “good folk” now and then, know that what is prevailing is not right, but are reluctant to attest to the injustices for fear of losing what is now party power and economic access, and what was then acceptance within their white communities. Both are strong currents to swim. It is good to see a few “good people” of the Republican party beginning to speak out. Maybe “they” are learning to do the right thing now that we’ve made it to the early 21st century. -Kevo

  • > I always find it uniquely helpful for Republicans to break party ranks and support the Democratic line.

    Which is, conversely, precisely why Republicans have loved having Joe Lieberman around.

  • I work for a living — I pass Ed’s test, I’m one of the 99%, which also means I can’t get to my infobreast till late in the day, which means the head-scratching and key-tapping are more for personal clarification and the record than debate.

    Do I read down from the newest or up from the oldest? Depends how hungry I am. Today it’s down the way, which means I’m coming in from Camus and scary blogs. Quite often I can read a whole day’s postings and comments and feel content with no twitching to get the caret into the box. More often though something tweaks the neuron and I’m there. Sometimes it comes from CB’s post, sometimes from a comment. In deference to co-commenters and to get into the flow I prefer to defer entry into the box till I’ve scanned or read down through the threads and comments. Sometimes the urgency or tenuousness of the insight drives me straight to the box, as now.

    Ah yes — Kean: “.. the number one priority has got to be the defense of the American people ..”

    That was the trigger. Now I have a number of takes on this, which I’d call levels of approach. At the highest level I’d say “No, the number one priority is being a good neighbour and decent world citizens.” By that I mean not being a nuisance or annoyance or danger to other Earthlings. Best would be to be kind inspiring and helpful, but, at the very least, not harmful. Just considerate. Normal.
    The next level is “Yes, a country must care for its citizens.” That’s a very advanced and complex notion. One could say it incorporates the whole of political science, and much more. But the same way a person and a family care for themselves and manage their economy, so must a nation. In the system I am now working out this level should not supercede or compromise the first level.
    Now we come to the third level, Kean’s level. “Yes, people have a right to defend themselves.” Normally one hopes this would not be necessary, but we know conflicts arise. Here is where a big shift in perspective, I feel, is needed. So big that it may be beyond many people’s capability at the moment. The shift that is needed is not so remote from everyday experience to be unimaginable, but it does require a leap of scale. How do we defend ourselves or expect to be defended in our day-to-day existence in our contemporary society? Well, maybe you keep a gun or have a watchdog or an alarm system, you probably have some locks on your doors. These are just regular household precautions. But if a really bad situation arises — you get burgled, or someone tries to break in, or your neighbour throws poo over the wall, or you get stalked — you call the police. Maybe you also take your aggressor to court. There’s nothing so strange or exotic in that, it’s what we take for granted. It makes our life feel safer. We can go about our activities in a confident civilized way. The leap of scale is to transpose that same principle to the society of nations. If you imagine your own country without courts and police would you feel safer So that’s the third level — international police force, international courts, international government. Is there any other way for nations to feel safer? Think about it.

    Okay, so that’s what the Kean meme threw up for me. Now the fourth level brings us into what we are swimming in constantly all around the blogosphere — politics. This is the art and science of bringing about the best for everyone.

    In this art and science strategy and tactics come into play. Absent gross malevolence, mendacity and snowjobbing, the jostling, searching, debating, analysis that goes on is a compound dialectic that optimizes the provision of social services for the common good. All levels are, or should be included in this process and no one in the population should be left out of the loop.

    Very idealistic, but not irrelevant. I contend that this kind of awareness is essential, and need not be lost sight of in the rough and tumble of political activism.

    — for the record.

    • Comments are closed.