Senate Coward Contingent Grows, Becomes Bipartisan
I can't get too disappointed when septuagenarian careerist pols sweat. In fact it's sort of amusing. Their conclusion that, after all these years in the Senate, joining forces with the defeatist caucus is there best bet for keeping their job only goes to show one thing; when it comes to politicians no issue is more important than keeping your job. I suppose it is just a matter of degree depending on the pol.
Tony Blankley sums it up thusly:
But the debate today in Washington is about none of these strategic concerns. It is exclusively about Washington's political timetable and when the president will bend to such political necessity. For self-admitted politics -- rather than national security -- to be driving decision making in wartime Washington is not only an unpatriotic disgrace -- it is a national menace.
He goes on to imagine what a similar debate might be like during WWII
FDR: "Sorry. Several senators are feeling very uncomfortable with the war. Frankly, they have just had it. And several of them are worried about their re-election."
Ike: "My men are fighting and dying for yards in Italy right now -- and even so, they can't wait to take the war to Hitler next year in France. Tell those pantywaisted senators to unloosen their girdles, take an aspirin and go to bed -- and leave the fighting to my men."
FDR: "But we could lose the Senate."
Ike:" Better to lose the Senate than the war."
FDR: "I'm with you, Ike. You beat Hitler, and let me beat the Senate
To RTWT, which I highly recommend
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/the_senate_chamber_of_shame.html
Like Blankley says, to think this conversation even possible during WWII is ridiculous but it is exactly the conversation taking place in DC today. If only W could muster such straight talk. But then that's always been his shortcoming hasn't it?
So long as politicians career interests trump sound policy we should know better than to expect better.
Comments