« Confirmed Republicans | Main | The Case for Democracy »
January 26, 2005
Democratic Divisions
Condoleeza Rice was confirmed by the Senate today 85-13. While her confirmation was never in doubt, it was the largest number of "no" votes against any secretary of state nominee since 1925. What gives?
If you listen to the Democrats, it is because she is unqualified. No, worse, she's a liar. We know this because the Senator Kennedy, who of course has told the whole unvarnished truth about Chappaquiddick, says that she provided "false reasons" to go to war against Iraq. Sen Robert "KKK" Byrd, who fancies himself a modern-day Cicero, took the opportunity to denounce the war as unconstitutional. Sen Dick Durbin said that in contrast to Rice, Powell had been the "voice of moderation", implying without saying that Rice is just one of those rabid war-loving right wingers. Durbin also said that "In the end, I could not excuse Dr Rice's repeated misstatements". Sen Jack Reed trotted out the old saw that Rice merely reinforces Bush's views once he has made them.
First, lets make the seemingly obvious point that everyone thought that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, and that if you truely believe one thing and another turns out to be the truth, this does not make you a liar but merely wrong.
Second, we'll point out the evolution in left-wing criticism of the President; at first they said that he was the dummy, easily led around by his advisors, now they're saying that his advisors are led around by him. Uh, which is it, guys?
More seriously, what is with the Democrats? Are we actually to believe that Dr Rice is less qualified than, say, Madeline Albright? Or Warren Christopher? For that matter, what about Cyrus Vance, or, for you history buffs, one of the oddest nominees of all time, William Jennings Bryan?
While Barbara Boxer led the charge against Dr Rice, fellow California Democrat Dianne Feinstein defended her. Other Democrats such as Joe Leiberman also came to her aide.
It seems to me that the Democrats are 1) increasingly defined by the far-left wing, 2) divided and disorganized, and 3) unable to choose their battles wisely.
As for the first, they are increasingly defined by their far-left wing. If you ask most Democrats or standard liberals, they will point out that most of their members of congress are "moderate" on this or that issue. They'll say that most senators voted for Dr Rice, support the military, etc. This misses the point. The GOP 1992 national convention was defined by Pat Buchanan's firebreathing speech, which was portrayed as "extremist". Whether it was or not is not relevant. The point is that he became the public face of the Republican party, and it hurt them severely. Likewise today for the Democrats, they are perceived as the party of the hollywood-loony left.
The Democrats seem to have no strategy now at all. Their leadership should have been able to stop this specatacle. As it is now, they are going down the unproductive road that Tom Daschle led them.
There is no good reason to seriously oppose a nomination that is going to happen anyway. When in the minority you need to choose your battles wisely, and fight only those you have a chance of winning. To fight everything that comes up is unwise. While doing so may make you feel good, and gains you points with your own die-hards, it hurts you with the moderate voters. They see you as being unnecessarily divisive and extreme. Entire parties get tainted by the actions of a few.
The Democrats are still tainted by the ways of Tom Daschle.
Posted by Tom at January 26, 2005 5:10 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/242
