What the Heck was I Thinking!?

On several occassions I’ve posted on the magnitude of the “wave” the Democrats rode into office in the last election. I said then that I didn’t think it was a big wave, nor that it had a lot of carrying power.

The latest news on the supplemental funding for continuing the war against the Islamo-fascists points to the dangers of overreaching that Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin experienced.

David Corn at The Nation wrote:

The Dems’ Self-Defeat on the Irar War Vote

Given the choice of funding the unpopular Iraq war or being accused by George W. Bush of succumbing to a defeatism that endangers America’s security, a majority of senators and representatives clearly prefers Option One. This group is composed mostly of Republicans. But a slice of Democrats are within its ranks. Such a reality couldn’t be hurdled by Democratic leaders in the House and Senate during the just-ended face-off over an Iraq war funding bill. The Democrats tried at first to have it both ways and ended up with nothing–except a flood of resentment from their core supporters. Amid the debris, there’s a lesson for them.

He adds,

Was such an unhappy (for the Democrats) outcome inevitable? Probably. The Democrats do not have the votes to stop the war, even in their own caucus–unless they are audaciously willing to defy majority rule (say, by preventing war funding legislation from reaching the floor). Most House Democrats do favor withdrawing from Iraq. Days ago, 169 House Democrats (and two Republicans) voted for such a measure. And 28 Democratic senators voted for a similar bill. Yet a significant minority of Democrats are aligned with almost all the Republicans in opposition to a legislatively-mandated pullback. Some of these Democrats may believe in the war; many probably fear being blamed for the ugly consequences that could ensue in Iraq following a removal of US troops. In any event, the Democrats were mathematically destined to disappoint those hoping they would suffocate Bush’s war in Iraq. (emphasis mine)

and later,

The House Democratic leaders can now contend that they did try to force a change on Bush and point to the 140 Dems who voted against the war funding bill. But this claim cannot overcome the appearance of Democratic strategizing gone awry. The Democrats created too much confusing context for their failure.

I dont’ agree with Mr. Corn’s “Bush’s war” meme, but he’s right that the Democrat leadership misplayed their razor think majorities.

Pelosi and Reid will get another shot at Bush’s war soon. Democrats should wonder what their leaders learned from this defeat.

Perhaps the lesson is to avoid “Hubris.” (psst, the link ain’t to the book!)

Source: The Dems’ Self-Defeat on the Irar War Vote

Last Tuesday, Senator Clinton demonstrated why she’s considered a liberal - she thinks the answer is more and more efficient government. 

In a recent AP report, Senator Clinton said that she thought the collective should be the focus, not the individual. individual rights and more importantly, but unsaid, responsibilities should not be our focus.

We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.” (emphasis mine)

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

“There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed,” she said. “Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.

One with that approach is that the welfare system of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s demonstrated conclusively that the government can’t do many things efficiently. It isn’t designed to do that. The founding fathers didn’t want an efficient government - that was what they wanted to avoid at all costs.

An efficient government was one that could efficiently cause great harm to many in their minds.

A restrained government - limited in it’s powers and authorities - was deemed the best choice.

To put it bluntly, the founding fathers didn’t believe, as apparently Sen. Clinton does, that the government had the answer. It was only good for setting the operating rules - laws and a system to enforce them - and giving the individual as much freedom of movement as possible.

Source: We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

Hot Air - Shocka! RNC donations off by 40%

Apparently the RNC is tired of hearing bad news from potential donors, so they’ve shot the people who talk to them:

The Republican National Committee, hit by a grass-roots donors’ rebellion over President Bush’s immigration policy, has fired all 65 of its telephone solicitors, Ralph Z. Hallow will report Friday in The Washington Times.

Faced with an estimated 40 percent fall-off in small-donor contributions and aging phone-bank equipment that the RNC said would cost too much to update, Anne Hathaway, the committees chief of staff, summoned the solicitations staff last week and told them they were out of work, effective immediately, the fired staffers told The Times.

It wasn’t the state of the phone bank equipment that was the bad news.

There has been a sharp decline in contributions from RNC phone solicitations, another fired staffer said, reporting that many former donors flatly refuse to give more money to the national party if Mr. Bush and the Senate Republicans insist on supporting what these angry contributors call “amnesty” for illegal aliens. (emphasis mine)

The phone bank people listened!

I say that because I was contacted two days after the announced shamnesty bill was made public. I told the now-fired phone bank solicitor that I’d not match my previous donations unless they did something smart about that stupid bill. The guy was very interested and engaged on the phone, and asked for details.

I’m sure that is why the RNC fired all of the phone solicitors - they wanted money, not input from party donors.

Source: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Shocka! RNC donations off by 40%