It really does make me wonder why somebody like the DLC's Marshall Wittman -- a fellow one might assume, if one didn't know better, would have the best interests of the Democratic party at heart -- would go on record in the Washington Post with a statement crafted to reify the negative impressions of that party:
Of course, Wittman's use of "them" and "they" goes a long way toward clearing things up.
And the point he makes is just the sort of stupid thinking that you see all the time in politics and in Washington. You see, in the real world, people hold core principles and then apply them as situations warrant. For example, I strongly believe that burglars should not break into my home and take my stuff. To that end, I might have an alarm system and bars on my ground floor windows. As a matter of principle and in practice, I'm very strong on home security.
My neighbor, however, has decided to forgo the alarm system and bars and has instead taken to shooting every FedEx or UPS delivery person who appears on her doorstep as a precautionary measure. I'm very strongly opposed to her behavior. It's illegal, immoral, ineffective, and dumb. If Park Slope held a "Let's Stop Killing the Delivery People" rally, I would attend. One can just as easily be strong on national security and oppose the Iraq war. So simple a concept, really.
But to Wittman and much of Washington's chattering class, this is wishy-washy thinking. To them, every question is a multiple choice one that very often has only two answers. Strong on national security or anti-war, take your pick.
Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist group, said the rift over Iraq highlighted a long-running dilemma for Democrats, how to appear tough on national security while appealing to their antiwar base.
"Karl Rove couldn't have choreographed it any better," Mr. Wittmann said. "This is the dilemma that the Democrats see. Their base is inflamed against the war. The war is unpopular, and yet if they call for a precipitous withdrawal, they only play into the hands of the Republican Party, which wants to depict them as the party of retreat."
Of course, Wittman's use of "them" and "they" goes a long way toward clearing things up.
And the point he makes is just the sort of stupid thinking that you see all the time in politics and in Washington. You see, in the real world, people hold core principles and then apply them as situations warrant. For example, I strongly believe that burglars should not break into my home and take my stuff. To that end, I might have an alarm system and bars on my ground floor windows. As a matter of principle and in practice, I'm very strong on home security.
My neighbor, however, has decided to forgo the alarm system and bars and has instead taken to shooting every FedEx or UPS delivery person who appears on her doorstep as a precautionary measure. I'm very strongly opposed to her behavior. It's illegal, immoral, ineffective, and dumb. If Park Slope held a "Let's Stop Killing the Delivery People" rally, I would attend. One can just as easily be strong on national security and oppose the Iraq war. So simple a concept, really.
But to Wittman and much of Washington's chattering class, this is wishy-washy thinking. To them, every question is a multiple choice one that very often has only two answers. Strong on national security or anti-war, take your pick.
