WaPo Admits It: The Democrats Screwed Up:”Democrats Were Ill-Prepared for Unplanned Disclosure, Republican Attacks”

by Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey Layton

Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 25, 2007; Page A05

The plan was bold: By tying President Bush’s $100 billion war request to strict standards of troop safety and readiness, Democrats believed they could grab hold of Iraq war policy while forcing Republicans to defend sending troops into battle without the necessary training or equipment.But a botched launch by the plan’s author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week.

…

Murtha’s credentials as a Marine combat veteran, a critic of the war and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) were supposed to make him an unassailable spokesman for Democratic war policy. Instead, he has become a lightning rod for criticism from Republicans and members of his own party.

…

But the sub head quoted in the title of this post is revealing:

“Democrats Were Ill-Prepared for Unplanned Disclosure, Republican Attacks”

Let’s break this down into two separate lines:

“Unplanned disclosure;”

Meaning, that they were planning on keeping it secret.  They didn’t want the American people to know that they were going to try to defund the military while they were still in the field.  They knew it wouldn’t be popular.  They knew it would cost them at the polls.  They knew it would make them look like the the un-Americans they are.

“Republican attacks” ;

The bottom line here is this is still an attempt to deflect some of the ire away from the Democrats who are desperate to get America to cut and run… who are desperate to have America Lose this war… and from them onto the Republicans who merely pointed out the problems with the attempted defunding of our soldiers in the field, by the Democrats.

This is not merely John Murtha’s screw up alone. nor is it Nancy Pelosi’s screw up alone. Nor is it merely the two of them together. This is a screw up that proportionally encompasses the entire Democratic party. As Sir Laurence once said; “who is the bigger fool, the fool, or the fool who follows him?”

Over at Q&O, Dale Franks notes:

From Inside Higher Ed comes this story of a new bill in Arizona.  A state Senate Committee has approved a bill that is abhorrent to First Amendment liberties.

The bill, whose chief sponsor is the Republican majority leader in the Senate, would ban professors at public colleges and universities, while working, from:

• Endorsing, supporting or opposing any candidate for local, state or national office.
• Endorsing, supporting or opposing any pending legislation, regulation or rule under consideration by local, state or federal agencies.
• Endorsing, supporting or opposing any litigation in any court.
• Advocating “one side of a social, political, or cultural issue that is a matter of partisan controversy.”
• Hindering military recruiting on campus or endorsing the activities of those who do.

Under the legislation, the Arizona Board of Regents, which governs the state’s public universities, and the individual boards of community colleges would be responsible for setting guidelines for the law and for requiring all faculty members to participate in three hours of training annually on their responsibilities under the law.

Punishments could come in two forms. The governing boards’ guidelines would need to develop procedures, including suspensions and terminations in some cases, according to the bill. In addition, the state attorney general and county prosecutors could sue violators, and state courts could impose fines of up to $500. The legislation would bar colleges or their insurance policies from paying the fines – money would need to be paid directly by the professors found guilty.

I can hardly find the words to express my outrage over this blatantly unconstitutional attempt to muzzle professors, and forbid them from speaking publicly on almost any issue. Becoming a college professor is not an implied consent to surrender your political liberties.

Well, Dale, there’s much we agree on….. but this isn’t one of them. I support the bill as described… though I may disagree with the bill itself, if the wording of it is different than my understanding of it. To understand why I say that you need understand the difference between one professor and another.  I replied:

Somebody teaching at a private college, has all the ability of the world to speak their mind on whatever subject. They’re not doing it on the government’s time, or the government’s dime. More, it seems to me, the obvious intent of the legislation is to keep such people from passing off their political movements and paranoia as fact.

Law, it is said, is a necessary evil. Between allowing the indoctrination at government expense to continue, and the law being enforced, I would view this particular law to be the lesser of the two evils.

I disagree, Dale, that this is a matter of free speech. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is preventing these professors from going private, so that they can expound on their views. What’s really going on here, is conditions of their employment. I’m quite sure that there are many bright minds who are willing to work within those parameters. That’s called a free market.

We’re talking, in reality, about the difference between freedom of speech, versus a guaranteed audience, Particularly one that in general doesn’t know enough to challenge the nonsense they’re teaching as fact, all provided by the largess of government. Somehow, that situation does not seem to me a libertarian nirvana.

Let’s consider also, that if there are a large number of parents who object to the type of restrictions being placed on professors, they will be eventually erect non-government schools where such nonsense can be taught freely. There is nothing stopping them from doing precisely that… assuming they have the desire.

Of course, we both know that won’t happen, because they do not so desire.

Now, notice please, then I made no distinction as regards the political persuasion of professors involved.  Neither, for that matter, does the law.  This is as it should be.  Apparently, what Mr. Franks is finding troublesome, is that the law is in his view designed to attack the left… he tries the ‘twist his words back at him’ trick… but in doing so, trips up:

Let’s consider also, that if there are a large number of parents who object to leftist views being taught by professors, they will be eventually erect nongovernment schools where such nonsense can be dispensed with. There is nothing stopping them from doing precisely that… assuming they have the desire.

And I ask, why should political leanings of either direction… left or right… be allowed to be taught as fact, on the government dime?

This is not a freedom of speech issue, folks.  To present it as such, is to miscast the argument.  That kind of blatantly miscast argument, is usually being driven by something else.. Something that is not out in the open in the argument thus far.

The only clue that we have to what that might be, is the apparent Freudian slip …”of parents who object to leftist views being taught by professors…”

I asked about this, in my reply.

The law makes no such distinction of the sort, which is as it should be. Nor did I, myself.

But I note YOU did. Why?

The question stands unanswered, thus far. Add to that, the obvious attempt to smear the Republican party with the story. (Note the comments)
Now, look; I know better than to suggest that Dale is leaping to the defense of the left, or that he is a leftist at heart himself.  I know him at least that well.  I have to assume that there is some sort of a rhetorical mash going on here.
The discussion with Franks’ motivations aside, the discussion as a whole does speak rather loudly to the much larger issue of government being involved in education at all. Indeed, I find myself amazed that a libertarian wouldn’t take the opportunity to raise that issue.  I’ve been saying for over a decade now in various public forums going all the way back to the old GT network, that it was time for the government to get out of the business of education.  And one commenter in that thread, MichaelW, explains a major reason why:

But that also identifies the problem — we may perceive that public employees are impartial, but that doesn’t ensure (or even encourage) impartiality.

Quite correct.  That perception has always been there.  For example , government climatologists.  Government economists.  Government union representatives.  The FBI.  The CIA.  The Secret service.  The Military.  All of these have a longstanding perception that they are impartial on the political front.  However it is not so.
The solution Mike offers to this misperception, insofar as teachers goes leaves something to be desired:

Let them support candidates, speak at rallys, march to Washington, or hold vigil in Crawford, and let everyone seem them doing it. The more attention called to it the better. Maybe then more voters would begin to understand just how impartial public employees really are. What have now is just a lemon’s market in government, since the true motivations, biases, preferences, etc. of the employees are not allowed to be known.

No, that’s not going to work toward the stated goal.

Look; If the political activism of college professors hasn’t been directly attached to the left in perception, given their upfront and overly loud activism since the nineteen sixties, that perception, that illusion of impartiality will never be broken by the means described. Given the political activities of the teachers’ unions, that statement can probably just as easily applied to teachers in the grade schools.

And look, if you think any of this is inaccurate, try replacing ‘left’ with ‘NAZI’ and see if the arguments presented still work. Would we even be HAVING this discussion? Would Dale, for example, be so incensed, if there was a bill afoot to limit the government’s paying for the promotion of NAZI propaganda in the college campus, by supposedly nonpartisan college professors? You’ll forgive me; I have my doubts.

Speaking of allusions to Nazis, I wonder what I would find if I dug into the search engines to discover what it was they thought of the firing of Ward Churchill… the of the “little Eichmans” fame…

If according to the Associated Press new mantra, the sex lives of great-grandfathers is relevant, then so by god is the sex life of one’s father.  Sweetness & LIght has found the story the American MSM has refused to run.  From the Daily Mail(UK)

Grandfather Obama sent his son to a missionary school but after completing his education, the youth could find little work except goatherding in his remote village of Nyangoma Kogela, in the roadless hills of Western Kenya.

At 18, he married a girl called Kezia. But Obama Snr was more interested in politics and economics than his family and his political leanings had been brought to the notice of leaders of the Kenyan Independence movement.

He was put forward for an American-sponsored scholarship in economics, with the idea being that he would eventually use his Western-honed skills in the new Kenya. At the age of 23 he headed for university in Hawaii, leaving behind the pregnant Kezia and their baby son.

You have to excuse the MSM for dumping all this supposed dirt early.   Once democrat nominee is selected, the sex lives of the canidate’s family will yet again become a taboo subject. 

( H/T:  Steve Gilbert, Sweetness & Light;  Clarice Feldman, American Thinker )

Ed Morrissey, Captain’s Quarters, thinks the media is really despereate.  Kevin Hayden, American Street, tells the MSM to “Stop this shit.”

I say, briing it on.  The Associated Press has just changed the rules of political coverage.  The AP has now deemed the sex life of canidate’s family to be relevant.  Why didn’ t the AP do this for Richard Nixon in ‘Sixty?   Will the AP now explore Barack Obama’s family tree? 

The AP has revealed that Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Pratt Romney,  had five wives, but shuns the question of how many Miles Pratt had at one time.

Now you got to give Miles Pratt some credit.  He at least married his lovers.   So speaking of men who do not marry their lovers, how many mistresses has Mrs. Clinton’s husband, B.J. had and about which how many did Mrs. Clinton know?.   That is was B.J. fooling around behind Mrs. Clinton’s back or did Mrs. Clinton know?

More:  Scott Lemieux, Lawyers, Guns and Money.

Patrick Ruffini is the latest in a rather long list of folks who have noted it:

But something interesting is happening on the way to the “new direction.” Early indications are that the troop surge into Baghdad is working. It hasn’t been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%, Mahdi Army chief Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly made off for Iran, and many Baghdadis who had fled the violence now feel it’s safe enough to return. The strategy that Congress is busy denouncing is proving to be our best hope for victory.

Of course, not everyone has been talking about it… some of us are apparently hoping that not talking about it will make victory go away.

This turnaround in Baghdad is confirmed at home by the media’s near-deafening silence. If it seems like you’ve heard less about how Iraq is spiraling into civil war in the weeks since the surge was announced, this is why. Even some discordant voices in the media are starting to wonder what’s happening. Time magazine worries that it’s “Quiet in Baghdad. Too quiet.” That’s right — a dramatic reduction in violence is actually bad news.

I’m telling you, friends; When bad things happen in Iraq, the press and the democrats can be counted upon to bring that information to the four as quickly as possible, and usually more dramatically than the situation calls for. But when things go right in Iraq, when the United States actually succeeds in what it is trying to accomplish, the press is nowhere to be found. Neither are the Democrats in Congress or anywhere else, for that matter. The reason for this is simple enough; The Democrats…. and in this I would include the press… are very heavily invested in our defeat in Iraq. Their political station will not withstand an American victory there.

“His neck was completely snapped.” 

So was decribed one Wagner Segura, late of Costa Rica.  A few lessons for life, don’t piss into the wind, don’t drink warm beer and don’t mess with a Marine.  A lesson Segura failed to  heed.

It seems that Segura and two acomplices attempted to rob a group of U.S. tourists.  By the time the melee was over, Segura’s two accomplices had fled the scene and Segura was dead, of a broken neck.  There seems to have been a Marine in the group, and Mac did  not take too kindly to being robbed.

Details, Reuters.

Some of the cynical, such as myself, have long been suspicious of the American Civil Liberty Union’s motivation.

Locally, Monroe County(Rochester), NY provides some six million dollars in funding to the local library system.  When, the county executive, Maggie Brooks, found that the library was allowing internet access to pornography, she threatened to yank the county’s funding.  I move I applaud.

Predictably the local chapter of the ACLU protested Brooks’ proposal.

(Rochester, N.Y.) — The American Civil Liberties Union is criticizing Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks for what they say is an infringement on First Amendment rights.
Brooks threatened to pull the county’s $6 million funding to Rochester’s Central Library after learning that the library lets adult patrons view blocked Web sites that could be inappropriate or pornographic.

Meanwhile in Virginia one Charles Rust-Tierney was arrested for alleged possession of child ponography.  ABC News provides a report:

Feb. 23, 2007— Federal agents arrested Charles Rust-Tierney, the former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, Friday in Arlington for allegedly possessing child pornography.

According to a criminal complaint obtained by ABC News, Rust-Tierney allegedly used his e-mail address and credit card to subscribe to and access a child pornography website.

Don Riehl, Riehl World View, makes the connection between  Rust-Tierney’s arrest in Virginia and Rochester, New York very clear.

Originally from Rochester, NY, evidently he met his wife while they were VISTA volunteers in Iowa.

She met another young Vista volunteer named Charles Tierney from Rochester, N.Y..

Allahpundit, provides a very graphic description.

Note that one of the causes Rust-Tierney defended as public library Internet access to porn:

The ACLU of Virginia thanks the Loudoun County Library Board for this opportunity to speak to the Board and the public about Internet access In the Loudoun County libraries. Today more than ever, our nation’s libraries are vibrant multi-cultural institutions that connect people in the smallest and most remote communities with global information resources. Thus, despite differences regarding appropriate means, we know that everyone in the room ultimately shares the same end goal: to provide an opportunity for all of the citizens of Loudoun County to benefit from the tremendous information resources available on the Internet.

It now seems apparent that the ACLU’s zeal to defend access to porn in Virginia was not solely motivated by some theoretical concern for rights.   Might the ACLU have similar motivations in Rochester?   In your home town?

I see the first Wendy’s has closed. Mostly, it’s because of the way the area of downtown Columbus has developed.  Said, really.

They’ve a plan to move the memorabilia already inside the restaurant, to the Columbus suburbs.  But, since they owned both the land and the building, you would think they’d be able to put together some kind of a museum on the site, about Wendy’s and the way it developed, being as it is, a piece of America.

Tacky?  Perhaps.  But I’ve certainly seen a lot worse, and a lot less iconic.

Assuming that tear it down, and edge and with me the possibility for acting a long John Silver’s on the site.   (Chuckle)

Yet more incontrovertable evidence that duct tape is among the great inventions of all time, trailing only sliced bread and toilet paper on a roll.  Read the report:

What would happen if an astronaut came unglued in space and, say, destroyed the ship’s oxygen system or tried to open the hatch and kill everyone aboard?

[…]

It turns out NASA has a detailed set of written procedures for dealing with a suicidal or psychotic astronaut in space. The documents, obtained this week by The Associated Press, say the astronaut’s crewmates should bind his wrists and ankles with duct tape, tie him down with a bungee cord and inject him with tranquilizers if necessary.

Duct tape — don’t you dare leave Earth without it.

* I see that the print media’s answer to Air America, The New Republic has been sold.
Actually, or rather predictable outcome , particularly given the direct line comparison to Air America.  Seems that the new majority holder, is Canadian publisher CanWest. (Yawn)

*Go ahead; tell me how McCain Feingold solved that problem of money in politics. Here we have David Geffen with one interview just about destroying the presidential aspirations of one Hillary Clinton.  Perhaps he’s done the country a favor, insofar as we won’t have another Clinton and the White House, but of course he’s doing that so that we have another Democrat in the White House.
Not that the rich haven’t had extraordinary power over us in the past; a quick look at George Soros for example will certainly show an abuse of power. But you know, that comparison brings to mind a question; to which candidate has Soros offered money?   It also strikes me as interesting, that “the party of the little guy” is having its future decided by essentially a handful of financial heavyweights.Notice, also, that those actually running for the office from within the Democratic party, are not complaining about the influence of the wealthy on their elections .  Nor, for that matter, is anyone else in the democratic party.  Interesting how that works. But you know, since Hillary Clinton has decided to turn down public financing for her campaign, supposedly, you do really have to wonder, whether not she is not regretting that decision, now, given that the decision was probably made with the understanding that Geffen would be in her court, and not that of Obama.

* Oh… speaking of Hillary Clinton, I see James Carville‘s name is popped up again on the radar.  Some things never change, including the skin on that particular snake.  I figure if Hillary Clinton wants to decry the nasty going on in the campaign just now, maybe she ought to tell Carville to shut his mouth.  Publicly.  And we both know she’s not going to do that.  But it is what she expected Obama to do about Geffen.

* Joyner’s got a post up about Largo City Manager Steve Stanton, who plans to ahve a sex change operation. He’s got a picture of him, posted.  Frankly, it looks like that operation is already taken place.

A few days ago, Bit blogged about “RINOS FOR DEFEAT” to include one Walter B. Jones(R GA-3)   Well it appears that all those cards and letter have had an effect, on Representative Jones.  

In a letter to Bananas Jack Murtha, Jones wrote:

“I believe that we must take great care to ensure that any effort to provide for our armed forces not be used as a proxy for resolving larger issues concerning the war in Iraq,”

And:

“Any attempt to starve the war as a way of bringing it to a conclusion, rather than through a serious policy debate about the best way forward in Iraq, would be wrong.”

The message got through to at least one RINO.  If we can turn enough RINO’s we might have chance to pick up some blue doge.   Then maybe it will be Bananas Jack on the run.

More, Mark Kilmer, RedState

Well, I guess we won’t have Tom Vilsack to kick around, anymore.

DES MOINES, Iowa -AP- Democrat Tom Vilsack, the former Iowa governor who built a centrist image, abandoned his bid for the presidency on Friday after struggling against better-known, better-financed rivals.

No shock. His abysmal politics aside,  the guy was so far below the national political radar that even Jay Leno’s jokes about him weren’t scoring much response.

Fran, today expounds on something I”ve touched on repeatedly, and does a fair job at breaking it down… almost as an afterthought:

 Politics is inextricably intertwined with human motivation: the fundamental sources of our desires and impetuses to act. I have become convinced that we understand our motivations, and the strengths of them, too poorly to make acceptable overall sense of our political conduct.

The rest of the article goes on from there, in a slightly differnt direction from teh trust of this post….  but this part I’ve quoted,  is really the heart of what I’ve been suggesting when I said that politics is the reflection of the deepest desires, and our deepest rooted values and a means to and end of getting closer to achievement of those desires.

The nature of politics tends to burn away that which we value less… as we strive within the system to get to our goals. The measurement of our values comes in the political compromise process… what are we willing to give up, in order to get something else?

 Such as ‘supporting the troops’, for example, but sticking a knife in their backs for some other advanatge, such as political  and monetary power.

Or raising the minimum wage, except for those people who work for companies whose shares are owned by the Pelosi family… and so on.

I’m by no means suggesting that this is a reason to remove one’s self from the process. But it does suggest we need to pay closer attantion to the signs of what motivates some candidates. When viewed in that light, the current crop of Presidential candidates, and indeed for most offices, on both sides of the isle, look less than impressive, being far too willing to give up their suppsoedly bedrock values’.

 Understand the implications here, in light of the post of the other day,where I responded to Billy… where Billy suggests that what we’re seeing is purely emotional, and without reason. I concur. But why? Because as Fran says;

…we understand our motivations, and the strengths of them, too poorly to make acceptable overall sense of our political conduct.

Don’t misunderstand me; They’re troublesome, but I don’t call emotions within the political process a bad thing. I’ve been known to get right angry and tiimes in these spaces, giddy at others.  Even those who rebel at the political process, tend to get emotional. Some have made reputations byallowing their emotions to come forward. It’s part of the human condition; clinical emotional detachment from our greatest desires and our darkest fears simply isn’t possible. .

 But we need to consider, particularly when policy questions arise, particularly by means of political movements… If Politics is so largely driven by our emotions, how can it be expected to be fully reasonable?

An excellent case in point is the ‘global warming’ scare. If nothing else, it’s an emotional appeal based on our worst fears.  Which, in turn, is why the argument it is so immune to mere facts.

The rule of thumb, apparently:

If a political appeal starts in the realm of the emotional, do not expect it to make much sense.

News flash, the Sun may rise in the West.    It is becoming increasingly apparent that Mrs. Clinton is in over her head.  Mrs. Cllinton may be pretty in pink and comfortable in the Rose Garden, but the campaign trail is no rose garden.

Peggy Noonan aptly states:

What Mrs. Clinton is trying to establish is this: to criticize her–to speak of her critically as a human being, as a person with a record and a history and a style and attitudes–is, ipso facto, to be dirty, and low, and destructive. To air and raise questions about who she is, how she operates, and what can be inferred from her past actions is by definition an unjust act.

Blogmeter suggests, .”Open Season On Hillary Clinton:”

Hillary Clinton‘s prickly response to comments from Hollywood billionaire David Geffen may be the final straw that pushes the netroots from HRC-ambivalence to HRC-hating. AMERICAblog‘s John Aravosis writes: “[Y]ou’ll recall that we were one of the blogs that, up until recently, didn’t have a problem with her … But Senator Clinton’s increasingly nasty campaign tactics and anti-Democratic messaging is getting out of control.” Aravosis claims Clinton is “Sistah Souljah’ing the entire Democratic Party” compares her to netroots bogyman Joe Lieberman and repeats Washington Times‘ accusations that her campaign shopped the Barack Obama/madrassah to news outlets.

Rush Limbaugh even compares Mrs. Clinton to a child:

Geffen also put his finger on the Clinton trait that’s causing her the biggest headache. Wanting to close down the line of inquiry on her early support for the Iraq war, she recently announced she would never say she had erred in her vote to authorize the invasion.

Like a child pretending not to care about an ice cream cone he isn’t going to get, she told voters to go ahead and vote for someone else if they wanted to. “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” she said.

Sorry about that Chief, that was Margaret Carlson.  But for Bill Richardson, the question may not be if get the veep slot on a Clinton ticket, but if he will offer a cabinet spot to Mrs. Clinton.

Are enviromental panic mongers, a.k.a. watermelons, impacting our children’s health?  At least one watermelon, Pete Williams,  seems to suggest it:

Half of young children are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern, according to a new report today.

A survey of 1,150 youngsters aged between seven and 11 found that one in four blamed politicians for the problems of climate change.

It is time for the responsible adults to tell the watermelons, like Williams, to shut up.   The health of  your children may depend on it.