Good news in Iraq...

... "would be a problem for us".  A problem for who?  For the Democrats:

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

You got that folks?  I mean seriously, do you get it?  Victory in Iraq is bad news for the Democrats.

Now can we question their freakin' patriotism?

Comments

[Erasmussimo]

I burst out laughing when I read this piece. Your previous piece had shown that the Democrats are more partisan because they always vote the party line. Then your next piece presents the Democratic House Whip declaring that he won't be able to get enough Democrats to vote the party line! Which is it to be? Democrats as undisciplined rabble or Democrats as toe-the-party-line robots?

Even worse, you twisted the words of the Democratic Party Whip. He was talking about his problems in assembling a consensus among the Democratic congresscritters. He said that the majority of Democrats were ready to vote in favor of pulling out soon, but there remained a bloc of about 50 Democrats who were reluctant to support such a move. If the Petraeus report is negative, then he believes that he can put together a Democratic majority. If, however, it is more positive, then he'll have problems assembling any kind of consensus among the Democrats.

The problem he's talking about is much narrower than you imply. He's talking about his difficulties roping together some kind of consensus. He's not talking about what's good for the country or what's good for the Democrats in general.

As always, I advise you to read carefully the reports you link to before commenting on them.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Okay let's interpret this the most kindly way we possibly can:

Democrats are patriotism-neutral, and seek only to persuade the mightiest superpower on the face of the planet to plod slowly to war and sprint quickly to peace, believing that if this can be accomplished the weaker nations will follow suit.

Trouble is, to give even a nodding acceptance to that plan, you have to buy -- completely -- into the notion that this is "George Bush's war." To suspend that belief even for a fraction of a second, is to realize that peace between two parties depends on consent of BOTH those parties...not just whichever one of them desires to demonstrate a superior, Picard-like example.

Even with this artificially magnanimous interpretation of Congressman Clyburn's remarks, however, the "Peace At Any Price" folks had better damn well make an inventory sweep of their potentially-unsavory bedfellows. All sides agree that America has enemies, and common sense says they aren't all overseas. It's the same principle that applies to "colorblind" conservatives like myself. We don't build coalitions to end affirmative action casually. That would be stupid. There are genuine racists out there, and we'd end up in bed with them in a heartbeat if we don't put a lot of effort into staying away from them.

Colorblind Republicans therefore have to police their own. Be on the lookout for those with toxic hateful opinions, looking for safe harbor.

And we DO police our own.

When are the "Peace at any price" liberals going to do the same? Aren't they embarrassed at the potential of being caught with such nasty, America-hating bedfellows, and having outside parties point it out -- while they catch on after the fact, unawares?

But what's written above, is the most benevolent and forgiving spin I can possibly put on it. It's not the most realistic one. And at the very least, in answer to your question Rick -- yeah, I think it ought to be "okay" to call their patriotism into question.

If it isn't, we'd better have an emergency session to re-define the word "patriotism" right quick.

[Erasmussimo]

Mr. Freeberg, you offer idle speculations having no relationship to the actual statements made by Mr. Clyburn. I take no interest in responding to fantasies. If you would like to comment on Mr. Clyburn's statement, I would welcome such a discussion.

I will note how quickly both you and Rick seize upon the opportunity to question the Democrat's patriotism in response to a discussion of party discipline that in itself has nothing to do with foreign policy. You provide an excellent example of how quickly some conservatives sully the debate by ignoring the substance and resorting to mudslinging.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

So I guess what you're saying, is that Democrats do want Iraq to go well?

Is Clyburn then doing an adequate job of speaking on behalf of someone besides Democrats? Or is he doing a suck-ass job of speaking on behalf of the party he's supposed to represent?

This one seems pretty cut and dry, Eras. If you want to haul out the red herrings and tortured logic to convince us we didn't see what we just saw, you'd better make it a pretty potent batch. Clyburn, it seems, was quoted accurately; he thinks his party will have big political problems if things go well. How do you explain this?

[Erasmussimo]

Mr. Freeberg, perhaps you should re-read Mr. Clyburn's statements. He is clear that his concern lies with building a Democratic consensus that he can use to pass legislation. The "big political problems" that you refer to are the problems of building a consensus in the House, not winning or losing any elections. Indeed, the Democrats are doing quite well as far as the polls go right now:

Democracy Corps recently conducted surveys in key battleground districts for 2008 "and the results look like a rerun of 2006 -- an election when Democrats lost no incumbents and swept the competitive seats."

Source:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/07/31/gop_facing_another_wave.html

[Rick]

Mr. Freeberg, perhaps you should re-read Mr. Clyburn's statements. He is clear that his concern lies with building a Democratic consensus that he can use to pass legislation.

What collossal bullshit, pardon my french.

Look at the freaking title of the WaPo article I linked to Erass. Here, let me help:

"Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War"

Ya gots that man? Or are you perhaps smoking some of that puffaluffin stuff?

What about Clyburn's own words:

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

It's clear the man isn't talking about anything but the war and anyone who suggests otherwise is high on drugs or low in IQ points.

[Erasmussimo]

I don't know why you have difficulty with some fairly simple English. Here's the headline you quoted:

"Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War"

It says that a positive report could split the House Democrats. The problem he's talking about is splitting the House Democrats.

[Rick]

Umm... you're leaving out, either ignorantly or obtusely, neither of which are positive traits, the two words "on war".

Good grief man, give it a rest. Or find other Democratic talking points to read from... this one you've been slam dunked on...

[Erasmussimo]

OK, so let's agree on this:

Mr. Clyburn's problem is that a positive report would split the House Democrats on votes on the war.

Agreed?

[Rick]

Yes... which brings us full circle Erass...

Good news in Iraq is bad news for the Democrats... admitted to by a member of the leadership... meaning we can, indeed, question their patriotism...

I'm glad you agree...

Finally...

[Erasmussimo]

Rick, you're engaging in semantic sleight of hand -- accepting one meaning of a word, then sliding over to another meaning.

What we have established is that good news for Iraq imposes a problem on the Democratic leadership of the House. You generalize this in two illogical ways:

First, you generalize from the House leadership to the entire Democratic party. This is not justified by the evidence you cite.

Second, you generalize from "a problem" to "bad news". This generalization is not justified by the evidence you cite. It is entirely possible to encounter news that imposes a problem but still constitutes good news. For example, if al-Qaeda were to suddenly roll over, declare itself defeated, and dissolve itself, it would be good news for all Americans. But it would impose some problems. How quickly can we shut down our anti-terrorism efforts? Should we shut down our anti-terrorism efforts?

Even victory imposes problems upon people -- but you don't regard victory as bad news, do you?

[Rick]

Rick, you're engaging in semantic sleight of hand -- accepting one meaning of a word, then sliding over to another meaning.

Oh really? I'm engaging in sleight of hand? Dude... your eyes are brown... very, very brown...

What we have established is that good news for Iraq imposes a problem on the Democratic leadership of the House.

Wrong Mr. Brown Eyes. What I've established is that the WaPo has established that good news in Iraq is bad news for the Democrats. Anything else is spin... as in loopy loop spin...

You generalize this in two illogical ways:

First, you generalize from the House leadership to the entire Democratic party. This is not justified by the evidence you cite.

Why's that? Because you say so and you're smarter than the rest of us? You're gonna have to do better than that Erass my lass... much better than that...

Second, you generalize from "a problem" to "bad news". This generalization is not justified by the evidence you cite. It is entirely possible to encounter news that imposes a problem but still constitutes good news. For example, if al-Qaeda were to suddenly roll over, declare itself defeated, and dissolve itself, it would be good news for all Americans.

Yep... and if a flock of giant eagles flew over the continental United States and pooped big wads of cash as they went, it would also be good news for all Americans... the real news however is that there's a better chance for my scenario to take place than there is your scenario Erass... you know it, I know it, the whole thinking world knows it... so who's playing semantic games here?

But it would impose some problems. How quickly can we shut down our anti-terrorism efforts? Should we shut down our anti-terrorism efforts?

Would we just love to have those problems... I mean seriously? That's like my wife and I hitting the lottery and having the problem of figuring out how we're going to spend it... is it really a problem? Eras... someone has abducted the real you and left this poor excuse for a replacement behind... where's your brain on this man... you are chasing pipe dreams down rabbit holes man...

Even victory imposes problems upon people -- but you don't regard victory as bad news, do you?

No... I don't.... the Democrats do...

[Erasmussimo]

Well, Rick, you didn't address any of my arguments, so I'm going to leave it at that.

[Rick]

You've made no arguments... you've asserted, without substantiation, that your opinion is to be valued more than those expressed by the WaPo and by Clyburn himself and you attempt to persuade by chasing rabbits down rabbit holes...

And you won't leave it at that... you'll be back here, again and again and you're making me wonder if I ought to start charging you blog-rent...

Why don't you have a blog of your own Erasmussimo? I'm curious...

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that if the headline was "Positive Report on Standard of Living Among Nation's Poor Could Split House Republicans on Minimum Wage Hike," we wouldn't have to be discussing any of this hair-splitting?

And how did you settle on the name "Erasmussino," Dr. Dean?

Actually, I do have a blog, but it's not under this name.

If I'm not welcome here, I'll be happy to go. Just say the word.

[Erasmussimo]

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that if the headline was "Positive Report on Standard of Living Among Nation's Poor Could Split House Republicans on Minimum Wage Hike," we wouldn't have to be discussing any of this hair-splitting?

Good point, Mr. Freeberg. And such a positive report would not be bad news for Republicans.

[tim]

Very interesting, Eraser’s got a blog under a different name and it’s not linked. Before I go and conjure up numerous reasons for this, why would that be?

~

Rick,

Since he’s already taken your legitimate question as a threat, please take it a step further. If he doesn’t want to share his blog with us than…

[Erasmussimo]

Before I go and conjure up numerous reasons for this, why would that be?

No need to conjure. I'm a careful person, and given the level of verbal violence here, I think it prudent to preserve my anonymity. Perhaps I'm being overly careful.

[tim]

“Verbal violence”? Man, even for you Eraser that’s ridiculous. Example(s) please.

Keep this hyperbole up and I’ll just skip reading your comments all together. Wish may actually may be the way to go…

[Rick]

Verbal violence? Listen, I feel bad, sort of, that I've not had the patience or the style with which others have dealt with you. For not being able to handle you with the style and grace that say... Morgan does... I apologize...

But verbal violence? C'mon Erasmussimo... cut us some slack here... I've not seen any evidence here for verbal violence... whatever the heck that means (I'm conjuring up images of of words beating hell out of other words and nouns pulling a knife on a bunch of verbs or verbs hanging an adjective in effigy... seriously silly stuff...)

Erasmussimo, run the risk of verbal violence and let us know where your blog is... hell, I'll add it to the blogroll...

[Morgan K Freeberg]

I've made reference to this once before. Eras at least has an idea in mind of what point s/he wants to argue. A lot of other folks on that side of the aisle do not (other than "Boosh is teh stoopid"). And to be fair about it, you could say the same about some folks on my side.

Perhaps if we saw the wellspring, we'd find a framework of logic behind it, not readily apparent with a procession of one bucketful at a time. Anyway, in Eras' shoes, that's what I'd be thinking about...