Democrats Will Not Take Stance On War For Election
by Big Dog on Dec 18, 2005 at 10:16 Political
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.
Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad [sic].
“There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position,” Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.
Pelosi recently endorsed the proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for a swift redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq over a period of six months, but no other party leader followed, and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) publicly opposed her. Washington Post
Why is it that when Howard Dean is running around telling us the moonbats have come together on this issue Pelosi says they have not? It is strange indeed that they have had a position on the war up until now. All of the sudden, with the elections looming on the horizon, they have decided that positions are an individual choice. Hasn’t the problem with the donks along been that they do not have one unified voice?
I think that the donks have used the war to beat up the President as much as they could when they were relatively safe (no election) but now that the season for lying and pandering is coming upon us they want to avoid the issue. This might be because they remember how Kerry was beat up over his war stance during the 2004 election. It is also just as likely that they lack the courage of their convictions. If they really believe the tripe they have been putting out, why not run on that platform and allow their constituents to decide? It is because they know they are on thin ice and would rather use other tools while avoiding the war. Pelosi said in the interview that Katrina and the response would be an issue, just as I had written, but the war, not a peep.
I believe that if they ignore the war during the elections those who are put into office have an obligation to ignore the war after they are sworn in. If they can not make their position know when their jobs depend on it then we do not need to hear their position when they are safe.
With good fortune and God’s graces, these people will be voted out of office. If they do not have the courage of their convictions then what do they stand for and what value are they to the electorate they are supposed to serve?
Tags: Political