Arlen Specter is never one to get hung up on principles. Or demonstrate that he has any. In his new quest to out-liberal the liberal Democratic competition in his newfound party’s primary, he’s come out against the Afghanistan surge. Yes, the president wanted Specter on “his side,” and this is what it looks like. The pleasant surprise is his opponent, as Politico reports:
[Rep. Joe] Sestak, Specter’s more progressive-minded opponent, supports the surge however — and he has come out guns blazing, deriding Specter in an interview with POLITICO this week as a flip-flopper for “vot[ing] for the war in Iraq — and now he’s against a troop increase.”
“Sestak has routinely argued that Specter is not a real Democrat and his roots with the Republican Party run deep. He can add now the argument that Specter really has no principles here, and is just opposing the war surge for votes,” said Terry Madonna, director of the Franklin & Marshall College Poll.
Sestak is a retired admiral who’s chosen not to run from the president on this one: “President Obama has presented a plan that will allow us to finally complete a mission that is as indispensable today as it was eight years ago: the elimination of the Al Qaeda terrorists who struck us on 9/11,” he declared. I suspect Sestak will suffer not at all from his position and gain some support from many former GOP voters who may have changed party registration in 2008. If so, it will be a lesson that politicians — the president included — should do the right thing and trust the voters to reward those who advocate smart national-security policy.
If it wasn’t for the democrat contenders MacNasty would lose mightly.
Inconstancy, thy name is Democrat. Obama is hardly alone in coming off as inane, idiotic, and just plain politically cynical in his questioning of Petraeus and Crocker. Joe Biden’s “Choose, Mr. Ambassador, choose!” sequence quite possibly bears off the palm. It’s not Ambassador Crocker’s job to answer for his boss (the president, not SecState) on which we’d rather drive the wahhabists from — Iraq or Afghanistan — but Biden was determined to have a meaningless one-or-the-other answer. This is very much akin to the brainless question put to Petraeus last year, whether the campaign in Iraq was making America safer. Ask SecDef that — ask the National Security Adviser — but not a sub-theater commander in whose command purview that issue doesn’t fall.
That great strategic analyst Rush Limbaugh was right about this one. Democrats’ demands to bring the troops home NOW are a political stick to beat the GOP with in the 2008 campaign. If a Democrat is elected, whichever one it is will continue to follow the existing plan for Iraq. He/she may even encounter new events that will provoke a decision to slow the troop withdrawal — or even reverse it.
J.E. Dyer’s summary of Rush Limbaugh’s comments about the Iraq hearings yesterday reflect what I have been thinking all day. Two intense hopes: one, the Democrats are playing politics and if in complete charge of the government will act much more responsibly. Two: I hope that there is a God in heaven who will spare the US, Israel and the world of the consequences if their political rhetoric is for real.
this is a contrived point that does not resonate outside of blogs like this. try again, sister rubin
http://blog.mises.org/archives/008007.asp
^obamas dads socialism
Hey Jen! Tell me what’s the difference between a “misstatement and a “lie?
Get real Jenifer. whatever john mccain meant is irrelevant. no one can ever occupy a radical arab country and not be at war with them lets not be naive. they will not allow it, they would rather die. occupation of a nation means there will be peace while you are there. can you reasonably forsee peace in iraq while we are there ,nope so therefore think it through if mccain meant he would occupy iraq for a 100 years he meant we would be at war for a hundred years. theres a big difference between , saudi arabia, dubai,kuwait compared to iran,iraq,pakistan,afghanistan,palenstine. the former three understand the mighty dollar and the latter five don’t. The bottom line is the U.S. isn’t always right! Obama understands this thats why he hasn’t recanted on accusing mccain over the 100 years. this will hurt mccains campaign for sure.