Neo-neocon has an interesting post up on a new Indiana Congressman, Joe Donnelly. He is one of those blue dogs we heard about. So far Brad Ellsworth, another blue dog is sounding much the same. We will see.
But I have to wonder how these guys would vote on Kennedy's bill to cut funding and manage the war from Congress. If people wanted Kennedy to be Commander in Chief they would put him the White House long ago.
In recent decades it seems that, more and more, each party's leaders tend to come from the more extreme wings of their respective parties. And it's the nature of such politicians to look on any victory as a mandate for their point of view. But--as I've said before--ignore the law of thirds at your peril.
Pelosi may be in the act of making the Newt Gingrich error. Coming on so strong against whatever plan Bush announces for Iraq might not only be counterproductive in terms of the war itself, and the world's perception of our will and our ability to keep our word--but it may even be counterproductive in terms of what Pelosi really seems to care about, victory for the Democrats in '08.
I'll let Donnelly, no Bush sycophant (Donnelly refers to the war in Iraq as a "disaster"), have the last word on this one:
[Donnelly] doesn't support the fixed timetable for withdrawal proposed by Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha that Pelosi, 66, has endorsed. Instead, like Bush, he opposes any withdrawal until Iraq is ``stabilized.''
"My goal is to help the president," he said in an interview. "I am not going to rip him to shreds. If he does a better job, then our soldiers can be more successful, Iraq can be stabilized and our troops can come home."
Makes you wonder. Demcorats should realize that what goes around, comes around.
The Second Amendment: Who is it for?
5 minutes ago