News    |     Forum    |     Humor    |     Blog    |     Video    |     Stratfor    |     Idiot Awards    |    Links    |     September 18, 2020   

Guest Column

Andrew McCarthy:

Why Government Lawyers Are Defending Trump...
more >
Conservative Links


American Conservative Union

Drudge Report

Right Bias news

Conservative Community

Fox News

National Review
RightWing News



The Coming Spectacle Other articles by this author  

How Democrats Eat Crow
Nancy Morgan
August 12, 2007

In the coming months, our national attention will be shifting from political pork to political crow. Democrats have put themselves in a position where they will be eating a lot of it, as it now appears there is a chance of victory in Iraq. All those on the left who have been advocating surrender will have pie on their face or crow on their plates.
Major cracks are starting to appear in the ranks of Democrats. A few of the more politically astute are starting to stray off the reservation, eschewing the lockstep Democrat talking points and positioning themselves for the worst. The worst being victory in Iraq.
It all started with that darn editorial in the New York Times. The NYT is the equivalent of the bible on the left, pretty much in charge of alerting liberal Democrats how to think on any given subject. The seers at the Times opined that maybe, just maybe, the surge in Iraq might be, gasp, working.
Though reports of good news have been trickling out of Iraq for a few months, they were pretty much discounted by leading libs as 'propaganda.' Then along comes the Times editorial which illuminates and validates the fact that, gee, maybe it's remotely possible that America might be making headway against fanatics determined to see us burn in hell.
If the New York Times prints it, then it must be so. Thus begins a reality re-alignment for the few Democrats capable of thinking independently of the party bosses. The 'non-deniers,' if you will.

Ever wonder how Democrats eat crow? First, they redefine the meaning of 'crow' to filet mignon. Then, they say it was filet all along, and proclaim how very tasty it is. Yummy.

Enter Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate and assistant majority leader. Sen. Durbin has publicly conceded that the surge of American troops has led to military progress in Iraq. This heresy would normally land him on the D cocktail party list if not for the fact that this reality, having been validated by the NYT, is now, well, real.
Senator Casey, a Democrat of Pennsylvania, has also acknowledged recent military progress in Iraq, telling AP last week that a good argument could be made that U.S. troops have actually won the war in Iraq. Keep in mind, this is a Democrat speaking.
Astute politician that he is, Sen. Casey made sure to hedge his bet just in case there's still a chance his fellow Dems are successful in their 'surrender now' strategy. Sen. Casey told CNN that he saw little evidence that the Iraqi parliament would soon reach a political compact between Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. In other words, we may defeat the terrorists BUT, major doubts remain regarding the ability of Iraqis to govern themselves.
Considering that Sen. Casey's very own Congress scores only 3% approval for their handling of the Iraq war, the credibility of his argument is somewhat compromised. Somehow, America has survived an inept and sometimes corrupt Congress. I'm betting the Iraqis can, also.
Those inconvenient truths aside, Casey and Durbin are now positioned to be prophets, no matter what the outcome. These are two smart dudes. And now that they have opened the floodgates, the race is on as most Democrats frantically jockey to reposition themselves to this new reality. 

The NYT reported on Saturday that Democrat presidential candidates are now setting out positions that "could leave the US engaged in Iraq for years." On various talk shows, we're hearing phrases like "..ending a war can be as complicated as starting one" etc, being voiced by leading liberals, excuse me, progressives, who only last week were adamantly advocating for complete surrender, oops, I meant troop re-deployment. As time draws near for Gen. Petraeus' report on conditions in Iraq, expect more Democrats to reposition themselves. (For those of us in flyover country, this means 'flip-flop')

The unacceptable fact that Bush may have been proven right is not something Democrats can comprehend, much less acknowledge. The only way to live with this wholesale refutation of their worldview is complete denial or utter revision. I expect most will opt for revision. Fortunately, Dems have been laying the groundwork for years. Their insistence that everyone be 'empowered' to ascribe whatever definition they feel comfortable with to words, truths and positions will now serve them well. When words mean nothing, they can mean anything.

Those most skilled in political spin and most lacking in personal convictions will undoubtedly survive and flourish by relying on tried and true tactics:
Plan A: Dems will sacrifice one of their own, a scapegoat, thrown to the lions as a token to the unwashed masses (for the un-nuanced, that means you and me) and/or

Plan B: Democrats will quickly find a new 'enemy' to divert the issue from their utter lack of competence.
These tactics work - just ask Hillary. Untold numbers of tin-pot dictators have used them to great effect: By focusing attention on the Great Satan, America, their subjects won't see the real enemy, their own crackpot dictator. Surefire.
Diversionary tactics are another proven staple of Democrat governance. Couple those tactics with the unifying power of a common enemy and even the most incompetent politician can not only flip-flop on this issue, but appear to be strong and principled while doing so. Or even become President.
With liberals' proven skills in re-defining reality to their own specifications, I expect the coming 'repositioning' will prove more entertaining than American Idol. By this time next year, the wholesale Democrat opposition to the Iraq war will have been flushed down the memory hole. Airbrushed, sanitised and revised.
These political gyrations would be the stuff of entertaining soap operas if not for the fact that we're talking the survival of our country. Games are part of the political process. All well and good. Politicians must necessarily adjust positions based on changing circumstances. This is reality.
What also qualifies for reality is the fact that the Democrat party, with the aid of the old media, has been actively aiding and abetting our enemies by advocating surrender, undermining troop morale and doing anything and everything to undermine America's struggle with Islamic terrorists, both at home and abroad.
The good news is, the tide is turning in Iraq. The good news is, the left has not been ultimately successful in its efforts to undermine America (Bush). The good news for Democrats is, they still have a willing media available to enable them to redefine a 180 degree about-face into an act of political courage.
Let them turn crow into filet. It's a small price to pay. Meanwhile, sit back and enjoy America's latest new-reality show. It's unreal.
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and senior editor for conservative news site
She lives in South Carolina

Article may be reprinted, with attribution

 Cast A Vote For This Story
   Digg     Delicious     NewsVine     Reddit

Contact Us    Advertise With Us
Rightbias provides provocative articles and a conduit to conservative news, Breaking News, Media News, Political Humor, media, sports News, culture news, studies etc.
Search Engine Optimization by