Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Two More "See, I Told You So"'s

Courtesy of the Admiral:

***Guess which party boasts the members with voting records that most toe the party line?

In the House it is....the Democrats! As in the first one hundred and seventy-three spots. The top Republican for least "bipartisanship" comes in at 94.8%. GOPers do, however, occupy the bottom ten slots, or the top ten for least partisan voting record.

And in the Senate? Do you have to ask? The top thirteen most partisan voting records all belong to Donks, and the top fourteen least partisan voting records all belong to 'Pubbies.

Understand that this is the opposite of the, well, party line the Enemy Media perpetually spins. Understand as well that this is not a good thing. If Republicans ever hope to see the majority again, they're going to need an energized base that sees electing more Republicans as a way to get done what they want to see get done. Exercising unrequitted "bipartisanship" ain't the ticket for the Comeback Train, which at this point won't make it out of mothballs, much less pull out of the electoral station.

***Joe Lieberman is wasting his unique opportunity to strike a blow against the party that spurned him, and which threatens the country he loves with strategic disaster:

Lieberman, the Democrats’ 2000 vice presidential nominee, insists he is not actively considering joining the Republican Party. But he is keeping that possibility wide open as his disenchantment grows with Democratic leaders. The main sticking points are their attempts to end the war in Iraq and their hesitation to take a harder line against Iran.
I could quote more from the Connecticut independent's interview with The Hill, but that suffices for my central point. If Lieberman's "disenchantment" with Dirty Harry and Ali Dickbar al-Durbini and the rest really is "growing," why is he "insisting" that he's not "actively" considering joining the GOP? Indeed, why would he need to become a Republican at all? Couldn't he simply caucus with them and remain an Independent, as he's doing now with the Dems?

The longer he strings out this Hamlet impression, the less weight his pro-war dissent carries. Hell, I don't think it's ever mattered a whit in the caucus in which he stubbornly continues to squat. Reid and Durbin and Uncle Teddy and the rest clearly believe that Lieberman is bluffing, always has been, and discount him like the crazy uncle in the attic who spends his afternoons sitting on park benches muttering to himself.

If the last Scoop Jackson Democrat really does believe in victory, and in doing what he can to block his party from bringing about a catastrophic self-inflicted defeat, what better time to make the switch than September, when the Petraeus Report comes out? Take operational control of the Senate away from the Dems and maximize the chance of giving the "Surge" the chance to succeed that even the New York Times concedes American servicepeople have earned.

Or perhaps Senator Lieberman is really looking a bit closer to home - namely, to the likelihood of the Dems gaining more seats in 2008, which would relegate him to the minority and a gavel-less future.

U.S. troops are making a lot of sacrifices in God-forsaken places in the guts and bowels of Asia. Sometimes the ultimate sacrifice. It seems to me that putting a continued committee chairmanship on the line for the sake of giving those sacrifices a chance to count for something is the least poor ol' Joe can do.