Partisanship; the last refuge of scoundrels

Samuel Johnson once claimed that “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels” meaning, not that all patriots are scoundrels as some on the Left have interpreted it in recent years, but that scoundrels hid behind a facade of false patriotism. Since Mr. Johnson has been dead for more than two hundred years, I’d like to change his phrase a bit; partisanship is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Just looking through the stories at Drudge Report this morning, I see that Murtha is threatening the President with impeachment;

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said Sunday that Democrats in Congress could consider impeachment as a way to pressure President Bush on his handling of the war in Iraq.

“What I’m saying, there’s four ways to influence a president. And one of them’s impeachment,” Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

In other words, since the Democrats don’t have the power they’d like to have in Congress – since there was no real mandate from the voters last November – they’re going to try and impeach him to get him to do their bidding, effectively overturning the last presidential election and the will of a majority of American voters.

According to the Washington Post, Russ Feingold;

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) said he would “absolutely” oppose a bill that doesn’t contain a “binding proposal . . . for ending the war.”

“Absolutely oppose” – that means Russ will only agree to the Far Left wing of the Party’s supporter – 33% of 33% of voters. Doesn’t sound very bi-partisan.

Now, over in the Washington Times, Stephen Dinan writes that John Edwards, Democrats’ pretty boy hopeful, Addressed a Democrat state party convention in California;

…Mr. Edwards spoke, urging congressional Democrats not to let Mr. Bush push them away from their war-spending bill, which sets a timeline for troops to begin pulling out.
    “If the president vetoes this bill, they should send him back another bill with a timetable for withdrawal,” he said.

In other words, Democrats shouldn’t be negotiating with the White House on a defense bill that both the legislative and executive branches can agree on – only the Democrat agenda is acceptable. Of course, it’s easy for Edwards to say that – he doesn’t have a job, no one to be responsible to. And he’s trying to be an outsider – he’s trying to appeal to the Democrats who forget that he’s just another shyster lawyer who became a Senator.

At the same convention, Maxine Waters, leader of the misinformed “Out of Iraq Caucus” in Congress, said;

   “Democrats, your presidential candidates and elected officials must stop nuancing, politicizing, sound-biting, benchmarking and playing it safe,” she said. “Democrats must have the courage to tell this president, ‘No, Mr. President, not another nickel, not another dime, not another soldier, not this time.’ “

Bow down to the god of Leftism, drink the koolaid and do the bidding of MoveOn.org, the KosKids and Code Pink. Even though most Americans don’t want what the insane wing of Democrats are selling.

Jeff Jacoby (by way of Hang Right Politics’ COgirl) wrote on the naked partisanship after the House vote to withdraw from Iraq last month;

Yet when the House of Representatives voted last month to force a withdrawal from Iraq, Democrats were jubilant.

“Many House Democrats stayed on the floor, reveling in their victory,” reported The Hill on March 23. “House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey and Representative John Murtha hugged each other while a smiling [majority leader Steny] Hoyer shook every hand he could find. . . . [majority whip James] Clyburn joked with members as [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi kissed and hugged her colleagues.”

According to the Washington Examiner, David Obey understands that the Democrats must appeal to Republicans in Congress;

“The President is still standing in the way of the change the American people called for in the last election,” the congressman said. “We have to put enough pressure on the president’s Republican allies to leave him. That’s not going to happen overnight.”

At least Obey is realistic enough to know that Democrats can’t coerce the President into turning moonbat overnight. Even though he can’t get it through his thick skull that most Americans stand foursquare against immediate withdrawal from the war against terrorists – and the Democrats only “mandate” is only in their rhetoric.

Where were the Democrats when we had troops in Haiti. Remember that? At first our Navy showed up in Port Au Prince and was driven off by shirtless, shoeless thugs on the pier waving machetes. And then while Jimmy Carter was promising the “Generals” a big cash payoff for their expeditious exit from Haiti, President Clinton launched the 82d Airborne Division. Luckily for Jimmy Carter and the generals, Clinton recalled the 82d and coughed up Carter’s negotiated big cash payoff and sent civil affairs and special operators.

Was anyone demanding a time schedule for withdrawal from that fiasco? Did it solve the Haitian exodus to Miami? In fact, when did the last US soldier leave Haiti? Was it in any of the newspapers? But I remember on September 20th, 1989, Charlie Rangel demanding a time schedule for the troops withdrawal from Panama before the air had cleared of gunsmoke.

But for all of their incessant yammering over the last six years of “bipartisanship” and “coming together” the Democrats still hide behind their “mandate” of the November election to try and impose their will on the American people. But can Americans trust Democrats to do our bidding?

Remember their baseless charge that the Bush economy was the worst since Hoover (made by MoveOn.org during the 2004 election and Hillary Clinton)? Did Hoover enjoy a 4.4% unemployment rate or a Dow Index that went from below 8,000 to over 13,000 in 5 years? If we can’t trust Democrats on things we can see with our own eyes, how can we trust them with our future and our security?

Category: Jimmy Carter, John Murtha, Politics