home

Tomasky on Dems and Iraq: Clap Louder

Here's what the best of progressive DC has to offer about today's deal:

[H]ere are two reasons why this [Bush] "victory" won't exactly ring down though the ages. First, this development is completely unsurprising, since everyone has known for some time that there was nothing else the Democrats could do. Back in January, it was clear that, whatever the Democrats decided to do with their new congressional majorities, there was one thing they could not accomplish: stop funding for troops already in the field.

That was clear was it? So where was Tomasky to tell us this when everyone was cheering the House Supplemental? Where was Tomasky when Harold Meyerson was telling us all how great the House Supplemental was? Nice 20/20 hindsight there Mike.

Tomasky also lives in a world where he thinks this is true:

Iraq is Bush's war and Bush's failure. But if his Democratic opponents had stopped funding the war, Republicans would have argued that the fiasco was suddenly the Democrats' responsibility and failure.Pundits would have drawn immediate parallels to the way a previous Democratic-led congress de-funded Vietnam, and the party would have lost its standing in this fight.

Um, two things Mike. First by NOT ending the Iraq Debacle by the 2008 elections, it will sorta become the Dems' war. Two, Democrats never lost a damn thing for not funding the Vietnam War. It was not until 1994 that Dems lost the House. So how about sticking to the facts ay?

And this thought is lovely:

They might have been up to taking the chance of de-funding if they'd had a united caucus. But they don't, not remotely. The key number here is 61. That's the number of Democrats in the House of Representatives who represent districts that Bush carried in 2004 (by contrast, only eight Republicans represent districts that John Kerry won). Many of these 61 are scared to death that they could lose their seats in 2008, and with good reason - the Republicans are targeting them and are intent on winning the 15 seats they need to regain control of the House.

Well, Bush is now at 33 so I am not sure what 2004 has to do with it. But if they are vulnerable, today made them more so. Boy, there must be something in the Washington air that makes smart people not so smart. Honest to God, Joe Klein could have written this nonsense.

But here is my favorite:

De-funding the war would - there's no escaping it - put some of those 61 at risk. If you're thinking long term and you want a congress that might actually do responsible things about healthcare and global warming and even Iraq in the future, then now just isn't the time for the Democrats to force this issue.

So to insure a "responsible" Congress in the future, we need an irresponsible Congress today. Um, suuuure Mike. That's how it will work.

This is easily the worst column Mike Tomasky has ever written. Filled with inaccuracies, nonsense and nonsequiturs. But the part I love the best is how Mike did not say ANY of this when the House Supplemental was being lionized.

But you heard the man, CLAP LOUDER!

< Rationalizing Grievous Mistakes | The Netroots:Why We Fight >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    That truly is (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:17:25 PM EST
    a crappy column. Except Klein would have argued that the Dems had no choice and they are pathetic wimps at the same time.

    Btw, it's spelled 'non sequitur', with a u ;).

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:27:14 PM EST
    Michael Tomasky is an idiot. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Edger on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:38:45 PM EST
    Did I say that? Sorry. I take it back.

    He's not idiot enough to say things "whatever the Democrats decided to do with their new congressional majorities, there was one thing they could not accomplish: stop funding for troops already in the field" unless he is purposely barking the rethug line.

    Even he should know, and probably does know, that defunding the occupation does not mean defunding the troops.

    What I meant to say was, Michael Tomasky is a f'ing idiot, and worse, if he believes people are too stupid to see through him.

    Progressive, my a$$.

    I can't start the diet (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:46:33 PM EST
    Entenmann's will hate me!

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:46:50 PM EST
    If you're thinking long term and you want a congress that might actually do responsible things about healthcare and global warming and even Iraq in the future, then now just isn't the time for the Democrats to force this issue.

    The Army and Marine Corp are broooooken, next rotation they are broken and this Yahoo wants to talk about a congress that does responsible things?  You must be kidding me, someone please tell me that he is kidding that placing the nation in a position of security risk is the responsible thing to do right now?  Once again the Democrats get an F on national security!

    Chris Bower (none / 0) (#6)
    by dkmich on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:24:47 AM EST
    is making a related pitch at MyDD.