|
Jules Crittenden: winning by losing is still losing
What if Americans would rather win? US News and World Report:. . . The conservative New York Sun says this morning that leading Democrats have seen little risk in demanding a withdrawal of American troops, buffeted by polls that show as many as seven in 10 voters are on their side. But what if the military situation in Iraq turns around? Some are advising caution, warning that Democrats could lose the high ground if they are perceived to be ignoring evidence that President Bushs troop surge is achieving success. In a column appearing in todays Washington Times, Cal Thomas writes, Most Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no Plan B, which would be success. Thomas goes on to note comments by House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, reported Tuesday on the Washington Posts website. Clyburn said a favorable report from Gen. David Petraeus could lead 47 moderate-to-conservative Blue Dog Democrats to oppose a withdrawal timetable, making it virtually impossible for the liberal leadership to pass such legislation. [It would be] a real problem for us, said Mr. Clyburn. One thing for sure. They dont like losers: Bush 24 percent, DemCong 3. . . . The Democratic leaderships strategy is one not seen since World War II, where the Japanese determined that their only chance of winning was their won self-destruction. No, hang on, that doesnt work. The Japanese actually fought to the death, and killed themselves to avoid surrender, and here were seeing a case of surrendering to the death. It may be unprecedented. Well need to get the Oxford Medievalist in on this. Anyway, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, there is a fundamental problem with a strategy based on losing. Only by losing can you win. And what you have won is a loss. You can come at it from every side, but theres just no way around it. But when every effort to win by losing keeps going down in ignominious defeat, and the win that you hope to portray as a loss keeps showing up as a win, you risk losing everything. Which, presumeably, must mean someone else is winning. But thats a loss, which is victory. Stay with me here. It follows then that the greatest Democratic victory, short sword having already been honorably stuck in the belly, would be a merciful lopping off of all surrender dreams in November 2008, when Thompson or Romney or Giuliani gets elected, when Mother Sheehan takes Pelosis seat OK, that might be a little farfetched but when that glorious Democratic mandate of the people loses a dozen seats or whatever narrow margin it holds, because the American people, who can only be fooled some of the time, have finally figured out that losing is not winning. OK, bad analogy, Ive got to get off that Japanese fatalism thing. Weve already discussed the fact that the Japanese, unlike the Dems, did themselves in to avoid surrender, and honor certainly has nothing to do with what the Dems are up to now. The Dems, we can expect, will go whining loudly into the wilderness. Posted by: Mike 2007-08-05 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=195350 |