So Howard Dean said we can’t win in Iraq; he went on to compare it to Vietnam. He’s not some guy spouting off at Democratic Underground. He’s the Chairman of the Democrat Party. One would presume he discussed his views with pollsters, advisors and prominent Democrats to make sure that he represented the party. And surely the wise people of the party vetted these ideas, considering them for at least a minute or two to determine if such views would help advance the party among American voters. Right? I mean, a major political party would not be so foolish as to have a Chairman who goes around making wild-ass, ill-considered statements that turn swing voters against the party. These people are political pros, right?
It is apparent that the Democrats have invested a great deal, including their self-esteem, in our losing in Iraq. If the war succeeds, they will be humiliated. Voters will say, “Boy, the Democrats were wrong about Iraq. Maybe we should let the Republicans continue to run things.” The Democrats will lose more elections. At this point, the only way they can get people to vote for them is if things go bad in Iraq. This puts the Democrats, still a major political party (barely), in the odd position of kind of being on the enemy’s side, doesn’t it? What genius came up with this strategy? Does Karl Rove have a ray he beams at the Democrat HQ that enslaves their minds and makes them say whatever he wants?
The Astute Blogger has some astute thoughts on Dean’s statements. As does Boortz.