The 18 presidential candidates -- eight Democrats and 10 Republicans -- who came to Saint Anselm College here for a pair of debates this week displayed a remarkable ability to ignore the real-world consequences of many of the policies they were advocating.
Democrats brushed aside concerns about the impact of their votes to cut off funding for the troops in Iraq or the larger implications of a precipitous withdrawal from that country. Republicans were casual about contemplating the use of nuclear weapons against Iran or the effects of foreclosing a path to citizenship for millions of people living illegally in the United States.
First, the Democrats never voted to cut off funding for the troops. That is simply factually inaccurate. Second, while it is good to note that a member of the Establishment understood the dangers of such a cavalier discussion of using weapons of mass destruction against a nation that poses no threat to the United States (kind of like terrorists . . .), that was hardly the biggest boner of the night for the Republican candidates. Methinks that Mitt Romney's claim that Saddam booted the inspectors out of Iraq prior to the invasion in 2003, rather than being told to leave by the US so they wouldn't be in harms way should win the prize. Also, we should note that not a single reporter has called Romney on this particular whopper. Ah, well.
We continue with Broder a bit further down, where he offers up a nugget that one can only assume he received as a gift from his proctologist, as one can only assume that it was pulled whole and complete from his rectum:
[T]he dynamic on both sides is trending toward extreme positions that would open the door to an independent or third-party challenge in 2008 aimed at the millions of voters in the center.
The danger may be greatest for the Democrats, even though President Bush's failings have put them in a favored position to win the next election. Prodded by four long shots for the nomination and threatened by the rhetoric of former senator John Edwards, a serious contender, the two front-runners, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, have abandoned their cautious advocacy of a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces and now are defending votes to cut off support for troops fighting insurgents in Iraq.
(I) What is the fascination with third parties among the media? There will only be two serious contenders for the Presidency in 2008. There are not "millions" of voters, and there is no "center" for them to occupy. This is all make-believe from a man who claims that the candidates of both parties are lacking a clue about the real world. Hoo-boy-howdy. For the record, it was the Republicans, to a man, who manifested an almost psychotic fascination with their own manliness and a disdain for any sane American future. It was fear, fear, death, destruction, and their own manliness as the only insurance against the total devastation of the United States in the face of an implacable foe. It was sad, really, to see such a display. But, I digress.
(II) The bill the Sens. Clinton and Obama voted "nay" on funded the occupation without a timetable for withdrawal. That is all. The original bill fully funded troops in the field, only setting a timetable for a phased withdrawal of American forces from Iraqi soil. Broder either knows this and is lying, or he doesn't know it and is therefore stupid. Either way, another reason not to trust him is added to our long list.
I know it's painful, but let us read a bit further, shall we?
In this dispiriting display of pandering and group-think, two notable contrary examples stand out.
On the Democratic side, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, alone on the stage in voting for the temporary funding bill, declared his determination not to deny arms and protective equipment for the troops his 2002 vote helped send to Iraq -- even, he said, if it costs him the nomination.
And on the Republican side, Sen. John McCain of Arizona defended his and the president's comprehensive and humanitarian approach to immigration -- a grace note in what was otherwise a rather discordant pair of ensemble performances.
Who gets props from Broder? Biden and McCain. Neither has a prayer of getting the nomination. Biden will lose because he refuses to do what the Democrats were elected to do and end this fiasco in Iraq. McCain is hated by the base of the Republican Party, which is destroying itself on the very immigration bill that won't pass, is hardly a serious piece of compromise, comprehensive reform legislation, and lacks any humanitarian component at all, despite Broder's claim to the contrary.
I saved the best bit for last. It comes from the middle of the piece, but is so glaringly, stupefyingly stupid, I just wanted to give it pride of place:
The broader question of Persian Gulf policy in the likely event of a drawdown of American forces in the coming year is also a blind spot for the Democrats. Beyond exhortations to the weak Maliki government in Baghdad and a vague hope of convening an international conference on Iraq, the leading Democrats have little to suggest that could mitigate a possible foreign policy disaster.
Please read the last sentence again. Broder does not see our present situation as a disaster; only if Democrats end our occupation of Iraq will a foreign policy disaster occur.
Holy cow.
