Dems playing to stereotype

Captain's Quarters:

Michael Kinsley, no friend to the GOP, decided to take a look at the suddenly-scarce Nancy Pelosi's plan for governance if and when the Democrats take control of Congress. Kinsley expected a platform of reasonable competence, one he could promote -- apparently in the final hours of the midterm cycle. Instead, he found it to be a rehash of the worst Democratic stereoptypes, full of euphemisms for surrender and a slew of spending initiatives to break the federal budget:

What will a Democratic House of Representatives under Speaker Nancy Pelosi be like? The Republicans have been painting an unattractive portrait of Democrats roasting young children on a spit in the Capitol rotunda and whatnot. Hoping for a more encouraging view, I picked up "A New Direction for America," a 31-page manifesto released to little acclaim by House Democrats in June. By all means, read it. But do me a favor and vote first. ...

Apparently and unfortunately, President Bush is right that the Democrats have no "plan for victory." (Neither does he, of course. Nor, for that matter, do I. But I don't claim to have one. And I didn't start it.) For national security in general, the Democrats' plan is so according-to-type that you cringe with embarrassment: It's mostly about new cash benefits for veterans. Regarding Iraq specifically, the Democrats' plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to "assum[e] primary responsibility for securing and governing their country." Then they want "responsible redeployment" (great euphemism) of American forces.

Older readers may recognize this formula. It's Vietnamization—the Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake. But Vietnamization was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was called "peace with honor" and is now known as "defeat."

No wonder Pelosi has acted like her picture belongs on a milk carton. When Kinsley says that the Democrats have played to their stereotypes, then their governing plan must truly be a disaster. One has to marvel at the concept that we can achieve national security and win the war on terror by simply bolstering payments to veterans. Don't get me wrong; I believe we have to take care of the men and women who put their lives on the line for our country. That's why the Bush administration has increased spending on veterans' benefits by 56% since 2001. However, expanding veteran programs even further has no real impact on terrorism. Does anyone imagine that Osama bin Laden murdered three thousand Americans and destroyed the World Trade Center because of the plight of the American veteran? Apparently, the Democrats do.

In fact, as Kinsley notes, the Democrats have no plans for anything other than their normal asset redistributions to special-interest groups and selected victim classes....

...

Why is this story only hitting on election day and not weeks ago? I guess it is better than hitting after they win, but as many as 25 percent of voters have already cast their ballots in early voting. There is much more in Kinsley's piece as well as in Captain Ed's commentary.