The Whining Continues

Back in the day, yours truly often watched "Prime Minister's Questions" on C-Span. This was back in college, and I was introduced to the show by one of my roommates, the Priest of Parliament Lights. The show basically recaps the English Prime Minister answering questions from members of Parliament, which is something of an English tradition, from what I can tell. Typically, some member of the opposition (ironically, it was often a young Tony Blair) would start in with a smarmy comment disguised as a question, and then-PM John Major would respond with something snooty. After each one spoke, members of their own party would shout or mutter encouragement, almost like a Little League team chattering at the opposition. It's hard to explain why we enjoyed the show so much -- if you watched it, you might get it.

One of Major's favorite tactics was to wait until the latest inane "question" was completed, let the nattering subside, then stand up and state, "I refer the gentlemen to the answer I gave some moments before" in as dismissive a tone as possible. Again, you had to be there, but I thought this tactic brilliant. I actually considered using this during fraternity meetings (except that our Executive Board had no need of such verbal gymnastics, since everyone feared the Warden).

Why am I talking about this? Perhaps I should refer the Democrats to the answer I gave some moments before. Take a look at the Democrats' latest whining...

Senate Democrats demanded Thursday that President Bush order a halt to personal attacks on the party's leader, Sen. Harry Reid, and expressed regret they had failed to mount a stronger defense for his defeated predecessor.

"This is a new Democratic party," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said at a news
conference called to release a letter telling Bush to muzzle his "political operatives."

"...It says to the president, `you will not intimidate us'," added Schumer, who likened the attacks on Reid to political knee-cappings.

The letter itself was written in milder terms. "We urge you to keep your word about being a uniter and publicly halt these counter-productive attacks so that we are able to work together in a bipartisan manner and debate issues on the merits," it says.

Bush and the White House have denied responsibility for the attacks.

But Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, ridiculed that assertion, as Reid did earlier in the week.

"This is the Abu Ghraib defense, that a few renegade soldiers are responsible for their own behavior and the commanders are not accountable," said Durbin, second in the leadership behind Reid. His remarks were a reference to claims by military officials that a few low-ranking enlisted personnel were responsible for the shocking conditions at a U.S.-run prison in Iraq.

The letter to Bush was signed by all the Senate's Democrats except Reid, as well as Sen. James Jeffords, an independent from Vermont.

Reid was named to succeed the defeated Tom Daschle as party leader in December and quickly was attacked as an obstructionist by both the Republican National Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee.

The RNC distributed a 13-page compilation of criticisms, dissecting Reid's voting record and accusing him of obstructing Bush's agenda over the years. One portion of the document notes that the Nevada lawmaker lives in a costly condominium when he is in Washington — a point that Democrats said has no bearing on policy disputes with the White House.

First, using Abu Ghraib as a reference is particularly stupid, unless Bush is convening Animal House-style hazing sessions in the Senate chamber for problem-child Democrats. We're not opposed to such an idea, although Minnesota Senator Mark Dayton would probably hide in the corner and cry.

Next, this document is apparently 13 pages long, and the Dems are angry about one point? Maybe folks back home in Nevada would like to know what kind of home Reid resides in. Besides, this is rich from a party that openly enjoyed Michael Moore mocking President Bush for taking vacations -- as if a President gets disconnected from the world on vacation -- and had their nominee attacking Mary Cheney during the election. Yeah, those both had a lot to do with the issues, guys.

Third, can someone stop and tell media-hog Chuck Schumer that most of America that does not reside in or around New York finds him to be really annoying? It's like he and Barbara Boxer have a competition going as to who can be the most abrasive.

Fourth, maybe instead of whining about these terrible attacks, Chuck & Co. would be better served to stop being obstructionists. Daschle opted to filibuster a number of President Bush's appellate court judicial nominees and tried to hold up legislation the President wanted to pass. The former was dirty pool in my opinion, but his actions in both respects were within Senate rules. The President's party attacked Daschle for his political choices, and he lost an election as a result. Reid may want to obstruct the President, but he will pay a price for such a choice. It would also be nice if he actually advanced a policy proposal or two of his own -- it might show he's about more than just being against the President.

Reid has now promised to fight Bush on judicial nominees in much the same way, and has issued not-so-veiled threats against the President's Social Security reform proposal, before the President made the proposal. He's free to do the latter (the former will likely get stuffed by Bill Frist), but he has to face the consequences of such choices. One of those consequences is that people will attack you for making such decisions. But these Democrats would prefer that no one actually knows what they stand for, lest they actually vote against them as a result. Wow, sure seems like a good idea.

Finally, the whining is amazing. They never learn. Last summer, they tried to counter the Swift Boat Veterans by whining about how it was terribly unfair, tried to tie Bush to the attacks, and sent Max Cleland to Bush's ranch with a letter. They never addressed the substance of the attacks, until the public was already convinced that the substance was true. Now, they're whining about how these claims are unfair, trying to tie Bush to the claims and sending him a letter (maybe Max Cleland is unavailable to deliver it this time). Again, they don't want to address the substance of the claims made against Reid. Who comes up with this strategy?

Somehow, I wish Bush would refer the Democrats to the results of November's elections. Perhaps then, they might understand that their strategy of whining incessantly fails at the ballot box.