Well, the reviews are in. Bush's 11% doctrine speech was a bomb IED.
So now, the scramble is on for politicians of all stripes to distance themselves from his idiotic "plan." Of course, that surge was well underway even before the teleprompter was even hooked up, and Democratic presidential candidates were among the first to find their way to the microphones.
I'd round 'em up for you, but that's not actually what this post is about. This post is about the few "Democrats" who didn't distance themselves. No Democratic presidential candidate was that stupid, of course. And no, I'm not even talking about Lieberman.
I'm talking about the DLC wonks.
In yesterday's LA Times, Will Marshall stunk up the joint on behalf of the DLC, from his perch at the "Progressive Policy Institute," the DLC's "think" tank:
"Conventional wisdom says that presidential candidates who want to be responsible on this are going to hurt themselves with the angry, impassioned activist left," said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank. "But the activist left is out of sync with the American public. Americans don't want to concede this is a total debacle."
Thing is, one of the first presidential candidates to speak on the issue was current DLC Chairman and outgoing governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack. And he's done so in a big way.
He's not only opposed the escalation...
Departing Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack used his final condition of the state speech today to condemn the Bush administration's plan to send as many as 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.
"Now the president and the Congress are poised to make a big mistake even bigger," the Democrat seeking the 2008 presidential nomination told a joint session of the Iowa Legislature.
He has even, along with John Edwards, called for Congress to refuse to fund it:
John Edwards, the 2004 Democratic running mate, and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack have gone a step further, calling on Congress to block funding for a troop increase. But Vilsack said he is wary of holding back funds to try to force the return of troops already deployed in Iraq.
But wait! There's more! In his final address to the Iowa state legislature, Vilsack went even further:
Vilsack also urged the Legislature, with new Democrat majorities in both houses, to pass resolutions condemning Bush's plan.
And then, further still:
Vilsack called on communities across America to pass a resolution opposing the troop increase. Bush's plan, he said, "will make his big Iraq mistake even bigger."
Fantastic, right?
But what about Will Marshall? He says talk like that is irresponsible. He says that's not how presidential candidates conduct themselves. He says the Chairman of the DLC is a member of the "angry left."
Now, I know who I'd rather stand with. And I know who 89% of the American people stand with, despite Marshall's utterly loony claim to the contrary. But I am left with a question: just who wears the pants at the DLC, anyway?
Are they hopelessly divided? Do the policy staff merely consider their chairpeople and leadership a bunch of "short timers," as compared to the tenured wonks safely ensconced at the PPI?
At bottom, the question is: who speaks for the DLC?
After all, it's the elected officials who agree to permit their names to be used on the DLC masthead who are are responsible for the organization's legitimacy, not the wonks. But apparently, the natives are getting restless over there. They're 11% dead enders, and they're going to drag everyone down with them if it's the last thing they do.
If the wonks who depend for their legitimacy on the big names at the top are so ready to throw their politicians under the bus, even as they set out to run for president, what good does it do a "centrist" politician to belong to the DLC in the first place? Not only does membership in the organization that has always billed itself (relentlessly, I might add) as the premier Democratic centrist coalition not protect you from attacks from Republicans, it doesn't even protect you from attacks from the DLC itself!
So what's the deal, Governor? Who's the "responsible" one around here? Is it you, or is it Will Marshall?
What about you, Senator Clinton? You're probably running, too. Are you with 89% of us, opposed to the escalation? Or are you with Will Marshall and the dead enders?
Senator Carper? Congressman Davis? Congresswoman Tauscher?
Will Marshall's got the bus all revved up.
It's him or you.
Who's driving?