Patterico's Pontifications


So What Is the Argument?

Filed under: Terrorism — Patterico @ 6:21 am

Democrats are always saying Republicans are masters of P.R. I always wonder what they have to do to keep a straight face while saying such things. After a Democrat says that on television, watch his mouth area closely for telltale spurts of blood emanating from his lip, which he has been biting down on hard, to keep from exploding with raucous laughter.

Every time something supposedly bad happens in a partisan battle, it is the Republicans’ fault. Who shut the government down — Bill Clinton or the Republicans? I rest my case.

So now you have this intelligence bill. Put aside the question of whether the reforms will help anything all that much (after all, the media is putting that very question aside). Whose fault is it that it’s not passing?

Why, those two Republicans, of course. For insisting on absurd things like making sure driver’s license requirements aren’t weak. It’s certainly not the fault of the other side, for insisting that driver’s license requirements remain weak.

Cori Dauber asks: just what is the argument for keeping driver’s license requirements weak anyway?

5 Responses to “So What Is the Argument?”

  1. I always thought that coservatism is sort of defined by the reluctance to make changes unless and until the need has been clearly identified as compared to the “don’t just stand there, pass some legislation” approach of the liberal side.

    Someone has to be in charge of worrying about consequences of passing such a bill, intended or unintended.

    Here, the Joint Chiefs of Staff has raised some concerns about the consequences of taking away his intel assets and assigning them to some “czar” which can only add to the layers of delay and confusion so readily apparent in the 9/11 attacks. This has been portrayed by some as money and power issue, but I know the end users of intel would like to have what they want when they want it and not have to submit a request in triplicate that another agency gets to prioritize.

    I haven’t heard a single demand for an answer to those concerns about how the intel bill will make this not a problem. Instead, as you point out, the attention has been devoted to the “blockage” of the bill.
    The problem is the conservatives never sieze the PR high ground first – they are not proactive, but reactive. In most cases, the liberal side always walks out with a story of how bad something will be if they don’t prevail. The conservatives need to learn to go on the offensive. Something like: “I appreciate the hard work of the Commission and agree with many of their recommendations. However, events have proved that military end user access to intelligence and control over their own assets saves the lives of our troops and innocent civilians. Until I am convinced that the new system proposed by this legislation will make our troops safer and protect innocents better that what we already have, I say we don’t need to rush into this. The consequences of making a mistake are too high to impose a new layer of government bureacracy between the troops and their intelligence needs. I believe we need to study this issue more thoroughly and really understand what it may mean to the men and women in the field.”

    EagleSpeak (0d84c2)

  2. A sobering thought: even the editors at the L.A. Dog Trainer say it’s a flawed bill “that would probably have made the nation less, not more, secure from terrorism.” Yikes.

    Patterico (756436)

  3. Eaglespeak:

    Re. your last paragraph. Don’t attack the proponents of changing the bill so quickly.

    Duncan Hunter said exactly the same ting on Fox the other day. The problem is, and and always will be, access to the MSM and how it is spun.

    The proponents of no change to the bill, predominently libs, have the access and the MSM spins their way.

    The only person who could raise the profile of the issue is President Bush and it looks as if he will not enter the fray publicly.

    davod (2d9305)

  4. Davod: Thanks for the info about Duncan Hunter on Fox. I agree MSM access is important, but Mr. Hunter needs the support of his party chiefs, too – that would get the story moving…the President needs to stay above this one, I think, because otherwise he ends up in a debate with the 9/11 Commisioners and that would inappropriately elevate them…

    EagleSpeak (0d84c2)

  5. Those Intelligence Reforms
    … I know the end users of intel would like to have what they want when they want it and not have to submit a request in triplicate that another agency gets to prioritize.

    EagleSpeak (28eb22)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1870 secs.