January 22, 2007 -- 4:24 PM EST // // Post a Comment
FINALLY -- A GLIMPSE OF WHAT THE WORD "CENTRIST" REALLY MEANS.
The other day I ranted at length about the fact that the New York Times on Saturday had described a forthcoming proposal on Iraq being drawn up by GOP Senator John Warner as "centrist."
Well, now the resolution is done. It's being introduced by Warner, as well as Senators Susan Collins and Ben Nelson, as an alternative to the earlier Biden-Hagel resolution introduced last week. And the available details about the new resolution show even more amusingly just how vacuous these reflexive paeans to the political middle have become. Here's how CNN is describing the new proposal:
The resolution -- also sponsored by Armed Services Committee members Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska -- tones down some of the language used in a resolution introduced earlier by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, Joe Biden, D-Delaware, and Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, sources involved with crafting the resolution tell CNN....A source familiar with a draft as of Friday said the word "escalation" in the first resolution -- a term coined by Democrats to describe the troop increase which Republicans consider too partisan -- has been replaced in the second resolution by "augmentation." The resolution will also express Warner's concern over sending troops into entrenched sectarian violence.
"The other resolution was a real thumb in the eye to the president, our goal is to make the same point but get 60-65 votes, not 51 or 52," said the source.
Breaking: Centrists agree that use of the word "escalation" is too mean to the President!
In essence, the new resolution avoids some of the nasty language in the Biden-Hagel one and is a bit nicer to Bush in an effort to get a larger group of Senators to sign on to it. In other words, its main features are being created simply with the goal of creating something more Senators are willing to sign, enabling them to distance themselves from escalation -- the actual impact of their resolution be damned. And though on-air commentators are already starting to make somber noises about this resolution's centrist and bipartisan nature, as well as its reach for compromise, let's be clear: This only represents the "center" of opinion in the Senate -- if that. It has nothing to do with what the American people want.
Keep this in mind: Majorities are telling pollsters that they want concrete Congressional action to block escalation. Yet a resolution that's supposed to represent some sort of middle ground, and create the possibility of compromise in the Senate, is not just non-binding, but actually holds that the mere use of the word "escalation" is too hot to handle. That's nothing short of amazing, when you step back and look at it. Indeed, Senator Warner was just on CNN, stating very clearly that the purpose of the new resolution is not to reduce the number of troops in Iraq or set a timetable for withdrawal -- two things that majorities of the American public have repeatedly told pollsters they want.
Look, the more "bipartisan" resolutions against escalation, the better. And, sure, it's good news that some GOPers are breaking ranks and taking on the White House. The point simply is that this kind of thing reveals very starkly the extent to which the political middle as a construct of D.C. elites has come completely unmoored from actual public opinion.