The Capitulation "Strategy" by kos
Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:08:59 PM PST
From Novak's email newsletter:
Democrats' public objections to Mukasey centered on whether water-boarding fit the definition of torture. Raising these objections allowed them to turn the Mukasey nomination into another flashpoint for rallying their base against the Bush Administration's conduct of the War on Terror, but their eventual capitulation also followed their pattern on this issue area: Raise a cry, attack the White House and then give the White House what it wants.
That's pretty much it: Sound the alarm. Talk tough. Capitulate.
It's why they look as weak as they do, and it's patently transparent. I just wish I understood what they hoped to gain from it. It sure as heck ain't negotiating leverage.
[I]t's not Bush's style to back down, especially when a key element of his radical and unprecedented expansion of executive power is at stake. Instead, Bush has learned that the higher he ratchets up the rhetoric, especially if he can accuse his critics of being weak on terror, the more likely Congressional Democrats are to fold. He's simply counting on that happening again.
And it will. Again and again. Because we go to D.C. with the weak Democrats we have, rather than the strong Democrats we wish we had.