"So here's the concept (which, though I'm not 100 percent sure, I don't think
has been tried yet in Congress): How about when Congress reconvenes in
September, Democrats bring a bill to the floor of the House and Senate mandating
that, say, 25,000 National Guardsmen be taken out of combat in Iraq and be
immediately redeployed to guard America's porous domestic borders - both
southern and northern? If Democrats wanted to get even more creative, they could
additionally mandate that some of these National Guardsmen being redeployed be
immediately sent to forest fire emergency zones - many of which are in
Republican states right now. Think this through for a moment. All of a sudden,
the illegal-immigration-obsessed Tom Tancredo wing of the Republican Party,
which also happens to be the most reflexively pro-war wing of the GOP, would be
forced to choose either the Iraq War or beefed up border security. All of a
sudden, we would be having a debate about two very real, very pressing
priorities, rather than theoreticals and hypotheticals, and we would be
discussing exactly how the misuse of our National Guard as a wing of the regular
Army harms our ability to deal with the domestic challenges the National Guard
was originally established to deal with."
This is a great idea, and it could work, it would be seen through right away though. The right would be enraged by this stunt and it could cause a unity and an uprising that could harm the democrats in 2008. It is dirty politics, and while it may be that you should resort to that at some points, there are costs. Is ending the war worth it, if it might mean losing in 2008.
I think that they would vote for the war, they would I should say vote to keep Democrats from winning and to keep them from attempting to control the armed services which is a function of the executive branch.
That doesn't begin to address the issue that if this worked, it could take a way the main idea holding together a lot of swing voters who are leaning Democratic.
No comments:
Post a Comment