Thursday, March 18, 2004

Mickey, Mickey, Mickey...

Here's Kaus on the $87 million question:

A legislator can always defend a vote against a bill by saying "Well, if the bill had failed they would have had to come back to us and we would have made these three improvements." That's one reason Washington votes are Kabuki theater. But Bush's tax cuts could always be repealed later to close the deficit the $87 billion would enlarge. In the meantime, the tax cuts weren't going to be repealed, the troops were in the field, and Bush was finally stepping up to the plate and asking for money to fund his war. It seems to me the logical vote would be to support the $87 billion and figure out how to pay for it later...

Maybe it's just me, being an opponent of the invasion of Iraq from day one, but how is that logical for Kerry? Mr. Budget Hawk writing an $87 million check to someone who'd already blown through the surplus and rung up a deficit? Kerry spends time and political capital trying to include an amendment to make Bush accountable for how much he was spending, then he should just shrug and say, "Go get 'em boys!"

Wouldn't that be the action of the consummate straddler Kaus keeps saying Kerry is? To make a show of fiscal responsibility, then go with the flow on a still-popular war? Mickey says Kerry did it because Kerry was "a Democratic candidate running for president in anti-war Iowa" -- but we're talking October 2003 here. Dean had just become the front-runner; Clark hadn't yet announced he wasn't competing in Iowa. Kerry was polling at 9% in the state according to Zogby.

If Kaus seriously thinks that Kerry's no vote on this was part of his master strategy to win the Iowa caucus and the nomination, he should be supporting him out of pure fear, lest this Dem combination of Professor Moriarty and Niccolo Machiavelli reach out and crush him from the center of his spider's web.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?