Spin, Or Worse?

"Here are some questions every Democrat in America should be asking: why is Steny Hoyer, the House's second-ranking Democrat, going out of his way to undermine the Democratic Party's message on Iraq? Why is Hoyer using his taxpayer-paid staff to place stories bragging about his efforts to shake down corporate lobbyists? And why has Hoyer undercut his party on critical votes that would have helped Democrats craft a strong, crisp message?

"I used to think it was because Steny Hoyer was just an extraordinary stupid person who had been insulated in the Beltway for so long that he was simply suffering from severe brain rot. But alas, I was stupid in thinking that. What's really going on is very obvious: Hoyer is waging a not-so-secret, but oh-so-self-serving campaign to topple House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) and assume the top job in the Democratic Caucus - a job he has coveted since Pelosi beat him out for whip a few years back. And he's waging his campaign even though it is destroying his own party.

"You don't need to look very far to see how Hoyer is doing everything he can to self-servingly undermine his party as a way to hurt Pelosi. In yesterday's Washington Post , for instance, the paper reported that according to congressional sources, Hoyer 'told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal [from Iraq] combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party.' "

Andrew Sullivan offers his prescription for the war:

"Next week will be the most critical election of them all: one which actually leads to the first, real constitutional, democratically elected government in decades. We still have so much to do; and our guide should be the millions of ordinary Iraqis who do not kill, who are not mass-murderers or religious fanatics, but who want to lead a normal life. After all this, we owe it to them to stand by them. However long it takes. For all the blunders of this blighted administration, it is absurd to expect perfection a mere three years after being liberated from totalitarian dictatorship. Thirty years is a more reasonable time-line. My hope is that U.S. troops, albeit in a minuscule presence compared to today, will still be there in thirty years' time. Just as they are today in Japan, Germany and South Korea."

Politically, though, 30 years is what I'd call a tough sell.

Byron York engages in a bit of political cross-dressing, writing about McCain not for National Review but for the New Republic:

"There are several reasons why GOP establishment types are warming to the man they once rejected -- and who rejected them. First is the loyalty McCain showed toward Bush in the last election. Second is his stand on the war in Iraq. Third is his hard line on federal spending. And the fourth reason is not an issue, but the absence of one: In 2008, McCain, having won his fight for campaign finance reform, will no longer be showcasing a cause that most Democrats loved but most Republicans hated . . .

"More than any other issue, the war is the reason why Republicans thank McCain for standing by Bush. As the level of public approval for the war goes down, and some Republicans worry that they have to accommodate Democratic calls for withdrawal, McCain's hawkishness looks better and better to those in the GOP -- still a majority -- who want to stay the course. McCain is their man; he has a way of talking about the war that simply sounds right to Republican ears: stronger, clearer, and more direct than Bush himself. 'We cannot afford to lose it,' he tells me. 'Just read Zarqawi. We lose it, and they're coming after us.'

"With his war hero credibility, McCain is able to dismiss the calls of some of his fellow lawmakers -- and fellow veterans -- who want to get out of Iraq."

Programming note : I'm off next week. You'll have to Web-surf on your own!