Friday, August 25, 2006
Laffey on Lardball to Dis Rummy - I get it!
Lardball invited Steve Laffey on his program tonight so he parade before the camera a roster of opponents to secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld.
Frankly, I understand the political capital of calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. I get it. By opposing Rumsfeld, Laffey can separate himself a tad from the President, and since the President is unpopular, and at the moment, the Republican minions in Washington are with Chafee (of course that will change in a nanosecond when Laffey wins the primary, then what?). I get it. I get it.
But what if someone were to ask Laffey, with whom he would replace Rumsfeld, what would be his answer? By asking Laffey that question, it will reveal where he stands on the war in Iraq and the president's policy there. So I'd be careful with this tack. It could come up in Saturday's debate since Chafee, rightly, pointed out this seeming inconsistency in Debate III on Channel 12 the other night.
I happen to think that, as course as people have found him, Rumsfeld has been the right man in the right place at the right time. Did anyone see his discourse with Hilary Rodham in the Senate recently? The MSM showed all her sound bites, but if you had the good fortunate to hear his rebuttals, you'd see how he absolutely blew her away, and in grand style, and that's the kind of Secretary of Defense we need.
I understand that Laffey is mixing populism with some excellent ideas, and he's usually right in his attacks on Chafee; but though I may be alone on this view, I am uncomfortable with this tack, and I'm hoping he changes it or augments it with something that ties his past position with his newer one. Right now, I'm blaming his handlers for this. They see a chance to get some national recognition on Lardball. They jump on it. I get it.
I'm just not sure it won't backfire.
Frankly, I understand the political capital of calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. I get it. By opposing Rumsfeld, Laffey can separate himself a tad from the President, and since the President is unpopular, and at the moment, the Republican minions in Washington are with Chafee (of course that will change in a nanosecond when Laffey wins the primary, then what?). I get it. I get it.
But what if someone were to ask Laffey, with whom he would replace Rumsfeld, what would be his answer? By asking Laffey that question, it will reveal where he stands on the war in Iraq and the president's policy there. So I'd be careful with this tack. It could come up in Saturday's debate since Chafee, rightly, pointed out this seeming inconsistency in Debate III on Channel 12 the other night.
I happen to think that, as course as people have found him, Rumsfeld has been the right man in the right place at the right time. Did anyone see his discourse with Hilary Rodham in the Senate recently? The MSM showed all her sound bites, but if you had the good fortunate to hear his rebuttals, you'd see how he absolutely blew her away, and in grand style, and that's the kind of Secretary of Defense we need.
I understand that Laffey is mixing populism with some excellent ideas, and he's usually right in his attacks on Chafee; but though I may be alone on this view, I am uncomfortable with this tack, and I'm hoping he changes it or augments it with something that ties his past position with his newer one. Right now, I'm blaming his handlers for this. They see a chance to get some national recognition on Lardball. They jump on it. I get it.
I'm just not sure it won't backfire.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]