« The Lachish Ewer
Main
Talk About Illiteracy in Antiquity »
December 12, 2006
No Natural Constituency
Nicolle Wallace, having been the White House Communications Director, is now a CBS consultant. Here is my transcription of part of an interchange she had with Katie Couric on this evening's CBS News.
Couric: Why so much push back on the Baker-Hamilton proposals?Wallace: You know, I think what is so interesting about the Iraq Study Group, which was led by Baker and Hamilton is that it seems to have no natural constituency other than the very esteemed and respected members that were on it. You saw conservatives come out over the weekend and really attack it. They really have almost described it as a blueprint for withdrawal and disengagement. I don't think the President is going to end up being drawn to something that looks like a that, that looks like a withdrawal strategy.
Couric: But don't you think the American public is a natural constituency for their proposals?
Wallace: Well and that's why I'm so surprised that the Democrats haven't seized that report and said, "This is what we're for. Where's your plan?" It's a surprising reaction on both sides.
I added the emphasis. If one takes Wallace's response as anything but a nonsequitur, the only interpretation of her answer is that the White House is pushing back on the Baker-Hamilton proposals because it has "no natural constituency." Is she saying that lack of a partisan constituency is a failing of the Baker-Hamilton report? I'm not altogether pleased with some of the Baker-Hamilton report. I worry that it doesn't address the moral implications of our unjustified attack on Iraq. But if it has one strength, it is that, at least on the surface, it didn't try to attract a "natural constituency."
And then there's the other interesting question. Is Wallace suggesting in her response to Couric's second question that the Democrats are or should be aligned with "the American public?" For now, I think that they are. But so what?
Wallace's answers assume that the Baker-Hamilton report should have somehow fit into preconceived notions of our political debate and Wallace faults it for not doing so by her lights.
What we really have here is Wallace's rehearsed answer to what ever the question might come up about the Baker-Hamilton report. And that answer is that it is irrelevant because it has "no natural constituency." After all, the Iraq situation, from her point of view, is a disaster within the American body politic and not a disaster we brought on another country.
Posted by DuaneSmith at December 12, 2006 08:09 PM | Read more on Current Events |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://WWW.telecomtally.com/cgi-bin/blog/mt-tb.cgi/940
Comments
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.