TIME reported A strange thing happened to me the day the House of Representatives voted to pass the Iraq-war-funding bill. Congresswoman Jane Harman of California called as the debate was taking place. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this," she told me.
She would love to vote against it, not because of the merits, but because she would like to hurt the President. If Dems take the White House in 2008 will they understand Republicans voting just to hurt the President?"We need a new strategy, and I hope we can force one in September. But I flew into Baghdad [with 150 young soldiers recently]. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment... they need. I couldn't do that."
She could not possibly vote against the troops getting the equipment they need. But she did.I posted what Harman said on Swampland, the political blog at Time.com, along with my opinion that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had changed their positions and voted against the funding for the worst possible reason: presidential politics.
Everything they say or do is for political reasons. They want the power.And then Harman changed her position. After we spoke, she voted against the funding. The next day, I was blasted by a number of left-wing bloggers: Klein screwed up! I had quoted Harman in the past tense—common usage for politicians who know their words will appear after a vote takes place. That was sloppy and... suspicious! Proof that you just can't trust the mainstream media. On Eschaton, a blog that specializes in media bashing, I was given the coveted "Wanker of the Day" award. Eventually, Harman got wind of this and called, unbidden, to apologize for misleading me, saying I had quoted her correctly but she had changed her mind to reflect the sentiments of her constituents.
She did not care about her constituents; she just did not want to make the nutroots mad at her.I published her statement and still got hammered by bloggers and Swampland commenters for "stalking" Harman into an apology, for not checking her vote in the Congressional Record, for being a "water boy for the right wing" and many other riffs unfit to print.
1 comment:
The amazingly juvenile attacks of the Blog-Left (read: Far left) demand 100% autonomy on their specific position, which, as we all know, is fraught with errors, lack of research, emotional outlay and social nepotism. Limbaugh has ALWAYS attempted to back his claims with research, but there is seldom anything more despectable in print than a Blogger NOT taking time to research an idea and claiming the 'target' was a traitor and therefore not a credible news source. Where is the fairness; where is the 'other side of the coin' position in which to make a good decision? Unfortunately the vast majority of Bloggers have sacrificed their intelligence for a quick 'rush to post.' Yup...knee-jerk liberalism at its sycophantic worst.
Post a Comment