Oct 6th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
NRCC Wants to Put Pelosi “In Her Place”
National Republic Campaign Committee looks to deploy a touch of the old condescending sexism via the Speaker of the House of Representatives: “If Nancy Pelosi’s failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place.”
The substance of the NRCC memo, such as it is, seems to be that it’s obviously absurd for the Speaker to not immediately accept whatever policy conclusions General McChrystal reaches. In the real world, of course, responsible policymakers are going to listen to military experts about military matters and then they’re going to have a reach a policy judgment. Generals disagree!
33 Responses to “NRCC Wants to Put Pelosi “In Her Place””
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Defense Budget
Demographics
Denmark
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 6th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
They’re baiting you, Yglesias.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
The NRCC governed so poorly, it lost nearly $1 million in donor funds to embezzlement. The guys who passed Sarbanes-Oxley failed to notice the complete absence of auditors over a five year period. That and they failed to keep basic internal financial controls.
Most local nonprofits govern better than the NRCC. They should be permanently embarrassed over the Chris Ward scandal. The NRCC Executive Committee failed to meet its fiduciary duties. If another governing body behaved similarly, the nonprofit’s charter could be at risk.
As usual, there is no accountability within the Red team. The Blues aren’t looking any better.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
McChrystal vs. Pelosi on military affairs is not a tough call. Whining about the obvious won’t change that fact.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Pot/Kettle/Black… it seems only yesterday we had a Congress and Administration that thought nothing of shitting on any general staff or flag level officer who didn’t share Cheney’s preconceptions.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Try again, Chris. Decisions about policy aims in Afghanistan are not “military affairs.”
October 6th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Right on, cmholm. Is Shinseki vs. Wolfowitz a “tough call,” Chris?
October 6th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Listen to the General!!!
Sorry, I know that is so 2007.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Is McChrystal going to have to choke a bitch?
October 6th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Which general?
Zinni? McCaffrey? Jones? Shinseki? Admiral Mullen?
He shoots…CLANG! In 2007, we were all saying that “the General” was focused narrowly on the question of battlefield efficacy, and wasn’t an expert on the question of global policy. As a matter of fact, back in 2007, “the General” – fella by the name of Patraeus – said that himself: that his job was the win the war in the Iraq, and questions about global strategy and resources weren’t his portfolio.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I don’t remember Democrats in 2007 or any other year saying that any particular general’s perspective on a matter should be taken as the gospel and not argued against by the civilian politicians who are actually the general’s superiors. WRT to Shinsiki, all I remember anyone on the left saying was that a) he shouldn’t have been fired for giving an assessment that the Bush administration disagreed with in public testimony before Congress, and b) he was right.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Constitutionally speaking, MY is of course correct. But politically, you don’t want any part of this. It’s like when Wes Clark said McCain’s “riding around in a fighter and getting shot down” wasn’t actually a qualification to be president. True, but the Obama people were smart to have nothing to do with it.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
As a matter of fact, back in 2007, “the General” – fella by the name of Patraeus – said that himself: that his job was the win the war in the Iraq, and questions about global strategy and resources weren’t his portfolio.
Well, you’re right. My assumption was that Obama and the Democrats want to win the war Afghanistan. Clearly they were not interested in winning the war in Iraq, but I thought Afghanistan might be different. I guess you are saying Obama and the Democrats might not want to win in Afghanistan.
If Obama and the Democrats intend to surrender in Afghanistan, there is no reason to listen to McCrystal – his advice only is important if the intention is to win.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
A general that refuses to follow the chain of command is a loose cannon whack-job. they should fire McChrystal because he’s a show-boating liability. The village will scream, nobody else will give a flying fuck.
Al, his advice is basically that we can’t win in Afghanistan, but that we should keep throwing meat in the grinder for shits and grins because otherwise we “lose”. In real life, if you can’t win you cut bait and go home. General Moron hasn’t spent enough time in the real world to understand that war isn’t a dick swinging contest.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Blah blah blah “win” blah blah blah “surrender.”
Al knows he doesn’t have an argument, so he throws out some meaningless but emotionally loaded bullship to cover up his retreat.
Because of course, the alternative to increasing troop levels yet again in Afghanistan is to hand over our units’ colors to the nearest Taliban commander, and order our troops to start stacking their arms and marching off to prison camps.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
And don’t we all know that “her place” would be impaled in ecstasy on his very butch, military enormo-Johnson?
October 6th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Don’t bash McChrystal over this. He hasn’t said shit about Nancy Pelosi.
This is the NRCC, hiding behind men in uniform, as usual, because their policies are as popular are herpes, as usual.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
From the NRCC release:Now,
Apparently, 55% of Americans are now “the radical left” – but we already knew that. We learned it back in 2007, when that same-sized radical faction opposed escalation in Iraq.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
And as soullite and abb1 can attest, I write this as an Af-Pak hawk, who glories in the slaughter of harmless Pakistani goatherds at the hands of flying killer robots.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Define win. Because I don’t think the current head of the Taliban is going to show up to sign some surrender documents on the deck of the Missouri.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
“Want to win the war”… now that’s an interesting phrase. “Pyrrhic victory”… that’s another interesting phrase.
Back in the day, GWB was too much of a punani to risk casualties when the risk would have really paid off, a real George Patton in Mexico moment. So, the day of reckoning for OBL and al-Zawahiri is delayed. Now we’re left with a different issue, how much we’re willing to pour into stabilizing Afghanistan.
The snark about winning and surrender are BS, and solely intended to cut off discussion. If you want to bankrupt someone’s national treasury, go do it somewhere where it’ll do our Republic some good. I hear China, Iran, and Russia are really pretty this time of year.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
This is what Pelosi said:
“I’ve also made it clear it’s a very difficult vote to get from the members,” she added. “Their constituents don’t like an escalated war in Afghanistan. They’d like to see a different approach. But let’s see what the president has to say.” (Politico, 10/05/2009)
So what in that statement has got the NRCC panties tied in a knot? Where does Nancy say that “she” knows best?
Is the NRCC saying that Pelosi should ignore the membership? That she shouldn’t wait to see what the commander-in-chief decides? Both sound very, very un-Republican, no?
October 6th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
There’s only one reasonably logical position to take in re Afghanistan at this late date: Declare victory and get the hell out of there. Fast. It took the Soviets what, ten years? before they figured it out. There is nothing there!
The military needs to suck it in (again — anyone remember Vietnam and the idiocy in place in that era?) and get out. And STAY out. People piss and moan about government spending and deficits — Bush’s two nutcase wars will have cost us how many trillions by the time the dust finally settles?
America is NOT the master of the universe, for chrissake. When the hell will we finally figure it all out?
October 6th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
For more on the NRCC’s hapless governance:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004474449_ward13.html
More than Chris Ward should be charged with a crime.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
http://www.nrcc.org/news/read.aspx?id=863
Today’s Question:
Given Alan Grayson’s outrageous claims that Republicans want people to “die quickly”, do you think he should be censured by Democrats for his behavior on the House floor?
Yes __
No __
October 6th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Yes, let’s put Nancy in his place!
October 6th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Do we know that they actually mean it in a bad way? After all, Speaker of the House is a pretty lofty “place”. Much higher than — what? Two levels down from the top of the military, which in turn reports to the civilian Secretary of Defense, who is several levels down the line of succession from Pelosi? In this metaphor, I don’t think McChrystal could reach up to Pelosi’s “place”, much less put her there, but if he somehow helped her to get to that place, that would be a gesture of great respect.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
FWIW
“Panties tied in a knot” is a sexist statement, as is the Brit equivalent “get your knickers in a twist”.
So, I guess would be ‘jockstraps’ or ‘boxers’.
‘Underpants’ is non-sexist but kind of bland.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Put her back on the broomstick she arrived on and send her back to her rich friends in Berkeley
October 6th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
There’s the blatant sexism and militarism, of course, but the other weird part of that statement is how they say “taxpayers can only hope” (that the woman shuts up about the Afghanistan war) as opposed to “Americans can only hope”.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
NYAH, NYAH, NYAH, NYAH—Bitches in a coffee clatch. They should throw in a, “Did you see what she was wearing?!”
October 7th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Define win. Because I don’t think the current head of the Taliban is going to show up to sign some surrender documents on the deck of the Missouri.
We take home the trophy for the regional championship and go on to play the east westchester northstars in the national finals
October 7th, 2009 at 2:59 am
[...] Well, Bush did that, and you see what happened. Matt Yglesias adds this: [...]
October 7th, 2009 at 10:07 am
@29: I think that’s tied into right wing myths that income taxes are the only kind that are real (pay no attention to payroll and sales taxes that everyone pays), and that the undeserving poor don’t pay any income taxes and therefore aren’t Real Americans.
In other words, it’s a dogwhistle for straight-up class warfare: some people don’t have enough money for their opinions to matter.
At the same time, of course, it reminds everyone how crushingly, brutally oppressed they are by taking home slightly less money than they would in a fantasyland where roads built themselves or something.
A general that refuses to follow the chain of command is a loose cannon whack-job. they should fire McChrystal because he’s a show-boating liability.
After all, it worked out so well for Truman.