Demagogue

Matthew Yglesias reminds me of why I am not thrilled with Nancy Pelosi being at the helm of the Democratic Party's leadership in the U.S. House. In an article about Democrats' position on the war in Iraq, Yglesias writes:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has, if anything, been worse (than DNC Chair Howard Dean). She responded to Bush's new political push by first proclaiming herself a proponent of leaving Iraq as soon as possible, then by saying that most of the caucus agrees with her, and then by saying that the caucus wouldn't be adopting this as its official position.

Telling the world that most House Democrats have a position on Iraq that they don't intend to expound and defend in public is bizarre and merely opens the door for Republicans to define their opponents' views any way they choose.

Pelosi was trying, one assumes, to accommodate the existence of diverse viewpoints within the party, which is understandable. But at a December 8 press conference, she managed to explain this diversity of views in the most counterproductive way possible, describing the war as "not like an issue such as prescription drugs or Social Security, which are core issues to the Democratic Party."

Thus, House Democrats apparently both have a secret plan to lose the war, and don't consider national security to be a topic that should be taken all that seriously anyway.