A couple of friends of mine had a one year old boy. When they put his bowl on the tray in his highchair, the boy would throw it on the floor. They'd clean it up, make something else for him, and he'd throw it on the floor again.
Their actions in handling the obstreperous, defiant kid allowed the kid to dictate to them what they were to do until he gets what he wants.
Now, read this from an article by Richard Cowan, from Reuters:
"Democrats say they are uncertain what will happen after Bush vetoes their war money bill. They know they will have to produce another bill to fund the troops in the war zone but they are split over what conditions they can attach and still win Bush's signature."
That is just about the biggest pile of steaming, aromatic horsehockey that I have ever heard.
You see the obvious parallels. The Democrats are wringing their hands and saying, "Oh dear, what are we gonna do. Baby Bush won't eat his food and won't take his medicine. Oh well, let's just give him what he wants to keep him from throwing another fit."
I know damn well what should happen after Bush vetoes their bill. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The Democrats still think they have to win Bush's signature. They don't. They're the ones who originate legislation. Bush can't do that and has no control over what bill they pass. If he vetoes their bills until he gets what he wants, then the onus for not funding the troops is on him. But the Democrats are playing right into his hands.
Present the bills to Bush the same way he presented everything to the Democrats when the Republicans were in power: take it or leave it. You're either with us or you're against us. It's your decision, Oh Great Decider. This is all you're going to get, so now what are you gonna do?
I don't understand why in the hell the Democrats don't understand that they have the upper hand here, why they won't take control, why they won't show some gumption and start leading instead of following Baby Bush, why they're so afraid of another Baby Bush tantrum. Who cares if he throws a tantrum? What difference does it make? It doesn't do away with the bill funding the troops, it's still there. By vetoing it, he's just showing that he really doesn't want to fund the troops and he wants to blame it on the Democrats.
The way to handle Baby Bush is the same way that worked with the tantrum throwing kid above. Give him what we adults know that he should have and if he rejects it, to hell with him. Ignore him and when he gets hungry enough, he'll come around. After all, what choice does he have? Just tell him, look, Baby Bush, this is all there is, there ain't no more.
Bush is in the high-chair waiting to be served, but we're the ones doing the serving, and he's only going to get what we want him to have. And he's going to have to shut up and swallow it.
Are you listing, Harry and Nancy?
