Jo Ann Emerson Twice Stands Up For Democrats

Two "disappointing" pieces on Jo Ann Emerson this week.  Emerson, a moderate Republican representing south east Missouri, first gushes over how nice the Europeans are now that Barack Obama is president.

Emerson said she thought the Europeans had been receptive to her colleague's message and described how Obama's historic November election had helped transform transatlantic relations for the better, seemingly overnight.

"It's amazing to watch," she said, described partners with whom Washington has had "difficult discussions" suddenly declare that "we're excited about President Obama and we want to do everything we can."

Emerson is a seven-term incumbent, not some giddy freshman, which makes her gushing even more embarrassing.  Before we start giving ourselves high fives over NATO Allies pitching in now that Obama is president, shouldn't we actually wait for NATO Allies to pitch in?  Are they seriously suggesting that the failure of our allies to live up to their responsibilities in Afghanistan was the fault of the diplomacy of George Bush?  That's a very naive statement, its foolishness matched only by the sheer goofiness of Congressman Tanner who suggests that we're going to appeal to "pride" as a way to goad European allies into shouldering their share of the load.

It's like watching a high school version of the model UN.  Emerson should be experienced enough not to buy into the idea that European style diplomacy works great as long as we have the "right" people (leftist Democrats) in office.  Let's take a look at how John Tanner has decided to approach allies who have been shirking their military responsibilities in Afghanistan.

"Rather than say 'you're not doing enough! You're not doing enough!' we're going to try to appeal to their pride," the Tennessee lawmaker said.

"We're going to try to appeal to their pride and say 'look, no matter how large, or small, or medium-sized your country is the team cannot be successful unless every member of the team performs to their abilities,'" he said.

Tanner cautioned that NATO members that are "not performing" to the best of their abilities: "You're not only letting yourself down but you're letting your teammates down."

Got that?  We're going to beg our allies not to let their teammates down.  And let's not forget to insult them by calling them little. 

There is no "i" in team.  But there are "i"s in naivete (a french word - sacrebleu!), real politik, and national self interest.  We know how this ends.  The Germans and others say, "Ah, my American friends, ve vill of course do all ve can now that the evil George Bush has been removed." Oh wait, Merkel liked Bush.  Maybe it wasn't Merkel's government saying these things.  Perhaps it was that particular species of unelected, unaccountable elitist European Union bureaucrat with wealth beyond compare and a pedigree las long as my, well it's pretty long, who love to lecture their foolish American counterparts on the vagaries of power and diplomacy.

Makes me sick.  And the worst part is they'll still do nothing (why would they?  If they wouldn't do it from 2003-2008, why change now?), but no one serious will be there to complain.  The Obama administration can't - it would wreck the notion that they brought change by virtue of being elected.  Emerson can't - she's one of the club, now.  She even went as far as to write a letter rebuking the chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party for daring to question Tanner and Gordon, the Tennessee Democrats running the show and leading an entourage of spouses and staffs to Paris on Valentine's Day, a ski lodge, and of course, face-to-face meetings with NATO allies.

The letter, (sent to me by way of that political tip line to the left), attacks Robin Smith, stating that Emerson is disappointed. She says the work of representatives is important, but fails to explain why spouses were brought on the 9 day trip, why it ended at a ski resort, and how exactly the trip to Europe would have a bigger effect on the global economy than the stimulus package. She touts the foreign policy importance of the trip, but ends with a strange rebuke about "using these grave economic challenges to your political advantage instead of trying to solve some of them."  That's a real head shaker, as Smith pointed out that Tanner and Gordon, two conservative Democrats, voted for a disastrous and costly stimulus bill they did not read, and that the president took four extra days to sign because he wanted a little break from the rigors of three weeks in the White House.  I'd note that the 9 day trip, like several others taken by members of Congress, were all scheduled to start on Friday.  Passing the largest bill ever without reading it?  No time!  Heading to Europe on the taxpayers dime?  Important to the global economy!   

Smith decided to reply. She wrote a letter back to Emerson, pointing out that Mr. Tanner took to the floor to attack Republicans in 2007 for $50 billion in spending.  Let me add those remarks:

"When in the name of all that is holy are you going to stop?  We are trying to pay our bill, and you won't let us.  The Republicans in the Senate won't let us.  When you place a $50 billion debt on every man, woman and child in this country to protect less than 10,000 people who are exploiting a tax loophole - and that's exactly what's happening here - when in the name of all that's holy are you going to quit? When China forecloses us?

Chairman Smith was pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the Democrat Tanner complaining about $50B when he voted for $800B without even reading the bill.  His concerns about China have apparently been answered, so he heads off to Europe on what even the Washington Post mocks as a vacationing junket.  That's a pretty valid criticism - and exactly what the Tennessee chairman of the Republican party should be doing - pointing out that Democrats in their state are being fiscally irresponsible, taking trips to ski lodges, and ducking questions from angry voters back home.

Why would Emerson get involved in the politics of another state?  Has she gotten so cozy with Tanner that she wanted to defend him, or is she feeling a little guilty about the trips herself?  She knows this is about the spending.  She voted against the stimulus bill (to her credit).  Why would she give cover to the Democrat and try to blunt the effectiveness of Robin Smith's attack? 

If she's really angry, why doesn't Emerson write Al Kamen of the Washington Post?  How about she write Nancy Pelosi and complain about Charlie Rangel and his Caribbean trips?  Did she write letters to the Obama campaign for claiming the US was "air-raiding villages and bombing indiscriminately? To Pelosi for meeting with Syrian leaders?  To Pelosi and Murtha for their repeated attempts to defund the war?"

There is such a thing as selective outrage.  It's a strange target Jo Ann Emerson picks.  One would think there were bigger issues, like solving the economic crisis (as she points out), rather than defending friends she sipped cocoa with in the cozy little town of Garmisch-Partenkirchen in the Bavarian Alps.

We don't expect Missouri representatives to be partisan attack dogs.  Nor do we expect them to treat Democrats like some kind of grade school cooties epidemic.

We do expect them not to be water-carriers for Democrats in other states. 

And we certainly can expect our elected officials not to use taxpayer funds to fly their spouses to Europe in the middle of the supposed worst economy the world has ever seen.

Haven't these people ever heard of Skype video?

Comments

[me.yahoo.com/a/LfxA5IkQhZ3udcLSBzkr5EjsEcigiA--]

Sir---I expect you already know this, but who does the
real fighting in Afghanistan today? Who engages the enemy in offensive operations? Who sticks their neck out? The Canadians, the British, the Australians, the
Americans, the Americans, and...the Americans. Most of those other western forces guard the PX, and such. And
so shall it ever be.....