If you truly believe something…I mean truly believe it deep in your heart…why would you apologize for saying it?  Why would you fear a backlash from those who disagree?  Why would you teeter on the fence?  Why would you ever question the political implications of your opinion?  That is, if you really believe it? 

During the past week, Representative Nancy Pelosi and Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have made firm and clear anti-war statements.  Pelosi has stated that over half of her colleagues in the House agree with her anti-war rhetoric.  Apparently many Democrats are fearful of the political consequences in November, 2006. 

Of course it is all about power.  None of these Democrats want to lose their government jobs in 2006 or 2008.  But theirs is the party of avoidance and withdrawal.  That is where they live.  If they disagree with their leaders then they have choices.  Get rid of their leaders?  That would be especially easy in the case of Mr. Dean (he gave up the Doctor title when he quit that job).  They could stand up and publicly denounce their San Francisco based Minority Leader AND Mr. Dean.  Or they could do the right thing and leave the party and become human (i.e., join the Republican Party). 

Okay, that last part was a joke.  It is based on the remarks made during the memorial service for Senator Paul Wellstone after his plane crash.  At that time, Republicans who came to honor the Senator were enjoined to join the Democrats to elect Walter Mondale in the place of Wellstone.  Sometimes, I enjoy irony.

Anyway, this is what the Washington Post (Jim VandeHei and Shalaigh Murray,December 7, 2005) had to say about the Democrat dilemma.  They noted that “Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks”.

“Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders' rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.

“Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean's declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that ‘the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.’ The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president's growing political problems on the war and other issues. ‘Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful,’ said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean's famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.

“Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.

“These sources said the two leaders have expressed worry that Pelosi is playing into Bush's hands by suggesting Democrats are the party of a quick pullout -- an unpopular position in many of the most competitive House races…

“Pelosi last week endorsed a plan by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq within six months, putting her at odds with most other Democratic leaders and leading foreign policy experts in her party…

“Despite Pelosi's claims that she echoes the views of most members in her caucus, plenty of Democrats are cringing at her new high profile on an Iraq withdrawal. Not only did she back a position that polls show most Americans do not support, but she also did this when Bush is trying to move off the defensive by accusing Democrats of supporting a de facto surrender.

" ‘We have not blown our chance’ of winning back the House but ‘we have jeopardized it,’ said a top strategist to House Democrats, who requested anonymity to speak freely about influential party leaders. ‘It raises questions about whether we are capable of seizing political opportunities or whether we cannot help ourselves and blow it’ by playing to the liberal base of the party.

“Without naming Pelosi, Vice President Cheney told troops yesterday that terrorists will prevail ‘if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission,’ saying such precipitous move ‘would be unwise in the extreme.’ Cheney, addressing Army units at Fort Drum, N.Y., said that ‘any decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground and the judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timelines set by politicians in Washington, D.C.’

“In his comments Monday, Dean likened the president's optimistic assessment to those offered by the government during the Vietnam War. Bush fired back yesterday. ‘There are pessimists . . . and politicians who try to score points. But our strategy is one that is -- will lead us to victory,’ Bush said in response to a question about Dean's comments after a meeting with Lee Jong Wook, director general of the World Health Organization. ‘Our troops need to hear not only are they supported, but that we have got a strategy that will win.’…’”

So that is the current situation with the Democrats regarding Iraq and the war against islamofascism.  They are divided.  They want to win in 2006 and 2008 but are afraid that if they say what they really feel they will lose.  So, as a group, they are hedging and whining and not standing up either for or against their leaders.  Nor are they standing FOR their leaders.  They are not standing up against islamofascists.  They are not standing up for anything.  They are basically just standing up against Republicans AND FOR THEMSELVES.

What else is new?