Democrats finally formulate a position on Iraq: surrender

That’s what Ed Morrissey writes in the Weekly Standard with “Rally ‘round the white flag, boys”:

The good news for the Democrats is that their leadership has settled on an electoral strategy for 2006. The bad news is that they have cribbed their game plan from one of the most disastrous campaigns in their history. The Democratic leadership has decided to elevate surrender to a party platform for the upcoming elections, with their national chairman, House leader, and last presidential nominee all running up the white flag as the Democratic war banner.

Ouch. The WashPost is more measured with “Democrats fear backlash at polls for antiwar remarks” but Ankle-Biting Pundits wonders whether the Dems are more concerned about political strategy than national security. John Kerry tried this tactic during the Presidential campaign when he betrayed his own beliefs by voting for the war in Iraq (to look strong on foreign policy) then voting against funding (when Howard Dean was leading in the primaries.) Everything in his political and personal life indicated that he would have voted in the opposite on those two issues, but he let his ambition override his principles. The Democratic Party as a whole wants to win elections, but they can’t by appeasing the anti-war Left and appearing weak on national security. Thus the descent into doublespeak and ambiguity punctuated by moments of sincerity quickly withdrawn.