Remember the Alamo
In an effort some view as inappropriate, not to mention historically inaccurate, Republicans are evoking the imagery of the Battle of the Alamo in a letter supporting besieged House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, acknowledged through a spokesperson that he was circulating the letter for signatures from other members of Congress, as the New York Times reported Friday. But Barton’s office declined to say whether he actually wrote the letter and offered no further comment on it.
A draft of the letter reads, in part: “In early 1836 approximately 200 men were surrounded by an army of thousands at a place called the Alamo. The general of the besieging army demanded unconditional surrender. Undaunted, the commander of the Alamo, William Barrett (sic) Travis, called a meeting of the garrison, drew a line in the sand, told his men the truth about the situation and gave every Alamo defender the right to retreat, or to cross over the line and stand in defense of the Alamo.
“Today our Speaker, Dennis Hastert, is suddenly surrounded by a besieging army, but of a different sort. It is not a military army, but a political and ideological army of the left, demanding his unconditional surrender. We, the House Republican Conference, ironically a little over 200 strong, have a decision to make, just like the defenders of the Alamo some 170 years ago. We can cross the line and stand with our Speaker in defense of conservative values and common decency, or we can retreat.”
Wow, where to start? Let’s see, unlike the defenders of the Alamo, Republicans out number their enemy, the Democrats, in the House and the Senate. This means they get to control any investigation of Hastert.
Does he really believe that Davy Crockett and others would sacrifice their lives for the priniciples of, uhm…exactly what conservative values are we talking about that Travis and Hastert share?
Fortunately, not all Republicans agree with the analogy:
San Antonio Republicans haven’t signed the letter, which Rep. Charlie Gonzalez chastised as ludicrous for comparing the Republican speaker’s predicament in a Capitol Hill sex scandal to the plight of defenders at the Shrine of Texas Liberty.
I really don’t think Barton thought this analogy through. After all, the 200 or so men that remained with Travis (his last name was Travis, not Barrett) were slaughtered. Travis made several pleas for reinforcements that were never answered. And Travis knew that Santa Anna was coming and made the decision to stay and fight.
So does this mean that Hastert will make several pleas to Republicans for support before resigning? Does this mean that Hastert knew what sort of response the page text messages would generate and deliberately chose to face the consequences?
I guess the point was supposed to be to defend your leader when he is being attacked by some sort of superior numbers. But regardless what your political party affiliation may be, the comparison is insulting. I think he picked the wrong historical event—Custer’s last stand would have been more appropriate.
Filed under: Alamo, Charlie Gonzalez, Dennis Hastert, Joe Barton, Shrine of Texas Liberty, democrat, dirty politics, politics, republican, sex scandal
