Democratic Leadership Wakes Up On Iraq
So it looks as if the Democratic leadership has finally awakened and realized what many have been saying for months: When it comes to Iraq, the American public agrees with the Democrats and disagrees with the GOP.
Check out what today's Washington Post has to say about the letter Harry Reid and other Dem leaders sent to President Bush yesterday demanding the start of a pullout from Iraq. Read what the Post says after the jump -- it's very encouraging indeed.
From the Post:
A senior Democratic strategist, who agreed to discuss electoral calculations only anonymously, said party leaders concluded that voters want a clear choice between backers of a timeline for beginning a pullout and the GOP's no-timetable position."This offers a pretty clear contrast" for the next few months, the strategist said, and Reid and others plan a series of events to drive home the point. Polling data and focus groups suggest that Democratic candidates can embrace the letter's message without falling victim to familiar Republican claims of being soft on national security, the strategist said, because setbacks in Iraq have eroded the GOP's traditional advantage on that issue. (Emphasis added.)
It's about friggin' time.
It's true, as Kevin Drum writes, that the letter isn't substantively all that different from previous Dem positions on withdrawal. Nonetheless, the letter is important. It suggests a strategic shift, if not a substantive one, in which top Dems are realizing (belatedly) that Americans are ready to listen to them about Iraq and perhaps even national security in general, and that Americans no longer take the GOP's alleged superiority on national security issues for granted. Such a shift is certainly news.
In that regard, you really have to hope that Reid and others make good on their promise to do a "series of events to drive home the point." Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman's response to the letter -- the Dems are weak, Iraq is a central front in the "war on terror," etc., etc. -- shows very starkly that the Republicans are painted into a corner. They've got nothing. They can't ask for more troops, because that would be politically disastrous. They can't begin a serious pullout, because it would be an admission of failure.
The GOP's stuck in a bear trap. All they can do is cling to the status quo, and scream that anyone who wants to change things is weak and defeatist. But the status quo is a massive, glaring fiasco, and the American people know it. They also know who created the fiasco -- the GOP -- and that the Dems aren't constrained from acknowledging the staggering dimensions of the problem or pushing for a change of direction from the disastrous course the Republicans have chosen. It would well behoove Dems to drive home this sharp contrast repeatedly -- and mercilessly -- between now and November.
This is certainly better than nothing, but evrything depends on how it is used. A full-throated attack on the Bush war from its inception and conception, to its costs and consequences, the destabilization of the Middle East and the ascent of Iran, with special attention to the unscrupulous liars and corrupt war profiteers and immoral torturers and violators of the Constitution, would put the Republicans on the defensive, not vice-versa.
August 1, 2006 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I continue to doubt that these gutless Beltway weaklings will be able to stand up to the withering fire they'll get from the Noise Machine. Remember Dick "Where's My Hankie" Durbin and his craven, media-driven apology (to take just one pitiful example)? Let's not get carried away with this development.
August 1, 2006 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I'd disagree with the characterization.
The better way of putting it is that a substantial portion of the American public always disagreed with the Iraq adventure, despite maniacal cheerleading from the government, the media and the radical right.
This portion of the American public was pretty much alone in its principled disagreement, since the Democrats refused to oppose or challenge the hysteria.
As time has gone on, more and more people have become disenchanted with Iraq, despite the best efforts of the howling cheerleaders, until they now form a pretty overwhelming majority.
The Democrats have finally got it into their head to follow the crowd.
August 1, 2006 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
About friggin time is right.
And you're right about the follow-through -- I want to see the Dems push this, hard. Sunday talk shows and all. Dispel the idea there are vast differences between elected Dems on Iraq. I'm tired of that narrative.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
August 1, 2006 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The headline needs work...
Democratic Leadership Wakes Up On Iraq endorses Lamont.
Much better.
August 1, 2006 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg
And yet the Democrats are more fearful of these upcoming elections than the Republicans are. Interesting, eh?
August 1, 2006 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet the Democrats are more fearful of these upcoming elections than the Republicans are
Who says that?
Do you mean election in office Dems, or rank and file?
You seriously think the GOPs aren't shitting in their pants about November?
If anything, the Dem party has left the rank and file apprehensive. After watching the Presidential fiascos of 2000 and 2004 (regardless of the pop vote, election fraud, etc, etc, both guys pretty much sucked as candidates), how could we not be a little worried that these people won't screw it all up?
We've seen it happen before.
That said, Dems are still looking good. And I do not for a minute believe that our apprehension compares to the pants-shitting that is going on in GOP circles.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
August 1, 2006 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's cause the fix is in, guy. It's game over. Diebold machines guarantee a Republican win, no matter how the vote goes.
And just as a back up, modern techniques of vote suppression have been distilled to a fine art. "Yea and verily, I will tell thee that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than it is for a black man to vote in Florida."
The Republicans are counting on it, so they're not too concerned.
The Democrats are desperately wishing its not true, and they're wondering if they got the guts to call a foul ball if it is.
They don't.
August 1, 2006 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
cscs
I think the Republicans are at a crossroads where they know they will be the underdogs. By all odds the Democrats SHOULD soundly beat them in November.
But this Israeli War conveniently restores Bush's "My way or you are weak" mantra while deflecting attention from Iraq.
August 1, 2006 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Follow the crowd all right. But are they anything but totally incoherent? Still wanting it both ways? Still wanting to have one foot squarely in the mud in case the toe in the water gets a little chilly?
I wish we had ONE Democrat who could give the speech Senator Hagel gave yesterday on our insanity in both Lebanon and Iraq.
August 1, 2006 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but it is worse than that. Americans who can actually stand up straight and stare down the "you are weak" charge with a genuine commitment to alternatives other than war have no where to go. I'm supposed to like killing Lebanese civilians better than I like killing Iraqi civilians? Makes no sense to me.
I have absolutely no clue what the Democratic Party stands for. I have absolutely not a guess what they'd actually do in Iraq or elsewhere if elected. Would they be intimidated into starting yet another war to prove they are tough? They're sometimes to the right of Bush on support of Israel and in saber rattling over Korea. Maybe they'd like to invade Cuba. Who knows?
August 1, 2006 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you think that the conflict in Israel/Lebanon is causing Dems to worry/fear the 06 elections, even more than GOPs?
And I'm still not sure if you mean Reid/Schumer/Pelosi, etc, or people like me?
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
August 1, 2006 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have absolutely not a guess what they'd actually do in Iraq or elsewhere if elected.
I think it's a safe bet they will do something different from Bush in Iraq, no?
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
August 1, 2006 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't honestly know if the Israeli/Hezbollah War is making the Democrats more nervous than Republicans, but I do know that the media as a whole is hardly paying any attention at all to Iraq.
Also, Bush conveniently has the ability to broker a peace deal whenever he chooses; thus painting himself (and his party by extension)in a positive light. The informed segments of society will not be fooled by this clever ruse, but can we make that generalization for the American society as a whole?
August 2, 2006 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
One would hope, by now, that Democratic strategists know better than to anonymously say things like
No wonder our party looks like a bunch of wind flappers and focus groupers. Instead, how about publicly declaring, on the record, that:
--
-- All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door. (John Kenneth Galbraith) --
August 2, 2006 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink