NY Times: Democratic Withdrawal Bill Is "Pandering To The Base"
Okay, prediction time. Pretty soon we're gonna have a new media narrative on our hands that runs something like this:
Democratic legislative efforts to mandate withdrawal from Iraq -- and GOP opposition to those efforts -- each represent the left-wing and right-wing base in the argument over the war. The middle ground is occupied by the Great Compromisers -- mostly GOP politicians and perhaps a few conservative Dems who are proposing the "compromise" of asking Bush to withdraw from Iraq, rather than legislatively forcing him to do so.
There's already a glimmer of this storyline in today's New York Times coverage of the Iraq amendment introduced by Great Compromisers John Warner and Dick Lugar, both GOP Senators, which basically does little more than suggest that Bush start talking about withdrawal at some point. The piece says this:
“I think the trouble in this Senate is that too many of us — I try not to be one of them, but I do occasionally — are pandering to the base on both sides of the aisle,” said Senator George V. Voinovich, Republican of Ohio. “As a result of that, we don’t do the things that we should do.”Take, for example, a vote in the House late on Thursday evening in which only four Republicans joined Democrats in passing a plan calling for a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, with a deadline of removing most troops — except an unspecified number needed for a limited mission — by April 1.
So, according to The Times, the Dems' most recent bill mandating withdrawal by next April is now an "example" of what Voinovich is warning against: "Pandering to the base."
Sorry, but this is bull-bleep of the worst sort, and small errors like this add up over time. This bill was not an example of "pandering to the base." This Dem withdrawal bill -- like most of the Democratic propopsals for pulling out -- represents the course of action desired by substantial majorities of the American people. Republican opposition to those proposals represents a small minority. All together now: Democrats represent the majority, which wants Congress to force withdrawal. Republicans -- yes, even Great Compromisers Warner and Lugar -- are blocking Congress from doing what the American people want.
Yes, it's a good thing in some ways that Warner and Lugar put this forward, and yes, Dems will need some Republicans to join them. But when describing the current political dynamic let's keep the cobwebs out of our heads and remember what's really going on here.
Yep, this sentiment was also expressed by David Broder a few weeks ago, when he wrote a column saying that the problem with congress isn't that they're "out of touch" but that they're listening too closely to the whims of the faceless masses.
Broder was wrong. And all of the commentary you're predicting will be wrong too.
It's not the Democratic base that has turned on the war. The base was against it before it began. After 4n years of disaster, people who were either ambivalent or pro-war in 2003 are coming around to face the facts. The anti-war people were right. They predicted this. Exactly this. They warned of a quagmire.
There's only one base being pandered too right now -- the pro-war adherents who will support Bush no matter what. A year ago, I'd have said that the number of those people in any poll would never fall below 30%. Seems I was wrong. Last poll puts bush at 26%. Even some of the people who I would have considered Bush's stalwarts are now changing their mind.
This has nothing to do with pandering to any base any more. You'd have to call any anti-war movement from our government, at worst, pandering to the general population. And, uh... the general population should be pandered to.
Or, maybe it's not pandering at all. Maybe it's something higher and something courageous. Maybe it's giving the people what they want.
Why is it that whenever a politician bucks popular opinion, they're a hero and when they respond to it, they're oppoprtunists? I'd say that true courage is the willingness to support the public in the face of entrenched interests within government.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 14, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems like the NY Times got their headline wrong. The Democratic withdrawal Bill is "Supporting the American majority" who voted for a Democratic majority Congress in 06. This Bill is actually American Democracy at work. Proving to the masses that their votes count.
July 14, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, how about a post on Obama calling Hillary's war plan convoluted? It is reminiscent of how byzantine the task force she organized on Health Care was in 92; 500 folks organized into 32 committees
July 14, 2007 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you mean "don't count?"
I wonder if the great majority of Democrats were truly solidly in favor of ending the war, would the mass of the voters approve?
Or is the result all that matters?
The mindlessness of the press praising "moderates," who offer nothing but more war, are as bad as the Democrats "supporting the troops" by giving Bush a blank check to continue the war without limit.
Best, Terry
July 14, 2007 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
This is what the corporate newsies in their simplistic way are really working off of...
Anthony Cordesman's take:
"US Strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan: Beyond Partisan Failure and Dishonesty"
The link to the original PDF file from the CSIS website is: csis.org/media/csis/pubs/070502_usstrat_iraqafgh.pdf
~OGD~
July 14, 2007 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, all the Democrats base are belong to us!
July 14, 2007 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least the NY Times did actually mention the word "filibuster" in the piece. Of course, not in connection with the Republicans, who have been fillibustering their collective asses off. But here's probably what's going to happen: the Warner-Lugar BS will get branded as a statesmanlike solution, and the Dems will not even get credit for even a superficial change in the mission. Or if they do oppose it, the word "filibuster" will be all over the media.
Hilarious. It's so awful it's funny.
July 14, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
sounds like Norquist, O'Reielly and Limbaugh sent you their talking points.
July 14, 2007 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Front-page LA Times ariticle this morning twists itself into a semantic pretzel to describe "a bipartisan supermajority of 60 senators" instead of just calling it a FILIBUSTER, the name this 60-vote supermajority used to go by when it was used (or threatened) by Democrats.
Nothing funny about this kind of dishonest discourse... Predictable, yes. Funny. Not so much.
July 14, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's hoping that two years from now, the LA Times will be writing about the "overwhelming veto-proof majority" the Dems hold, and we can put this "bipartisan" away.
I have to say, though, that I'm not entirely optimistic.
July 14, 2007 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually the Congress would be be pandering to their base if they did what they were elected to do.
They have been pandering to corporate money for the last twenty years and it is about farging times that the people get a little sugar thrown their way.
Imagine a country of, for and by the people . . .
July 14, 2007 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tyranny of objectivity...
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
July 14, 2007 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"On July 14, 2007 - 12:02pm whiterosebuddy said:
"It seems like the NY Times got their headline wrong. The Democratic withdrawal Bill is "Supporting the American majority" who voted for a Democratic majority Congress in 06. This Bill is actually American Democracy at work. Proving to the masses that their votes count."
"Supporting"? Or representing?
July 14, 2007 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"moderates" - That was the slam on Howard Dean in 2004 and Ned Lamont in 2006, that they weren't "moderate" on the war! No wonder most
Americans don't become involved in activism against the war even though they oppose it and are angry about it.
July 15, 2007 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "mainstream media" printed press will soon go the way of the dinosaurs, the internet will reign supreme. Heck even TV news is on the way out...They are losing readers and viewers at an increasing rate, and the reading and viewing habits of the next generation will NOT include daily newspapers or broadcast newscasts or even cable newscasts as they presently exist. Unless they get back to their muckraking roots, and it may even be too late already, in 10-20 years there will only be a handful left...
July 15, 2007 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
I can't pass on this one:
Well here's a Democratic Senator who's setting an "example" of pandering to the base, but's it not the "base" that Voinvich thinks it is that the NYT reported:
When's someone going to ask 'rubber-stamp' Voinovich when he's going to start supporting the troops instead of covering the President's ass?
~OGD~
July 16, 2007 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink