Compare and contrast. The Bull Moose:
Democrats must make a decision. At the moment, the party is incoherent in a decisively weak fashion. Democrats should certainly not be “cheerleaders” for this Administration but Democrats should be doing back-flips for democracy – a novel concept, that.
Is the donkey’s message getting out or getting it right? And let’s understand what the meaning of the term “redeployment”. It is a cute euphemism that means giving up – no one is confused about its meaning. If we leave Iraq, does anyone seriously believe that we will re-invade? Will Zarqawi and his buddies interpret a redeployment as anything but an American retreat? Let’s be honest.
And honesty is the best policy when it comes to Iraq. The President is very belatedly coming to that conclusion, as was somewhat evident in his speech on Wednesday. It is high time that we not only get candor from this Administration – it is also the moment when the Bushies should seriously reach out to Democratic hawks. If we are to be successful in this war, a bi-partisan domestic coalition is imperative. And it would be useful if the President gave Rummy a gold watch and showed him the door.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.
Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad.
“There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position,” Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.
Are these mutually exclusive positions. Is one right the other wrong? Both wrong? Which of these two approaches will lead the Democrats to the promised land?
Confederate Yankee
At this point I’d suggest they start with 40 years in the desert… ;-)
Sojourner
This begs the question, of course, of whether success is even possible. Without a serious re-definition of what constitutes success.
Paddy O'Shea
The premise of the Bull Moose article is wrong. Should we pull out of Iraq the Shi’ite dominated govt in Baghdad will call in aid and troops from their allies in Iran to help them deal with what is now basically a Sunni minority insurgency.
If we should not longer prove willing to help the Shi’ite fundamentalists deal with their enemies, there is another party more than willing to jump in.
The idea that we would somehow be abandoning the people of Iraq to the forces of evil as personified by Zarqawi is childish nonsense. This is a far more complex situation than that. We are basically now performing the function Saddam Hussein was originally installed to perform, that is, holding off any expansion into Iraq by Tehran. Only this time the Sunnis hate us as well.
Marcus Wellby
I don’t think it is a question of approach, but what future candidate ends up articulating the chosen approach. If the dems put forward another Kerry-esque vacillator it won’t really matter what the message is.
Though that being said, I think a 2006 agenda with no mention of Iraq will play right into the GOP “Dems have no plan” talking point.
God, I really can’t stand the current GOP, but how the hell am I supposed to get excited about the dems?
dorkafork
The Democrats are trying to have their cake and eat it, too, by having an anti-war position on Iraq while not “officially” taking an anti-war stance. And the Republicans are going to use this to their advantage by doing things like this.
SomeCallMeTim
I’m not sure either will, but I’d bet on Pelosi well before Whittman. Whittman is a well-known Republican shill whose Southern roots and Southern attitudes got him a sinecure in the Southern-obsessed DLC. He’s used that platform to build a justification for voting for Republican John McCain.
Whittman may know what works in the South, but who the fuck cares? Democrats aren’t going to win in Whittman’s South, and, given what they’d have to do to even have a shot, I’m not sure I want them to. Gawd willing, the party will look to the West and the Southwest, and tell the South and it’s amenuensis, the DLC, to fuck off.
Jorge
I really think that what you are seeing is the Moose talking about the way he thinks things “should be” and Pelosi talking about the way things really are. The Democrats are split about the war. And if you look at polling numbers, it looks like Republicans and independents are as well. And the split isn’t an either or type of split. Actually, the better word is “fragemented.” The country is fragemented into various camps with various views on the war.
Either way, I half imagine the Moose will flip sides in 2008 if his old boss McCain gets the nomination.
Paddy O'Shea
dorkafork: November of 2006 is a long ways away. And given what is happening with the various investigations into the corruption that has typified GOP rule of Congress these last few years, do you honestly believe that anything the GOP leadership there does will have a positive influence on the voters?
My gut is GOP corruption will be a more important issue in 2006. Not the George “Bad Intelligence Made Me Do It!” Bush’s tragic fuck-ups in Iraq won’t be important, mind you. But in the end a national “throw the crooks out” consensus will be far more decisive.
Steve S
Well the Bull Moose is spewing wishful thinking. There’s no war in Iraq. We’re just sitting around as target practice. Try to tell the hay bales at an archery range that they can win the war.
And I’m not terribly impressed with Pelosi’s lack of thinking.
So the answer is neither.
Jack Murtha was onto something, and it needs to be the Democrats unified message. The problem is, he hit conservative themes and there are many in the party who are unwilling to embrace them no matter how right, because they feel it undermines their long discredited arguments.
That’s the fundamental problem. Democrats need to start thinking about issues from other angles, and come up with a unified vision for everything, and abandon some old ideas that haven’t worked.
If they could do that, they’d sweep 2006 and 2008. But there’s too many old hacks in the party whoc an’t think outside the box.
But don’t worry. The Republicans have a plan. It doesn’t matter that it is an incompetent plan. They’ve got a plan. Democrats can just wait for the whole country to collapse under GOP rule, and then pick up the pieces out of desperation.
Steve S
The interesting thing about that stunt, is it hurt the Republicans. Had they ignored Murtha, they might have gotten somewhere. Instead they embraced him, trumpeted what he said, and the debate changed to when do we pull out.
I’d never heard of Jack Murtha before. In the past month I’ve heard him give no less than a dozen speeches and interviews, courtesy of my local news.
And the more I hear of him, the more I realize he has a clue. He’s not just some flapjack flapping in the wind.
Steve S
I do have to agree. I don’t understand what happened to the DLC, and when they lost their way. The legacy of Clinton was a fiscally responsible, socially libertarian agenda. What’s with the social conservative nonsense?
Paddy O'Shea
Huge defeat for Bush and the rest of his Constitution hating cohort. The Senate just shot down the Patriot Act extensions he demanded.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act
Bush- Constitution “Just A Goddamned Piece Of Paper’
http://www.rense.com/general69/paper.htm
First torture, now he can’t spy on Americans as well? What will Georgie do?
Lines
Ah yes, the classic Bush strategy. Go for fear, paranoia and nationalism. The only thing missing was the use of 9/11 as a cudgel.
tbrosz
Paddy: the only source for that “piece of paper” quote is Capitol Hill Blue. I’m supposed to believe that of all the congressmen and aides that were at that meeting and supposedly heard Bush say this, Doug Thompson was the only reporter they talked to about it?
Jack Roy
Come, come now, John, this is the mushiest thinking I’ve read all morning! Are they inconsistent? The Bull Moose is propounding what seems to the Bull Moose the wisest position on an issue, and Nancy Pelosi is saying that Democrats like the Bull Moose are free to propound what they feel is the wisest position on the issue, that there will be no party line enforced. Are they inconsistent? They aren’t even about the same thing, really, unless you want to conflate outcomes and procedure.
As to which will lead to Democratic electoral gains, well, neither, obviously. For two years Democrats obeyed the Daschle doctrine of unanimously standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the president on all matters of foreign policy, and hope that somehow voters would care about Social Security on election day. That, uh, didn’t work, as voters interpreted the lack of a Democratic voice on the issue to be an admission of weakness (understandably). Now we have the Pelosi doctrine of letting each Democrat figure it out for himself, which while admirably respectful of individual opinions, is likely to result in a cacophony of contradictory opinions—most mainstream voters will interpret it as a tacit admission that the Democrats still do not have a real position on the war.
Now, if you were to ask me (and I will interpret from the lack of any interest in my opinions by the political professionals that there’s really not much to be gained by doing so), I’d say what Democrats ought to be saying something along the lines of:
Congrats, elections, but that wasn’t why Americans thought we were going to war, and now that there are elections, there’s really very little for us to do here. Americans lined up behind this war to prevent Saddam from getting nukes and to punish any Iraqis who assisted al Qaeda, not to stay in Iraq until it looks like Belgium. The original mission no longer needs to be prosecuted, and the extended mission doesn’t enjoy the support of the American public. The Administration must get this message: If Donald Rumsfeld is serious about staying for six years, the Congress will revoke his authority to prosecute this war. Whether we take Murtha’s suggestion to maintain over-the-horizon presence or withdraw to Lebanon or just scale down our presence, there is no further justification for our costly military presence beyond retaining the capability to destroy terrorist training camps, and we are way over-committed, troop-wise, if that’s the only justification. Decrease our troop levels, not to zero, but to a smaller number commensurate with the remaining mission, and quit leaving our boys in harm’s way simply to prove a point that the Republican president was forthright.
emily
Is it important that the Dems have a unified mission going into 2006? They want to win a bunch of state-level races, not a big, national one, so it kind of makes sense to leave them free to appeal to the interests of their individual constituencies.
This won’t help them develop their image as a party capable of leading on a national level, but it might help them gain ground in Congress. Is two years then enough time to form and communicate a vision of leadership for 2008?
Pb
emily,
If they’re going to lead in 2008, I think it helps to know who the leader is going to be. And that’s going to be the real dilemma facing both parties.
Brian
Sojourner, if you don’t believe that success is possible, it won’t be possible. Why should anyone here try and grope for a definition of “success” for you for a war you (I suspect) oppose? You’ll keep moving the rhetorical goalposts to avoid targeting any definition, thanks to the desire of you and your ilk to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
As far as I am concerned, this week’s election in Iraq is a resounding sign of success. If you don’t, then any person trying to convince you otherwise is setting off on a fool’s errand.
I think they have a seat warm for you over at Crooks & Liars. Maybe you can find some like-minded wound-lickers over there to snuggle with.
Cyrus
In terms of the ethics and the good of America/Iraq, it’s hard to say who’s right. For example, would a clear and unified Democratic position be better than no single official position? It depends on if that position is correct – and if the people in charge would listen to it. Bush hasn’t hesitated to assimilate left-wing big government ideas when he can use them, but doing so in regards to the war (depending on what those ideas are) would be tantamount to admitting he’s wrong. And we know how common that is.
But politically I think the Bull Moose’s “advice” (before reading the comments in this thread I had no idea he was a Democrat) is way off here. No one ever accused the Bush administration at being bad at campaigning, so don’t give them something to campaign against. Simple. Eventually (hopefully) their strawmen will become unmistakably egregious, and the Democrats open-mindedness and diversity of opinion will (hopefully) contrast more and more with an administration dumb and insular enough to think nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was a good idea. Almost any official party position could be used as a negative by the side that already has the bully pulpit, but this way Dems only have to defend their own ideas. (Er, well, it’s worth a shot.) And if changes in the situation on the ground require changes in policy, it doesn’t look inconsistent or dishonest if the eventual official stance or the 2008 candidate’s stance is different from what’s expected. All that, accomplished by vigorous open debate and addressing the issues rather than dodging them.
Too optimistic of me? Well, maybe. But it sure sounds better than a strategy that amounts to “be predictable.”
Steve S
I agree. We should go back to the original definition of victory.
We shall be greeted in the streets with flowers and candy!
Oops, talk about moving the goalposts.
Zifnab
The bottom line is that the Dems have been the push-overs since 2000. They lost two presidental elections that they honestly should have won – once through the SC and once through sheer political incompetence. They’ve been redistricted out of Texas, scammed out of Ohio and Florida, and marginalized across the rest of the country. The Democrats don’t look weak, they are weak. Coming out with the staunch position of “we have no position” will not make the Dems look any stronger.
Like the drug-hussled city youth or the abused and battered housewife, the Democratic party has to put its foot down in a united agenda to Just Say No to dumb wars. While they’re at it, I’d appreciate if they tried a harder line of just saying no to corporate greed and political corruption. The Pelosi “culture of corruption” line is very pretty in print, but I’d like to see a more public and aggressive approach to battling the culture wars that really matter.
When Republican spokesman Bill O’Reily spends two hours a day rallying the troops around the War on Christmas, it would be nice to see someone other than John Stewart pounce on the Cunninghams and DeLays and Frists that have really been Grinching up the new year.
Pb
Steve S,
You mean curveball wasn’t being straight with us? :)
fwiffo
Whittman is a world-class hypocrite and fool. He constantly berates the Democrats for not accepting his right-of-center positions, while simultaneously tearing them down for trying to have a big tent. I forget which blogger recently asked this, but it bears repeating – is there any evidence that Whittman is actually a Democrat?
Currently, a half of the country could be describe as “anti-war”, and a strong majority want either an immediate withdrawl, or a withdrawl over the next year-ish. Does it not make sense to give those people someone to vote for?
Bob In Pacifica
This whole “either or” choice is the kind of non-nuanced black-or-white world which reactionary thinkers use to slice things up. I haven’t read Pelosi’s statement, but saying that the Democratic Party welcomes differing opinions sounds a lot better than Jean Schmidt’s screeching.
If I were running the Dems I would hit on the following themes:
1. The Bush Administration lied in the lead-up to Iraq. I would continue demanding (and having obliging Republicans deny) hearings on the Downing Street Memo, the forged Niger documents, the Plame Affair, etc. The story is already out there now and the Good Ship Lie-A-Lot is taking in water, but by pushing the Republican Congress’ refusal to look into this pattern of outright Administration lying the Dems will show why people need to change things in the House and Senate in order to get to the truth in this matter.
1a. Bush is incapable of cleaning up the mess he made in the Middle East.
1b. Bush is bankrupting the country with this war. In all of history, no one has given tax cuts in time of war until Bush, and his tax cuts have been to his crony friends.
2. Ask for hearings bringing the players who lied us into war up to the Hill. The WH will refuse, the Republicans will block, and will portray themselves in the public eye as hiding high crimes. Feinstein’s release about how the WH did and does not share the same intel with Congress was a good start at deflating that particular lie. Publicize every time the WH refuses a document request or a witness to testify.
3. Find as many pictures of Republicans with oil corporation officials. Pictures of Bush et al with all the corporate criminals. Enron. Maybe a collage moving from Big Tony Moscietello (sic?) through Kidan, Abramoff, Delay to Bush. Maybe ending with a picture of Gus Boulis lying in a pool of blood with Bush saying that Tom Delay is innocent.
4. Use the Administration’s continuing clusterfuck of New Orleans as an example of how the Administration, despite its Big Brother posturing, does not really protect its citizens. Repeat that a political party that believes that government is bad can only govern badly. Point out how the Bush Administration encourages the flight of jobs overseas. Show how WHITE PEOPLE in Louisiana and Mississippi have been screwed by Administration.
5. Corruption, corruption, corruption.
Marcus Wellby
I will wager that perhaps ONE dem will run on a platform consisting of the themes you mention. The problem is, the rest of the dems will run a campaign against that individual.
rayabacus
I think the Democrat Party will continue to have a problem winning elections until they can come up with a platform of what they stand for. Being against the Administration garners only a finite number of votes.
An example of what I mean is Bob in Pacifica’s five point plan above. Nowhere in that plan is there a mention of what the Democrats stand for.
Being anti-Bush, as the Democrat policy, is not going to win the WH in 2008.
Ram
To Bob in Pacifica:
From your mouth to Chairman Dean’s ears, Bob. From your mouth to Chairman Dean’s ears.
Oh – and thank you again for giving that fellow the chairmanship of the your Democratic National Committee. We may not always say so, but we are truly grateful.
Pax,
Ram
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
Wow. My kinda guy.
Steve S
A more crucial question…
Is there any evidence that Whittman has ever held a real job?
I’m sorry, but you know… I think I’m getting tired of no-talent hacks giving their commentary on America when they’ve never even held a real job.
That’s pretty much all of the opinionheads in the media, especially most of the Republicans.
ats
It is true that the Democrats haven’t yet provided a coherent solution to the mess we are in. On the other hand, they haven’t handed us a bill for half a trillion dollars either.
Paddy O'Shea
Rayabacus, you never fail to amuse. But that tired old meme? Haven’t you been keeping up with your Rush Limbaugh listening or something? There has to be something new that you Bushie Bobbleheads can repeat over and over a couple hundred times that is more convincing than that tired howler.
Let’s see, what is it that the Republicans are FOR? Could it be that $1.05 trillion increase in the national debt they’ve run up? No? Maybe that quagmire in Iraq they stuck us with? You know, the one that President Bush said this week was caused by something he called bad intelligence? (Now there’s a cause to rally all Americans to the war cause – “Our intelligence is bad! Bring it on!” Coming from Shrub that intelligence claim is completely believable.) Is that what the GOP stands for? Do the Republicans now stand for corruption? You know, all those fat-assed cash gobbling pork packing slugs that were on the Jack Abramoff gravy train? Is that what the Republicans stand for?
And what do the Democrats stand for? That’s easy:
1) Throw the corrupt greedy bums out of office. Bring honor back to government.
2) Fiscal responsibity. Clinton balanced the budget, Bush Gannoned it with extreme prejudice.
3) Deal with Iraq as it needs to be dealt with, as a fucked up horrible mess. Salvage what we can, stop spending so much money on it, and for God’s sake get our troops out of the line of fire. The United States of America has never before put its people in the kind of harm’s way that Bush and the inept band of jackasses who handle his affairs have put them in. It is time to put our people first and stop letting the terrorists use them for target practice.
Really, Ray. When you’re running against people as badly compromised as the Republicans are right now, the issues of solvency, honesty and responsibility are naturals for the Dems.
Jack Roy
Not to play perfesser here, but one thing I did learn in grad school is that the midterm elections either (a) play on national sentiment of the incumbent party as a whole if the out-party is able to “nationalize” the election, and thereby persuade voters to vote their preferences of the whole party, or (b) play on individual districts’ approval of their representatives if the the in-party is able to “localize” the election, and thereby persuade voters to evaluate their reps based on how many shiny new bridges they’ve delivered to the district. Occasionally the in-party wants to nationalize the election (think 2002), but it’s rarer, and with the incumbent party unpopular on the grand themes of government but still able to deliver the bacon, it’s in the Democrats’ interest to make the election a referendum on … well, any national issue, but dare I suggest it’ll be Bush and the war, with Social Security reform and the deficit playing supporting roles.
Frank
Nancy is right and the Bull Moose is wrong.
mike f
We went to war against Germany because they threatened our allies – we knew we won when the German military was destroyed and the threat was gone.
We went to war against Japan because they attacked Pearl Harbor and they were attempting to control the Pacific – we knew we’d won when their fleet was shattered and they could no longer project their power overseas.
Establishing democracies in Germany and Japan was a bonus, not the reason for the war.
We went to war in the Persian Gulf because Saddam had annexed Kuwait and threatened our oil supply in Saudi Arabia – that war was over when we’d demolished his army and pushed him back over the border.
We went to war in Afghanistan because the Taliban harbored Al Qaeda and allowed them to train against us – that war has been pretty successful but is still incomplete.
Even the Vietnam and Korean wars had specific goals. Kick the Communists out and you’ve won. Vietnam was a loss, Korea was a split decision.
Bush recently said that even knowing Saddam had no WMD and wasn’t a serious threat against us he still would have gone to war. So what was it for? Can anyone tell me what “total victory” in Iraq will mean? Answer that question and then I’ll tell you what I think the Democrat’s position should be.
Bob In Pacifica
rayabacus, You are right that the Dems are unfortunately in a position of being out of power and thus tend to react because of that. Still, negative advertising, which has been a province of the Republicans since Johnson’s child picking a flower commercial, does work, and there is nothing like showing how the other side screwed up. A shot of Bush promising to rebuild New Orleans on a split screen with all the scandals of FEMA’s non-response followed by WHITE people complaining about how Bush didn’t deliver is easy. The above-described video connection between Bush (or Delay and 40-odd Republican congressmen) and Gus Boulis’ murder. Bush promising a balanced budget versus what he did. Etc., etc. So negative is very important and effective.
Sure, the Demos should point out what they stand for as far as support for the middle class (and by inference the poor) but it should be a positive position versus what the Republicans did.
+++
The problem is that people make their decisions by emotions, mostly emotions that are embedded rather than anything that they understand consciously. I just started reading Wilhelm Reich’s THE MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM which combines Freudian theory on infantile sexual repression, patriarchy, and how that emotional structure internalized in individuals is reflected in the idealized fascist state. Actually, for those of you who get sweaty about using fascism or Nazi, the comparison can be used with just about any organized political state or government, the difference is just a matter of degree.
Reich shows how personal honor, family honor, racial honor (otherwise known as prejudice), national honor, patriotism, this all flows from the sexually repressive patriarchy. That’s why hearth and home is just a miniature of the state. Thus, the Fatherland and its not-quite-as-extreme Homeland.
It’s important for Republican propaganda to show strong, masculine leadership, hence the shots of Bush at ground zero, or on the aircraft carrier with his codpiece. And it’s important for Republicans to feminize Kerry effetely windsurfing, or construct a false mythology about his cowardice in Vietnam when their own leadership consists of draft-dodgers and a rich boy who deserted his national guard unit.
The Demos need to puncture the Republicans’ false bravado, false patriotism and false masculinity.
Actually, the best Demo ad would be to do a Gannon/Bush hit piece saying how hypocritical Bush is to be having kinky sex with a male prostitute while trying to ban gay marriage. Bush’s base may not vote Democratic, but they’d probably stay home.
By the way, the gay marriage thing, the war on Christmas and all the other happy horseshit that gets churned out by the fundy forces of the Republicans fits nicely into Reich’s theory of fascism.
Birkel
Methinks this thread portends further diminution of Democratic power in Congress in 2006.
Only 15-20 more years of wilderness, guys. Keep the faith.
Paddy O'Shea
Bush Least Popular US President: Survey
President George W. Bush ranks as the least popular and most bellicose of the last 10 US presidents, according to a new survey.
Only nine percent of the 662 people polled picked Bush as their favorite among the last 10 presidents.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Bush-least-popular-US-president-survey/2005/12/17/1134703632280.html
Can we say albatross?
Jack Roy
Paddy O’Shea, the current president is almost always going to be the “least popular” of the last ten, for the simple fact that the other party will hate the current prez the most, and his own party will split their hatred among about five former presidents.
Jack Roy
Which isn’t to detract from the truth that Bush will be seen as one of this nation’s worst presidents, and history will judge Iraq as a more senseless military misadventure than any other. Just that study isn’t very good evidence of that.
Bob In Pacifica
Birkel, nah nah nahnah nah is a little short on insight.
Reactionaries need negatives to shake themselves from the trough of bullshit on which they normally feed. Which is why I say the Demos need to go heavy with the negative. Tom Delay with a smoking gun standing over Gus Boulis’ body. A clip of an effeminate “fabulous” rolling off nancyboy Bush’s tongue next to a censored picture from Jeff Gannon’s website. Duke Cunningham sobbing to the camera. It’s all good. With the Prez calling the Constitution “just a goddamned piece of paper” and Bush using the NSA to spy on American citizens, hey, why not just top it all off with a top man like Gannon?
What you think, Birkel? Should Demos talk issues or talk prostitutes in the White House and K Street?
Sojourner
OMG. I cannot believe you’re stupid enough to make this argument. Moving the goal posts? Please. How about trying to find an excuse for starting this idiotic war in the first place.
Shame on you for an incredibly embarassing argument.
Beej
Clinton and the DLC made hay and history out of their understanding that a huge majority of the American voting public is fiscally conservative but socially moderate/liberal. I haven’t seen any recent polls that state this precisely, but I’d be willing to bet the numbers haven’t changed all that much.
With a war in progress, I would just add one more category. A huge majority of the American public is patriotic (no, patriotic and nationalistic are not the same thing although both ends of the spectrum confuse them from time to time)and patriotism, to most people, means that you don’t walk away from a war, no matter how it started, and leave the people you thought you were helping to the tender mercies of those who care nothing about the people (or tender mercy for that matter)and only seek revenge, or power, or religious hegemony, or. . . .nothing that we would see as good.
If the Democrats want to have any chance of taking back Congress and putting one of their own in the WH in ’08, they need to figure out a way to combine fiscal conservatism, social moderation/liberalism, and an approach to the Iraq war that doesn’t fly in the face of the patriotic beliefs of the majority of Americans. To cut and run is not the answer.
serena1313
War “is” a matter of conscience and in that manner Pelosi is correct. But many of the Dems are not stating their position, Iam not sure if all the Republicans have either. Yet by defining the opposition first it eventually becomes CW. Because the Dems are split — as if they are supposed to line-up, rank and file — implies it is a “bad” thing; it makes them look weak. On the other hand the Republicans re_mind me of the Stepford wives. It has been implied it is a “good” thing they stick together, regardless of their conscience.
In that sense personally, I would rather: the dems quit taking the easy road and stand up for what they believe and the republicans stop lining rank and file with the “party-line” and stand up for what they believe.
It demonstrates little if any imagination, ingenuity, foresight, and/or creativity when standing with the “party” just for the sake of the party rather than standing firm on one’s principles. And it questions the integrity of the person. On another note it could explain in part, albeit a small part, why they lack fresh ideas, they are stagnate. Memorizing and repeating talking points, ‘support the troops and stay the course’ doesn’t leave room for much else. Individuality is under-rated.
Not that much contrast is seen between the republican party and the democratic party except the latter is too quiet. It seems as if they are too afraid to take a stand in fear of alienating voters. Although Murfa did take a stand [it is said he represents the brass who are not at liberty to speak publicly against the war which gives him that much more credibility if true] — he offered a plan, as have a few others, but MSN does not give much attention to that.
Basically we have lost the war even though we won a couple of battles….because …. we never made it about the IRAQI people. This war became a war on all Iraqis, their infrastructure and their oil. After their newspapers were shut down, torture became the norm rather than the exception, security nonexistent, little to no utilities: water, electricity and sewage, 500,000 Baathists disbanded, plus civilian men, women, and children slaughtered without discrimination, etc. … are just a few examples why we are losing the war.
Notwithstanding the chain-of-command flows down to the soldiers; they follow orders. The buck stops, for the manner in which the war has been run, in the executive office at the WH.
Meanwhile the majority of the Iraqi population wants the US out (82% or more). Yet we’ve built and/or are building a few permanent military bases there (14, last i heard). Recently it was written that the Iraq oil rights are about to be sold to the oil companies. A market economy is being set up which will benefit some, but most it will not. And there is some question as to the legality of elections under occupation.
If a democracy is to survive then they need to learn how to stand on their own, together without US interference. We became the problem long ago, the Iraqi people are the solution. It is their country — it is time we returned it to them. It is a matter of conscience.
Steve S
Huh?
The Republicans are already on the run. What good is it to have a majority in Congress if you can’t get any bills passed?
Bruce Moomaw
Now, THAT’S what I like (as expressed by Pelosi): intellectual seriousness from the opposing party on dealing with the most important issue confronting the nation right now. It reminds of what one columnist said after the 1932 political conventions: “Here we are in the middle of the biggest national crisis since the Civil War, and all that either of the two major political parties wants to talk about is booze.”
My own view — as expressed with the regularity of a cuckoo clock (no comments, please) — is that the biggest reason by far for getting the hell out of Iraq (except for, maybe, the Kurdish sector) is that it’s distracting us from, and crippling our ability to deal with, the deadliest problem which we now face, by an overwhelming margin: our ability to try to prevent REAL nuclear proliferation among dictatorships and shaky states (Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and for that matter Russia), and the nuclear terrorism (and other military crises) which it can very easily make possible. See Graham Allison’s “Nuclear Terrorism” for more fascinating little details.
If that little factor didn’t exist (which is asking what things would be like if the sky rained motor oil), a case could be made for our staying in Iraq at least a bit longer to see if things might conceivably pan out after all. There are still a few tentatively hopeful commentators who are brainier than the current burblings of Wittman and Sullivan on this subject (see Kaplan and Braude on the New Republic website, for instance). But I think the odds are very much against it — as Spencer Ackerman points out (also on the TNR website), not only do the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds have several centuries of tyranny and accumulated grievances standing between them, but the leading political factions of both the Shiites and Sunnis have already stated — publicly — that they intend to keep the violent part of their war going SIMULTANEOUSLY with their political maneuverings for power in the new legislature. A neat twist on Clausewitz: politics as the continuation of war by other means.
I think the most we can hope for Iraq — and we’ll be lucky to get that — is for it to just turn back into yet another Arab dictatorship of the kind the region is so drearily accustomed to, if hopefully one somewhat less bloody (or at least less ambitious) than Saddam’s. Meanwhile, of course, Iran will have gotten the Bomb… King Pyrrhus knew what to call such victories.
Retief
Bull Moose’s specialty is “if I ran the Zoo” type of advice that always boils down to “what democrats should do to win is appeal to people exactly like me.” Until democrats actually control one of the levers of power, what good does a unified Iraq strategy do them? No good policywise; they don’t control policy. As for politics, do most contested seats depend on votes like whitman’s? And if they do, are those votes won better with a unified front on Iraq with which Whitman doesn’t agree or a rhetorical seperation from Nancy Pelosi?
Shygetz
I think that one view is a better way to do policy, and the other way is (apparently) a better way to do politics. I bet you can guess which I think is which. One of the problems with both parties is that they confuse the two–one thinks that what makes good policy also makes good politics, and the other thinks that what makes good politics also makes good policy. So you end up with a party with a unified message and tunnel vision in power, and a party with no discipline but a wide, nuanced vision unable to stop tripping over their own genetalia politically.
And I think that, in the end, it’s the people’s fault. What makes good politics depends on what the people want, and unfortunately the people want simple, clear answers to murky, complex problems.
Yehudit
Is the subtext: “Are we going to excommunicate Joe Leiberman, or showcase him as evidence of our big tent?”