Democratic strategy re Iraq according to Kevin Drum

[existentialist]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082505F.shtml

It's All About-Face for the Democrats
By Kevin Drum
The Los Angeles Times
Wednesday 24 August 2005

all worth reading for serious Democratic political strategists.]


The summer's polls show that one-third of Americans favor an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and nearly two-thirds support withdrawal within the next year. In the face of such numbers, the conventional wisdom predicts disaster at the polls for Republicans in the 2006 midterm elections. As conservative insider Grover Norquist put it recently: "If Iraq is in the rearview mirror in the '06 elections, the Republicans will do fine. But if it's still in the windshield, there are problems."

Is this good news for Democrats? Maybe, but a growing disconnect between the party's establishment hawks and an increasingly antiwar base could foretell an even bigger crackup on the Democratic than the Republican side. So far, none of the best known faces of the Democratic Party - Hillary Clinton, say, or Joe Biden, or John Kerry, all of whom supported the war - have joined those clamoring for an end to the fighting. In fact, the foreign policy establishment of the Democratic Party is lined up with President Bush in favor of "staying the course."

Needless to say, an internecine war between its hawks and doves is the last thing the beleaguered Democratic Party needs. You can be sure that Karl Rove would do his best to hammer such a wedge straight through the heart of the party come election time. So both Democratic factions would be well-advised to do some serious thinking before their disagreements get out of hand.

For their part, members of the antiwar left have an easy role: They should continue to push establishment Democrats to support withdrawal from Iraq, but they should also make it clear that no one will be punished for doing so, regardless of their past support for the war. However angry they are, doves can best serve their cause by not demanding tortured explanations and tearful apologies. A change in position should be enough.

[Teaser]

1. Agreed. I don't need a mea culpa

I just want a change in policy.

[belle]

10. yup.

[wellst0nev0ter]

2. The Republicans Have Lost Iraq. The Republicans Have Lost Iraq.

Drum is wrong, wrong, WRONG. Democrats should stop acting as if they had any influence in managing the Iraq war. They hardly ever had a seat during major legislation, and they gave up their right to lend a hand in managing the war when the Democratically-controlled Senate handed Bush his Iraq war with a silver bow.

No, Democrats have to frequently and forcefully lay this mess upon Republicans. Instead of saying "We must formulate an exit plan for leaving a stable Iraq." say "Republicans must formulate an exit plan for leaving a stable Iraq."

Always mention the litany of failures Republicans have made in Iraq, and never let up. If someone asks you what would Democrats have done differently, always frame the question back to Republicans, like "Unlike the Republicans who have lost Iraq. . ." or "First I would remove the incompetent Republicans from office. . ." I say it's time Democrats stop being split on the issue and rally around a point we can all agree on: it's all the fault of Republicans.

[berni_mccoy]

5. You are absolutely right

Don't let them slither out from underneath their own shit. THEY did this.

And what's bad for them is that the * admin HAS NO PLANS on leaving Iraq before the 2006 elections... the republican congress is DOOOMED!!!

Bush is gonna give them his middle finger just like he gave it to the rest of America.

[Independent_Liberal]

7. Right, they are DOOMED!

:)

[wli]

3. "Republicans are genocidal maniacs" works for me n/t

[Independent_Liberal]

6. Works for me too.

:)

[welshTerrier2]

4. 2/3 of Americans want immediate or near-term withdrawal

defining "near-term" withdrawal as one year or less, 2/3 of Americans have seen more than enough of this insane war ... while the poll did not indicate the percentage among Democrats, it seems likely that the withdrawal numbers are even greater than that ...

let's just pick a range out of thin air and say that somewhere between 75% and maybe 85% of Democrats want the US to leave Iraq in one year or less ... and let's make a more important point than mere statistical estimation: a heavy majority of Democrats want to set a time limit and leave whether anything is achieved during that period of time or not ...

now let's listen to the kinds of themes being sounded by some of our prominent Democrats ... the most common theme i hear is "we're stuck there" ... there's also lots of talk about what a mess bush has made but very few are willing to say that if progress isn't made in the near future, we should leave ... almost every Democrat has set the standard that WE CAN'T LEAVE until some goal or other is achieved ...

perhaps these Democrats are choosing the best "political strategy" ... perhaps they have calculated that the Party can never again afford to be labeled as weak on defense and they believe that "making the right call" on Iraq (i.e. withdrawal) would make the Party susceptible to that charge ... and perhaps these Democrats have a deeper understanding of what foreign policy is best for the country ... perhaps their data show more positive trends than we, the American people and more specifically Democrats have come to believe ... of course, after his recent return from Iraq, Biden observed that the training of Iraqi troops was close to non-existent ... just how positive can anyone honestly be based on that information?

and to those who want to pretend that those of us calling for immediate or near-term withdrawal represent an extreme minority, a 1% extreme "leftist" fringe, 75% or more is a pretty large fringe, wouldn't you say?

the disconnect between prominent Democrats and mainstream Democrats is far more than just alarming ... Democratic "leaders" are very badly out of touch with their own constituents ... how many elected Democrats hold regular public meetings in their districts to exchange ideas with mainstream voters? i think most of them have failed to take the time to listen to us and i think they have failed to educate us on why they currently hold the position on Iraq that they do ... absent this communication, the Party will remain at very great risk ...

there's a saying that says "when the people lead, the leaders will follow" ... it sure ain't true so far ...

[Clarkie1]

8. No, no, no!

"In fact, the foreign policy establishment of the Democratic Party is lined up with President Bush in favor of 'staying the course.'"

That is Rove's propaganda, and it doesn't help our side to promote it!

There are other options besides "staying the course" and "cuttting and running."

[LittleClarkie]

12. It is indeed oversimplified

There is a difference between:

Wanted to be there in the first place

and

Okay, it's a mess. So now what do we do.

Clark has been oversimplified as a "stay the course" guy, when he just wants to get it right and then get out. The idea is to try to patch up what we can so that the place is stable, but the idea is also to try and get out of there as soon as we can.

Kerry has been oversimplified the same way. How many times does he have to say that Iraq is a distraction from the real fight against Bin Laden before people will believe him?

I'd have to check on Hillary to be sure, but it seems to me that both she and Bill have indeed been overly supportive of Bush in Iraq.

There is a difference between saying "stay the course" as if you think that Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 or terrorism and is therefore a fight that was worth fighting from the start, and then there's recognizing that the thing's fubar but wanting to prevent the bigger fubar if we leave without trying to tidy up the joint first.

The first is disconnected from reality, the other is trying to do what may be impossible. I may not agree with it, but I understand why some think we need to try.

But in the black and white world some live in, there is either "OUT NOW!!" or not "OUT NOW!!"

And that is too binary as far as I'm concerned and doesn't deal with much of the reality that is Iraq.

[Clarkie1]

14. Well said. Thanks for the elaboration of my point. n/t

[kerrygoddess]

9. Read this and

posted about it last week. Interesting.

[welshTerrier2]

11. link?

did you mean to include a link in your post?

[madfloridian]

13. They don't need to apologize, just say they were wrong.

They do not have to use the words, "I'm sorry." But they have to act accordingly.

"For their part, members of the antiwar left have an easy role: They should continue to push establishment Democrats to support withdrawal from Iraq, but they should also make it clear that no one will be punished for doing so, regardless of their past support for the war. However angry they are, doves can best serve their cause by not demanding tortured explanations and tearful apologies. A change in position should be enough."

I am afraid he is simplifying things here. They are not going to change their position unless we demand it. Maybe not even then.

[LittleClarkie]

15. But Mad, I don't see Dean as being much different than Kerry or Clark

in this regard. I think they support eventual withdrawl, but just aren't "out now" people.

[welshTerrier2]

16. "out now" is something of a strawman ...

i'd like to try to make a distinction between two key views on Iraq ...

referring to the position, which many do actually prefer, as "out now" misses the essential message of what i believe is the majority view ...

the REAL difference that i see is between those who believe we cannot leave Iraq until SOMETHING (the criteria vary) is achieved versus those who believe that if we can't get it done by (your date here) we should leave ...

the time period among those calling for withdrawal varies ... while i am indeed a proponent of "out now", i'm more than willing to compromise on a reasonably short-term alternative ... i am not willing, however, to buy into an unlimited occupation until some criteria is met ...

the essential difference is NOT the amount of time but rather the criteria on which a decision to withdraw would be based ... those who take positions that use phrases like "we're stuck there" or "we can't leave until ..." are proponents of the "meet some criteria" view ... the other view is not necessarily "out now"; it's "we're not willing to invest beyond" EVEN IF nothing is accomplished ...

[madfloridian]

17. I was NOT posting about Dean.

I don't know where that comment came from. I think as a matter of conscience the ones who voted for the war and still approve of it are wrong.

I think they owe it to the country to say so.

I can not post anything without it being turned into something else.

I did not like Kevin Drum's comment, and I quoted him...how did Dean get into the equation.