Iraq Debate Count

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 15:50


The Chris Dodd campaign has done a great job with its debate talk clock meter. I would like to introduce a new debate meter, one that measures how many times Iraq was mentioned in each of the last five debates. The pattern is illuminating:

Iraq peaked as an issue in the Democratic primary in late September, when the residual forces issue hit the mainstream. Since then, it has been a straight, downward decline, with mentions of Iraq cut 80% over the last five debates. Iraq is clearly being "taken off the table," not only by Democrats but also by the media outlets that sponsor their debates. Bill Richardson seems to be just about the only candidate discussing Iraq these days.

Avoiding Iraq is a path to doom for Democratic candidates. In the two most hotly contested special elections this year, MA-05 and OH-05, Republican candidates over-performed first by blurring on Iraq themselves, and then by benefiting from the Democratic candidate taking Iraq off the table. It unfortunately seems to be the path we are walking down. I think we need a series of primaries that will match the impact of Lieberman-Lamont last year in order to, once again, make this point clear to the Democratic establishment.

Chris Bowers :: Iraq Debate Count

Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Iraq Debate Count | 15 comments
If you want primaries (0.00 / 0)
Pick challengers who are clearly to the right of the incumbent on some highly visible issues so that you send a clear signal that Iraq as an issue outweighs all others.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

Not unless you aim to lose (4.00 / 1)
You can make the party realise Iraq is the important issue by making that front and centre in those campaigns. Electing someone who leans to the right just means that they'll hold up the progressive movement once Iraq stops being an issue.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
I should specify (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure if I made it clear, but I mean primary challengers who are to the right of the incumbent on certain non-Iraq issues, but who are to the left on Iraq and press the war issue aggressively.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
I know (0.00 / 0)
But Iraq won't be around as an issue forever, even if the worst comes to the worst and permanent bases are established. Nor is it really a long-term issue - the question of how the U.S. relates to the world is, but Iraq is just a sub-section of that.

So putting in congresscritters superior on the Iraq position but inferior in other respects could be a problem in a decade's time, when issues like energy, a fairer tax code, poverty and women's rights are going to be relatively more prominent.

A more right-wing candidate running mostly on Iraq will not be perceived differently from a more left-wing candidate running mostly on Iraq, they'll just be more of a problem for us once they get in to office.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
I'm coming around to the position (0.00 / 0)
That the Murtha/Hoyer fight for Majority Leader was the defining moment of the current Congressional regime.  Murtha's loss pretty much undercut Pelosi's authority and made it clear that she has to negotiate with the different factions in the party rather than lead Democrats as a whole.  I know that some people in the lefty blogosphere didn't really like Murtha because of his issue positions, when party loyalty was more important.

I'd be happy to launch primary challenges mainly at the most liberal Dems who voted for Hoyer over Murtha, if we can find out who they are, because I think that would send the biggest message that no one is safe.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
even dumber than taking Iraq of the table (0.00 / 0)
The problem with Iraq being taken off the table is that DC dipshits fear being attacked from the right, your advice is just another way to buy into the bigger frame that is the problem.

On twitter: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
This is all Rahm Emanuel's grand design. (0.00 / 0)
He has a flaming hard-on for the Democrats to push Iraq aside.  If anyone thinks that his influence is gone within the DCCC, they are kidding themselves.

It is a quid pro quo from Rahm:  you take his direction on Iraq or no DCCC money.

See where that got Tsongas and Weintraub?

NO the Dems are ready to go off a cliff at Rahm's direction over immigration.  Why is this guy so damned listened-to?

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.


"NO" = now (0.00 / 0)
sorry

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
NoveOn money (0.00 / 0)
The same Democrats, including many who took lots of MoveOn money were quite willing to throw them to the Republican wolves.  It is more than money.  Rahm must be accepted and acceptable within the DC-New York cocktail circuit.  If we found out anything in 2002, it should have been that taking Iraq off the table buys nothing.  If immigration was such a sure winner, how come the US never elected Pete Wilson President?  Or the Know Nothings?

[ Parent ]
Rahm's undeserved reputation precedes him. (4.00 / 1)
And, like Mark Penn, is worshipped and can do no wrong inside the beltway.

On Capitol Hill, people treat rahm with such god-like respect and fear, I sometimes think he actually has more pull than Pelosi.  People do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING Rahm requests of them.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.


[ Parent ]
Look, We're The Ones Fubaring Iraq (4.00 / 1)
Iraq is the issue, it is an issue as Max Cleland says, we should be beating Republicans over the head with every single day and yet, again our "leaders" are falling into the R's trap and not discussing it.

However, we should be smarter than that. We should, as we have on other issues, galvanize and demand action on this issue.

How can anyone in good faith support a candidate who won't commit to ending the war six years from now? How can you?

Did we not learn the lesson last fall?

If we don't get concrete promises of concrete action, we will end up with nothing.

Iraq's the issue. But we have to start talking about it


That's blatantly dishonest to include the last debate (4.00 / 2)
since, As DMR stated in the Republican (and I believe the Democratic debate), hot-button issues like Iraq, Illegal Immigration, and Iran will NOT be topics covered in this debate. That was the intention to ask more of the often-ignored issues like Education, Trade, and Taxes. Those 13 mentions were made without a question concerning it!

If you want a better comparison of WHO is ignoring the Iraq issue, look to which candidates actually spoke about Iraq those 13 times: Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson. Maybe you should have a diary about how Clinton/Obama are running away from this issue (and where is Chris Dodd here? i don't know).


Two notes (0.00 / 0)
First, I only heard that about the Republican debate, not the Democratic one. Your comment even indicates that you are not sure about the Democratic debate, either.

Second, the pattern is pretty clear even without that debate.

[ Parent ]
Regardless (0.00 / 0)
of whether or not she stated that they will NOT focus on those issues like she specifically said at the Republican said, she DID say that this debate is about the issues other than the main ones that are often ignored in most debates - implying that they're not going to talk about the Iraq War. And regardless, there wasn't a single question asked about the war. How can you honestly blame the Democratic Candidates for something like that?

One thing to remember is that in August/September, the issue of Iran wasn't nearly what it became in October/November after the Kyl-Lieberman amendment; both remain on the foreign policy front, but with the addition of Iran, some time is naturally going to be squeezed from the Iraq debate. Things do have nuances to them afterall.

I do agree with your overall claim that yes, the Iraq debate HAS lessened, but you're not taking into account the addition of Iran. And it's just dishonest to include last night's debate where no question was asked about iraq, intentionally, to focus on other issues.


[ Parent ]
They said so upfront. And? (0.00 / 0)
The fact that they said upfront that the war would not be discussed doesn't change the fact that the media was trying to sideline it as an issue. Sure, there is some merit in getting candidates to talk about their policies on a wider range of issues but the main difference is that they were open about ignoring the war.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Iraq Debate Count | 15 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox