We can all send Rahm Emmanuel, K Street and AIPAC a big wet kiss (0.00 / 0)

and a thank you note if we end up with a Republican president and a split Congress as a result of the Democratic stance on the Iraq war.

I cannot believe it. It makes me want to move to Copenhagen, a friggin' monarchy.

What have I been doing all my life? I should have gone ahead and become a hedge fund trader or an oil land man.

(Not really. Just ranting.)

---

by: Michael Harold @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 16:50:32 PM CDT

Changing Tactics (0.00 / 0)

And part of our changing tactics should be to stop blurring the line between the decision to go to War and any decisions which came after.  That is where we have gone tremendously wrong - one is about principal and judgement, the other about strategy and mitigating damages.  The votes to go to War were votes in favor of Pre-emption and that should never be acceptable for Progressives.  To give anyone a pass on that crucial decision is to blur the line.  It is absolutely crazy for any Democrat to consider voting for anyone except Barack Obama or Dennis Kucinich.  To accept any other candidate is complete folly.

---

by: DD2 @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 16:56:16 PM CDT

So... (4.00 / 1)

Obama gets a pass on his own blurring because he opposed invasion before he was in the Senate?

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

---

by: clarkent @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 21:46:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is two issues. (0.00 / 0)

He has never blurred his opposition to a preemptive strike on a nation which posed no threat to us.  That is what the vote was about.  We should stop mixing the two issues.  After Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Biden et al voted on a policy of preemption, the issue then became what is the best way to get out - in terms of moving the government to authorize withdrawal, our responsibility to Iraq, our responsibility to our troops, and our responsibility to the families sending their kids off to War.  If you want to criticize Obama for taking a different approach to this area than Kucinich, then go at it. 

But as Democrats I think it is nuts for us to throw away the advantage we should have in being opposed to preemption, rather than simply make the political battlefield be played on the grounds of what is the best way to get out of a situation we should have never authorized. 

---

by: DD2 @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 22:29:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We've Really Missed Your High Octane Sophistry, DD (4.00 / 1)

'Cause Obama's current style of blurring is just Soooooo superior!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 23:39:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's how you stop that blur from happening (0.00 / 0)

You stop bashing your own party. You stop calling the Democrats cowards. You stop calling the war funding bill a "cave in." You accept that there is a distinction between supporting the war and supporting this particular funding bill, and you make that distinction very clear to everyone.

For the past 5 or 6 months, we have been handing the Republicans all of the rhetorical ammunition that they need to blur the lines on this issue.

---

by: Aaron Bonn @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 17:23:01 PM CDT

I see (4.00 / 1)

If we were all quiet, all of the problems I listed above would go away. If only we would stop criticizing Democrats on Iraq, there would be no compromise bill with Republicans, there would be clear majorities who knew that Republican presidential candidates want to continue the war, the Congress would have forced a drawdown of troops in Iraq, and Democrats would have made the amount of residual forces they intend to leave in Iraq clear. The cause of all these problems are that we are criticizing Democrats on Iraq.

Or, how about this: Democrats specify the amount of troops they would leave in Iraq, just like all think tanks do. Then, we don't pass "comprise" bills that fail to bring any troops home, but do give many endangered Republicans cover on the war. Then, all leading Democrats make the argument that all Republican presidential candidates want to leave huge numbers of troops in Iraq.

Somehow, I think the second plan will cause less blurring than the first.
 

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 17:31:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't intend to say... (0.00 / 0)

...that the aforementioned issues you raise would "go away" if we just stop criticizing Democrats, nor did I intend to imply that they weren't important issues. I meant to point out that a lot of the anti-Democrat rhetoric that has been coming from the liberal blogosphere also helps blur the lines between Republicans and Democrats on the issue of the war.

It is possible to oppose this war and have good reasons for voting for the supplemental spending bill. The fact that most of the Democrats who voted for the supplemental spending bill had previously voted for the earlier one that mandated troop withdrawal is evidence of this. This is an important distinction to maintain if we are to establish a distinction between the Democrats as the anti-war party and the Republicans as the pro-war party.

---

by: Aaron Bonn @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 17:56:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On blurring: there will be 470 federal campaigns in 2008 (0.00 / 0)

and in each competitive one, the Democrat and Republican will be making their own pitch on Iraq to the voters (and, if the Democrats are smart, most of them will be doing so loudly.)  The distinctions between the parties will come from the bottom up -- these individual candidacies -- as well as from the top down.  The biggest will, of course, be the differentiation of the Presidential candidates, and unless we nominate Biden or maybe Hillary and the Republicans nominate Paul, there will be a humongous difference both in what they endorse and in how much previous behavior they'll have to explain away.

I'm pretty pissed at the Democrats to the extent that they were fawning over Petraeus and blinded by shining brass.  We should be twisting their arms to be tough and not make it so easy for the general to wear a halo.  And, of course, you're right that we shouldn't be giving them cover, the legislation being considered is crap and that will not be hard to point out.  Maybe Lipinski won't point it out, but ideally Mark Pera will be our nominee there instead.

I still strongly disagree, for reasons previously expressed, that it matters much if they give a "No New Taxes" style pledge to keeping all troops out.  Yes, think tanks do it.  When's the last time we elected a think tank to Congress?

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

---

by: SenecaDoane @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 18:19:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Major, Have You Seen My Battleground District Organizing Proposal? (4.00 / 1)

I think that the GOP 1994 example--creating a coherent national message in congressional elections--is one that we should heed and try to emulate, even if we have to fight the party to do it.  And I've given some thought to an organizing strategy that could be directed toward such a unifying end, although it was conceived with a broader purpose in mind.  I explained it in my diary, "Beyond Bush Dogs? Proposal For A Pro-Active Battleground District Organizing Strategy".  The initial impetus was to counteract the Bush Dog syndrome, and highlight how voter atttiudes are changing--potentially realigning in reaction to the Bush disaster.

Or, as I put it then:

Project Aims

The purpose of this project (subject to revision) is 7-fold:

(1) To create a national framework for pro-actively and continually influencing conservative Democrats and Democratic officeholders in swing/battleground districts, and supporting them in getting a progressive message out.  We're about carrots as well as sticks.  Once we really get rolling, we should be increasingly about carrots.

(2)  To influence the political climate in battleground districts held by Republicans to make the environment more favorable for Democratic challengers, and weaken support for Republican opposition in Congress.

(3) To bring into focus underlying shifts and forgotten long-term trends in public opinion that support a fresh, progressive approach to problem-solving and governing.

(4) To highlight new and emerging progressive issues, narratives, and policy proposals.

(5) To bring to the fore salient facts that are otherwise routinely buried by existing political discourse.

(6) To effectively communicate 3, 4 and 5--particularly at the district level--to Democratic officeholders and candidates, local media, Democratic activists and organizations, non-party activists and organizaitons, and directly to the people via new and traditional forms of organizing and outreach.

(7) To build strong bonds between locally-grounded and nationally-focused progressives on a continuing, ongoing basis.

In short, I think there's a great deal we can do, if we stop looking to party leaders to lead us.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 23:54:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've been trying to arrange something like this (0.00 / 0)

in Southern California (not trying hard enough, but still), and I'm generally sympathetic, though I'd want to read it much more carefully before giving a fully considered response.  I'd welcome more such message coordination.

My post is simply in response to Chris's concern that the GOP is going to be able to outflank us on Iraq if we don't have a centralized message.  While a centralized message would help, it's far from necessary.  In every campaign I see out here, the Democrat is going to come out strongly (if not always with a substantially detailed proposal) against the war, and the Republican is going to defend it with handwaving, fearmongering, and pie-in-the-sky promises of withdrawal on down the line.  It is simply won't be hard for voters to distinguish the parties on the issue, and this is one where the Republicans are likely to look weak as they try desperately to blur divisions on a major issue.

Of course, the positions that the Presidential nominees take will also be critical, and we won't see the final strategy on that until they're determined.

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

---

by: SenecaDoane @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 14:11:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bigger May Be Easier (4.00 / 1)

It's my thinking that a national battleground strategy would actually be easier to pull off than something smaller, simply because it appeals to people's sense of needing to act on a national scale.  Design a strategy that gives local organizing a national significance, and you've got something I think is maximally attractive.

I also think that this provides a unified foundation for activists to organize around.  It's not so much about a centralized message, it's more about being in harmony than being in unison.  By getting activists on the same page, it's like we're establishing a common chorus, and letting candidates solo as they will.

But I'm concerned about much more than just getting out of Iraq.  I'm concerned about working on developing positive alternatives--and not just for the "war on terror," but a broad, multi-issue (or, more properly, cross-issue) alternative vision of what America can and should be in the 21st Century. 

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 00:58:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Easier if done, but harder to do (0.00 / 0)

except in a top-down way, with the obvious disadvantages of that.  But I don't want to be cynical; I'd love to see this happen and to see how you think it can be done.

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

---

by: SenecaDoane @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 15:34:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Key Is Getting A Blogosphere Core (4.00 / 1)

MyDD was already very well established when the MyDD poll was done, so a repeat here at OpenLeft would not be a cakewalk.  But a collaboration with several other blogs would be.

I see a national battleground district poll as they centerpiece of the project, because fielding a poll is something we've already shown can be done.  The goal beyond that is to organize activists, organizations and bloggers in all the battleground disticts--at a minimum.  (There's no reason to ignore other districts, but these are the ones that we have to focus on first.)

We're looking for progressive party members (DFA, PDA, etc.), anti-war activists, single-payer advocates, central labor councils, whatever forces on the ground are already in place and willing to work together to advance progressive themes.  (At least one blog in every district would be mighty helpful, of course.)  Those who join up first get a chance to help shape the initial poll.  Those who join up later will get in on the next one.

The locals get to roll out the poll results for their local media, and they get to shape the message collaboratively themselves, to tailor it specifically for their district.  We follow with a national roll-out afterwards so that we reinforce and extend the locally-announced story with some big names.

That's it in very broad brush-strokes.  I have some more detailed ideas, but they don't matter to me that much.  What matters is that something like this be done early enough to raise the salience of some progressive issues, and that it be done well enough to make people see the value in continuing it as an ongoing process.

Ideally, we could do 6-12 polls a year, and develop some serious momentum to drive a progressive agenda from below.  Local coalitions could build on that to do more-or-less continuous lobbying, media, outreach, etc.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 22:09:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"We" should change our tactics? (0.00 / 0)

Or the Dem leadership???????
Or we should pound on them harder?

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 17:28:44 PM CDT

corruption (4.00 / 1)

From what I remember the 2006 realignment was based on corruption.

---

by: Astera @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 18:22:33 PM CDT

It Was Based On Disgust (0.00 / 0)

Equal parts Iraq, and corruption, with a side of Terri Schiavo and Katrina.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 23:56:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Along with Foley and the pastor.

The point more or less being Iraq was one factor among many.  With Larry Craig resigning and a new majority in congress investigating all sorts of things we shouldn't overestimate the importance of the war to the average voter who just wants to trust that their city will be helped after a hurricane.

---

by: Astera @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 03:41:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, This Is Just The Sort Of Thing We Need To Poll For (0.00 / 0)

I think that Iraq is a good deal more salient than you--or the DC Democrats--think it is.  We should find out who's right.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:26:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

I think that the netroots will find out that the democrats do good work on a number of issues affecting large amounts of people.

---

by: Astera @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 17:51:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It played a role (0.00 / 0)

But from what I remember the candidates who concentrated more on Iraq with strong anti-war proposals tended to do better than those who muddied the waters and talked about a 'culture of corruption'.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:25:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dems wanted blurring too (4.00 / 1)

The 06 Dem campaign message on Iraq was confused - the long version of New Direction has commitments in two places, both of which refer to stuff happening in 2006, the year before they could at the earliest take control of Congress!

But - my sense - Dem voters - the suckers! - may have got the impression that the Dems were promising to do something on Iraq.

Unfortunately, the only thing they could do which would have any effect was to defund by not sending a funding bill Bush would sign. And that was the one thing they were never going to do, Iraq Armageddon excepted.

Then, the game had hardly started when Bush hit them with his surge - by which he took the inititative (in DC, not in Iraq) and put the Dems permanently on the defensive.

So the Dems, far from being able to blow away the admin's smokescreen around Iraq, found themselves needing a smokescreen of their own.

Hence the 1,001 bills, resolutions and amendments we've had.

Of course, it's still not too late for the Dem leaderships to change tack, decide on a send no bill defunding and flood the airwaves to persuade Sixpack that it's the only way to give him his wish of an early withdrawal.

But that's not going to happen.

And the obfuscation is not going to get less as the 08 prez campaign takes over attention, and initiative (ha!) slips from the Congressional leaders to the leading candidates - who will carry on obfuscating like billy-o on their own plans for 09.

Which is not to say that lefties shouldn't be pressuring Dem MCs to quit with the smoke-blowing and do what's needed to get US troops out. Just that most of those MCs have (or think they have) damned good reasons not to take a blind bit of notice.

---

by: skeptic06 @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 18:49:27 PM CDT

Chris is correct. (0.00 / 0)

However, I think that there may be another consideration in terms of electoral strategy to consider.  In my opinion the administration is implementing a new strategy of their own in Iraq.  They will allow a partition of Iraq, but will side with the Sunni faction - plus maybe the Kurds.

The particulars are in 3 diaries that I wrote for European Tribune.  The last one links the first two, but they are all in the archives by now.  The last diary was "Bush in Al Anbar - Portent of a New Strategery?", if you want to read the full theory.  Essentially, they say that the real oil deposits are probably in the western desert (per U.S. DOE estimates); that the Saudis have gained U.S. (Cheney's) acceptance of the partition approach; that a "frontline" will be established along the line of the fortresses (permanent bases) that the U.S. has constructed from western Kurdistan (to be) to the air base in Basrah province; that the U.S. forces will redeploy to the Sunni (and Kurdish?) side, as soon as they have helped to finish the sectarian cleansing of Baghdad into Shi'a on the east side of the river and Sunni on the west side; that any Shi'a attacks on the Sunni will become casus belli for lobbing many bombs into Iran.

The point for your diary today is that such a situation will allow for less U.S. troops, because we have the overwhelming firepower to support a standard (non-insurgency) military operation wherein two obvious armies face one another.  Less troops means a return to standard R&R cycles, improved morale, less moral ambiguity - you can see the trend. 

Whether this leads to increased acceptance on the part of the U.S. electorate, I won't predict.  But I'm an optimist in terms of human behavior, so I think that most of the people who oppose the occupation now have seen the total human cost, plus the vast waste spending, as an indictment against the perpetrators of this debacle.

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?

---

by: paul spencer @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 18:56:24 PM CDT

The US Electorate. (0.00 / 0)

I think the bulk of the US electorate will get lost or not pay attention to your first 3 paragraphs but your last sentence is dead on accurate and something that I think perfectly encapsulates what the majority of Americans think.  All the more reason to make sure our candidate is someone can in no way be considered a perpetrator of this debacle.

---

by: DD2 @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 22:34:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This All Sounds Quite Plausible To Me (0.00 / 0)

Except that it's about an order of magnitude too smart for this group of clowns.  Perhaps it might be coming from Baker as his price for not reconvening the ISG?

Anyway, there has certainly been a great deal of rhetorical effort of late to argue for a contuned US presence in the region.  This seems to be the sort of broad "United Front" of ruling elite, which would absolutely rule out a true withdrawal, but allows a great deal of wiggle room so far as the specifics are concerned.  Your analysis would fit squarely in the middle of such an elite consensus.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 00:03:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Except that 93% of Sunnis supports attacks on US forces (0.00 / 0)

US relations with the Shia may be deteriorating, but they're still much worse with the Sunni minority. The only Sunni grouping still in government was planning/already has pulled out and the only prominent Sunni actually supportive of a continued US presence is the insurgent leader Abu Sarhan, because he wants more time to kill Shia.

It might look good on paper, but I don't see that plan as being feasible or close to it yet.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:30:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The goal of the GOP (4.00 / 1)

will be to re-run the 1972 campaign.

In 1972 there were TWO peace candidates.  The cover of Time Magazine before the 1972 election read "Peace is at hand".

The link below goes to a Time Magazine written the week before the '72 election. It clearly creates the expectation that the War would end if Nixon was re-elected.

The goal of any Republican candidate will be to create the expectation that he will end the War as well.  The difference will be he will do with "honor".

The mistakes being made by the Democratic candidates on Iraq are as significant as the initial decision to invade Iraq.  The Neo-cons and "Elite Washington" want to force Democrats to concede the necessity of a "residual force". 
This concession is in fact a back door way of forcing a Democratic President to continue the War.

---

by: fladem @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:59:53 AM CDT

Forgot the link (0.00 / 0)

http://www.time.com/...

---

by: fladem @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:03:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Democrats started that war (0.00 / 0)

The problem with that strategy is that Democrats started that war. 

---

by: Astera @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:28:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perfectly Put! (0.00 / 0)

"You know what they say: 'those of us who fail History... doomed to repeat it in Summer school.'"

--Buffy, The Vampire Slayer in "Afterlife," Season 6, Episode 3.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:34:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]