Following the country, some distance behind
is the basic Democratic Party strategy. The elected officials are afraid, for good reason, to be ahead of public opinion. Out there, in the zone of leadership, they know they will be assaulted by the Administration and its agents in the media, from Fox to Woodward. They know that the mainstream media will be witnesses to alleged crimes and cover them up in the name of a privilege that the courts do not recognize. They know that the media will report whatever is dictated by the White House. They note that careers are destroyed by getting in the way of the political attacks mounted by the right. Their hope is that by following, instead of leading, public opinion they will be handed a majority in the Senate or the House, or at least some more seats, and then in 2007 they can gain a little more influence over political power. The Presidential election will commence in earnest at the beginning of 2007, and in that context they hope that the R's will pick a nominee like Goldwater in 64 -- that is, someone who is certain to lose. This strategy is not ill-informed. It is fairly common in politics. It reflects lessons of America as it exists today. But it opens the door for any number of Democrats to jump ahead of the waiting crowd and try to become now the voice of the public. So far, except for John Kerry, the would-be Presidential candidates are all staying off to the side, avoiding risk, letting events take their course. But I doubt that for all of 2006 that will be the case.
Feingold has already "led" on the issue, and though he didn't go as far as Rep. Murtha, he's still gone further than Kerry in his statement yesterday. And unlike Kerry, he didn't need another Dem to get out in front of him before he took his position...
Seriously, though, why lionize Kerry here? He didn't take any kind of forceful position, or "jump ahead of the waiting crowd" with his Iraq position -- not yesterday, and not last summer when his stand could have made a difference.
November 20, 2005 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Political strategy=figuring out how to win.
Leadership=leading the herd in any direction
Good leadership=figuring out where we should go in order to progress, not necessarily conceiving popular policies
Do political strategists=good leaders...no, and Bush is a prime example of that. All strategy, no leadership, all gaming the system, no movement toward progress. Bush is the Enron president, the man who exemplifies the typical business person of today, whose aim is to game the system in order to move toward the top, and who doesn't think leadership is anything except a buzzword to recruit underlings to his side, who takes care to distribute the plunder as politically as possible in order to maintain his base and doesn't hesitate to create more plunder if needed to satisfy his base.
What the voters want is good leadership. But a good leader will not tell them what they want to hear (you don't have to do anything, let me do it all for you, and this will be utterly painless and free for you), and they often reject the very people that they need and want because the strategists keep promising them manna without the struggle in the wilderness. So, will we have good leaders in the future? Who knows. But strategists are inherently weak and bad leaders.
November 20, 2005 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq War Debate Eclipses All Other Issues
GOP Flounders as Bush's Popularity Falls; Democrats Struggle for a Voice
Personally I lionize no one who admits to error and does the right thing even if the particular withdrawal plan may not be the one I prefer. Because at the end of the day when the headlines are written and the 30 second sound bites hit Jane Arraf's lips they all say "Z calls for Withdrawal - Chorous Mounts - GOP Flounders"
Make no mistake. John Murtha has brought the party across the Rubicon and there is no turining back. Bush knows. That's why he all but apologized to Murtha today.
Well too little ...way too late
Upheaval is no longer ahead. The politics of upheaval has arrived
November 20, 2005 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry's crossed over...its the rest that worry me WaPo above
GOP leaders view items such as the Patriot Act and the budget as too vital to fail in the end, but every endeavor is now made more difficult by the fracturing over Iraq -- and just when the 2006 congressional elections begin to loom. Republicans have lost their anchor of the past five years -- Bush's popularity -- while Democrats are struggling to find their voice on the war. Both sides cannot dally for long, said Peter D. Hart, a Democratic pollster.
"Iraq is now the dominant issue that is affecting voters, and it's affecting Bush's ratings," Hart said. "The public has reached a firm, fixed position on Iraq, and it's not going to change: This is not going to come to a successful conclusion, so how do we figure out how to get out of Iraq?"
November 20, 2005 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
But I doubt that for all of 2006 that will be the case.
Well, I would hope not. The Dems are already seen as wimps. Republicans call them out for not having a plan. Rep. Murtha has shown great courage in stepping forward with a plan. His plan is one all of the Dems should get behind. It may not be perfect, but it is good enough. It probably comes right out of the Pentagon - not from the top echelon - but from down in the ranks. Dems should step up and say, "John, we have your back".
The genie is out of the bottle. JMACSF is right; there is no turning back.
November 20, 2005 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think in a democratic society, more often than not, the government of the people should follow the lead set by the citizens of the country. I say, "More often than not" because in certain cases, like fundamental civil rights for all citizens, the legislature and the judiciary should be ahead of and reject any notion of discrimination regardless of its popularity with a segment or segments of a society. It's up to the executives of this country, from mayors to presidents, to use their bully pulpit to bring the case to the people.
November 20, 2005 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
These guys and gals need to leave 2008 off the table for now and help get our ass out of Iraq.
You're telling me the combined brain-power of our Senators and Congressmen can't come up with a rational, and safe approach to Iraq that they can all get behind and use to pressure the Prez.
That is the exact opposite of leadership.
It really is disgusting that they feel the need to create 99 gradations of how we get out - when each and every one of those plans will be ignored, ridiculed, and called a "cut and run" plan by Rove and his henchmen. There is no doubt about that. Yet our side feels it's more important to differentiate their plan than create a plan we can bash Bush over the head with.
But by not being more organized they let George Bush condemn our soldiers to death and injury. And they fail those same soldiers.
November 20, 2005 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
What in the hell are we waiting for???
November 20, 2005 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are the Democrats in Congress unpatriotic? Absolutely! But not because they don't adequately support the Republicans, but because they have miserably failed in their obligation to be an opposition party that will restrain extremism by the party in power and will provide Americans with a coherent, strategic alternative in foreign policy.
November 20, 2005 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
... but with Iraq the 57%of us who correctly believe this whole venture was bogus have to drag government officials (most of whom are kicking and screaming) into catching up with us.
November 20, 2005 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jane
You are very right. The way Democrats show the public that they are not wimps is for Democrats to defend Democrats. If Democrats won't protect each other rightly or wrongly it says to the public they won't defend them or the country.
November 20, 2005 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we wanted to change the media climate, we'd get someone to start a new national newspaper. That would cost money, but the Democrats spent half a billion dollars on a losing presidential election and have nothing to show for it. Founding a newspaper would be a long-term investment.
The LA Times, the NY Times, the WaPo, and Knight-Ridder are all having problems. There's got to be a lot of sharp people looking for jobs, either because they've been laid off or because they're disgusted with their organization.
The new newsvendor would have to take the internet into account, but the internet is 95% parasitic and doesn't generate real news the way the newspapers do.
November 20, 2005 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget Feingold. He came out for withdrawal first, and alone. But you are right, Murtha has a plan, and the Dems should get behind it and him. No gets my vote without acknowledging that the occupation needs to be brought to a conclusion next year, and promising more vigorous oversight by Congress for the remainder of the Bush/Cheney presidency. But taking at least one house of Congress is the most important task right now.
November 20, 2005 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
...was Howard Dean. Ahead of Kerry and Edwards and Murtha, certainly.
I did not support Dean back then, but now I think of him as a man ahead of his time. I've gone back and re-read a lot of his speeches from the campaign, and he had a lot of this right. More importantly he was not afraid to say it. But because he spoke out, his reputation on the right and the DLC left has been Gored, as I'm sure many Dems now think theirs would be by the same groups if they stick their necks out too far.
Having Dean muzzled inside the party apparatus must be quite a comfort to the DLC and the GOP. But perhaps the biggest irony is that the next 06 and 08 campaigns might well be a rerun of the Dean 04 message.
November 20, 2005 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, the Republicans are hoping to blame the Democrats for the debacle in Iraq. Get the Democrats to campaign to withdraw from Iraq, and then blame the Democrats for "losing Iraq" in a "cut and run strategy."
A lot of Democrats on the left want a Democrat to lead, in calling for withdrawal. This would be horrific in its consequences for the Democrats and for the country, not because of what would follow in Iraq, but because of the opening it would provide for the Republican Noise machine.
A better strategy for Democrats would be to criticize Republican conduct in Iraq, particularly the utter failure of the reconstruction effort and the failure to plan adequately for the war. And, a Democrat should propose adding to our forces and resources in Iraq. That's right. Propose adding to the resources available to win the war and reconstruction of Iraq. That would be an act of genuine courage, and would also be an act of political judo, help the Republicans to put themselves on the mat.
November 20, 2005 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mimi, I don't forget Feingold.
I watched Murtha on Meet the Press, and he was terrific. Timmy didn't mess with him. He quoted the responses to Murtha's speech by Kerry, Ried, and Pelosi, and I found them very disappointing. I have written to Pelosi, and Reid is next on my list.
Kerry wanted me to send him money to defend Murtha from the White House slime machine. He has a nerve; he had already undercut Murtha by his remarks that he had his own plan and did not support Murtha's. I let Kerry know what I thought of his appeal for money.
November 20, 2005 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
As to courage, wouldn't it be something to see an American run on reconstructing New Orleans? But then anti-poverty is sooo "old" Democrat.
November 20, 2005 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heavens not a timetable!
The insurgents will just wait us out. Let's wait for the election ju-ju to take.
Hope the insurgents don't read Frank Rich
IF anyone needs further proof that we are racing for the exits in Iraq, just follow the bouncing ball that is Rick Santorum. A Republican leader in the Senate and a true-blue (or red) Iraq hawk, he has long slobbered over President Bush, much as Ed McMahon did over Johnny Carson. But when Mr. Bush went to Mr. Santorum's home state of Pennsylvania to give his Veterans Day speech smearing the war's critics as unpatriotic, the senator was M.I.A.
November 20, 2005 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I believe Hillary Clinton is already playing the increase-our-troop-level card. Too bad for all the people who get killed while the politicians make their calculated moves. Of course, the tiny fact that it is morally despicable to play these games with other people's lives while the politicians sit at home in comfort doesn't matter. I know a way to increase troop levels - all those for that go over there. I bet if that rule was in effect a lot of armchair warriors might change their minds about increasing troop levels.
November 20, 2005 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Robert Scheer, one of the best, has been let go by the LA Times. In my opinion, he's brilliant.
November 20, 2005 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
John can put his appeal and his political career "where the sun don't shine".
November 20, 2005 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Dems confuse two things:
1. staying in rebuttal mode. avoiding attack on the issues.
2. not getting too far in front of the voters in terms of initiatives and proposals.
It is possible to fiercely attack Republican values and polices without getting too far ahead of the people. It is even necessary, or the people will never be prepared to for Dem ideas and leadership.
November 20, 2005 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you suppose she proposed the troop increase in anticipation security needs for the elections? Quite possible. Moreover, I haven't heard any more clamoring for a draft.
November 20, 2005 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink