Tip O’Neill famously said, “all politics is local” and when it comes to Congressional elections and politics, he’s 100% right. At the local level, more and more Americans are feeling the pinch of a jobless recovery. They are finding themselves competing with their children and younger workers for jobs that pay far less than those they once held. They hear the President, and his congressional allies, speak of the growing economy, and they can’t help but think, “growing where? India?”
The same folks are facing increasing healthcare costs and booming gas prices, compounded by a woeful lack of investment in public infrastructure, specifically mass, rapid transit. The costs keep piling up, and while they don’t expect government to pick up the whole tab, they innately understand that even a slight restructuring of our priorities could help them get moving in the right direction again.
Are these voters worried about the current state of our operations in Iraq? Yes, its their kids, their neighbors, and their relatives that are paying the ultimate price. But at the same time, they aren’t convinced that redeployment, phased withdrawl, or pull out (no matter what you call it) is a plan. Now, in Klein’s article he cites plans put forward by former SecDef Korb for redeployment over the next two years, and Klein argues that this is the plan Democrats are coalescing around. Personally, I think its the best middle-ground plan I’ve seen … my fear is, though, that by giving the Republicans a target, in an election that Rove has said he wants to be focused on nat’l security, we will have taken the moral high ground only to doom ourselves politically.
I’m not saying I got a good one either. I do agree that off-year congressional are more local, at best national and rarely have a foreign policy aspect. But there are exceptions…2002, the first post 9/11 election had a serious international element and we Dems lost some seats (the GA Senate seat most notably). We’ve had other congressional elections impacted by foreign policy–1970, during the Vietnam War, particualrly the Senate seat in CT. If I did the research, I’m sure it played a factor in ’50 and in the ’40s.
<
p>
With Iraq and the general tensions we’re having in the Middle East, it is reasonable to assume that Rove and Bush will inject “fear” of terrorist during the last week of the campaign and tip the scales (although they’ll have a mush tougher time selling this AMC Pacer again).
<
p>
I too opposed the war from the beginning–I couldn’t support Kerry in the Primaries for his Resolution Vote–and I just think we’re in a no win situation now. Frankly Bush has got us into such a FUBAR situation; I don’t have an opinion on what the best plan is. But I do think the Dems have to develop a cohesive national security/foreign policy platform that is different from the “Bush-lite” vs. “cut and run” debate the Dems are currently in. (Simplistic labels to the current debate, but that is how punditry is labeling them.)
<
p>
So I do disagree with you on the following points: a) congressional elections are impacted by national security issues when we have troops in combat (or in time of “war” which many people would contend…I don’t, nor do I think you would.) b) therefore we need some coherent foreign policy solutions to offer in the next mid terms.
<
p>
Now if you point is we shouldn’t be leading with this as our central message…I completely agree. It’s the corruption, the cronyism, the economy…we need a Republican version of the ’92 Contract with America. But we can’t leave our weakest flank open to attack by Rove and Bush. If so, like in ’04, soccer moms will turn into security moms and we lose again.
We Dems are in a lousy situation, not of our own making. (Actually, we’re in many lousy situations, but Iraq may be the worst.)
<
p>
I think what they’re discussing is a good faith effort, strong on ideas, with a bipartisan pedigree. It’s something to rally around.
<
p>
Yes, the Republicans will definitely attack it as “cut and run”. Count on it. They’d do that in any event, with little or no justification. If they didn’t find justification, they’d make things up. They will bluff, so it’s time to call the bluff.
<
p>
The question Dems need to ask is: “Do you think Bush is doing a good job running the war in Iraq? If the answer is yes, vote for a Republican. If the answer is no, vote for a Democrat.” Simple, and we win that argument. It’s the old Clinton ’92 mantra: Change vs. More of the Same. They’re moving toward a credible alternative to “More of the Same.” Now it’s time to go on the offensive with it. The Republicans tight discipline (blind loyalty) must be made their weakness.
I could really say I had one Frank. I think, the current Democratic strategy is shaping up to be something along the lines of “we can do better” (as in, Tim Kaine said it about 100 times in the SOTU rebuttal).
<
p>
Personally, I think the phased redeployment is just about the best option out there, and it still made my stomach turn. Politically, I have a better idea about what I want us not to do, which helps some …
<
p>
I want us to avoid relitigating the war, any Democratic plan/strategy on Iraq has to get off the past. You know it was wrong, I know it was wrong, it turned out we were right, but we’re aren’t going to get elected on what we were, it’s what we will be that counts. I don’t want to hear Democrats talk about staying the course (yeah, that means you Joe Lieberman), nor do I want to just hear “bring them home” … in the perfect world yes, but even bring them home would actually be a phased withdrawl, so why leave us vulnerable to that attack.
<
p>
When it comes right down to it, if Democrats were to take control of the House and Senate (pie in the sky time), Bush wouldn’t go for a speedy withdrawl, but he might go for withdrawl by 2007/2008, so let’s not promise more than we can produce. Let’s say we’ll demand an honest accounting of how things are in Iraq. Let’s say we’ll actually see where the contracts are going and start bidding them out to non-“coalition” nations. Let’s say we’ll get the int’l community training troops. Let’s say we’ll talk straight with the American public about how soon the troops can come home and set benchmarks to measure that by.
<
p>
My real concern with the message isn’t the message, so much as how the unified message gives Rove on target to attack, instead of many targets in different races. What happens when a Dem running in Ohio, Tennessee, Texas or Colorado says he doesn’t support the message? Does he/she lose funding?
<
p>
And thanks both of you for your thoughtful comments, this issue drives me nuts and its one I feel I could argue either way, either day of the week.
…about the danger of a unified Dem strategy that turns into a target for Rove. Certainly though the Dem brain trust (OK, arguably an oxymoron) needs to develop some talking points for the congressional candidates to fend off the repeat of the “Fear Factor” Rove has advocated for ’06. Even the Iraqi vets running will need some drilling…assuming some Swift Boat tactics against them.
<
p>
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. This issue drives me nuts also. Some right-winger reading our posts would cite it as an example of how Bush has got the left tied up in knots and gloat. Actually itâs an example of how Bush and the neocons screwed up this whole thing and now thoughtful people are trying to figure out the best way to clean up the mess. My sense is that very smart people in the Pentagon are as dishearten as we are. Hell, if Colin Power had any balls, he’d admit as much also.
You can’t run any campaign, for anything, based on what Karl Rove will do. He doesn’t have veto power over the policy of the Democratic Party; or my left nut, for that matter.
<
p>
Karl will smear. That’s what he does. That’s his job. It doesn’t matter what policy the Dems adopt, or fail to adopt. Just count on the prospect that the smears will come, just as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.
<
p>
Just get your policy right and be agressive. That’s all. Everything is an opportunity in politics. Every punch leaves the body open. So be it.
Yes, fight your own fight, using your strengths and go after your opponents weaknesses. But if you know your opponent likes to give body punches, and in fact cracked your rib the last time, keep your elbows and arms in front of you and protect your chest.
… is a good offense!!
<
p>
Gosh, we could go on like this, couldn’t we…
I go to the library to do some work and get to bed early, and all the good fighting cliches get taken. I guess thats what I get.
<
p>
Just to track back on something, Charley made a good point on how the Dems can’t let Rove have veto power on policy. Which helped me think of it in another way … so what did I come up with, we need a Belicheck strategy, i.e. take out their strength, then see what they can do. Not sure if we can do it, but if theres a way to tie in the lack of oversight to the management of the war, and get after them for making us less safe (Example 1: that somewhat psycho man running Iran), there may be nothing Rove can do.
<
p>
Honestly, its ridiculous we even need tohave this conversation, only in American politics could an administration allow 3,000 of its citizens to be slaughtered, then NOT find the guy who did it, and still be considered to be ‘strong’ on national security.