The Republican Pushback

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

when the Democrats finally unveil their 2006 agenda (which includes both an Iraq plan

That's awfully optimistic; the Dems haven't been able to come up with an Iraq plan for almost three years now. I certainly hope they finally can, but I'm not holding my breath...

Erm, the Senate (well, the Republican majority anyway) rejected a proposal by Dems the other day; the Rep proposal did pass by a safe margin, though Dems cited differences they weren't happy with.

[Drake Tungsten]

[Dinner]

The Democratic plan for the last year or so has been soft time tables for a phased withdrawl, big increases in the money and manpower to train Iraqis to replace us, followed by a near total draw down. This is the same plan which the Republican leadership has stonewalled on numerous occations including one just this week.

The plan has been clear as day and they've been shouting it at every opportunity but the Republicans keep obstructing it and pretending there is no alternative to staying the course which has resulted in such failure in Iraq.

[Drake Tungsten]

OK, that post made more sense.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

This happened today or yesterday (or the day before). Damned timezones.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

He means:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/15/senate.iraq/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate demanded regular reports on the progress of the war in Iraq on Tuesday but rejected a Democratic plan to require the Bush administration to lay out a timeline for a U.S. withdrawal.

Senators voted 79-19 to add language to a $491 billion Pentagon spending bill that declares 2006 to be "a period of significant transition" for Iraq and calls on the Bush administration "to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq."

The measure was drafted largely by Democrats, but GOP leaders removed language that would have called for a flexible timetable for a possible American pullout from Iraq.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

One analysis of one "pushback" attempt:

The White House counterattack shoots -- and misses -- again

As we noted earlier today, the White House felt the need over the weekend to push back against a Washington Post story that undercut the president's claim that Democrats who voted to authorize the war in Iraq did so based on "the same intelligence" he had.

It turns out that was just the beginning.

This afternoon, the "current news" section of the White House Web site has exactly one item in it, and it's another one of these RNC-style talking-point memos called "Setting the Record Straight." The target this time: comments Michigan Sen. Carl Levin made this morning on CNN.

What did Levin say that was worthy of an official White House rebuke? That before the Iraq war began, George W. Bush and members of his administration blurred the lines between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida to such a degree that a majority of Americans came to believe that Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11.

Now, we're all for setting the record straight when it isn't. So if the president never tried to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, then the record should be put straight. But he did. If members of his administration never made public comments suggesting such a link, then the record should be put straight. But they did. And if a majority of the American public didn't come to think that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, well, the record should be put straight on that, too. But a majority of Americans thought exactly that.

So how does the White House "set the record straight" about Levin's remarks? With this: "Sen. Levin and Other Democrats Previously Said That Iraq Was a Part of the War on Terror." That isn't exactly a bombshell -- the administration has spent the past two years insisting that Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terror -- and it's not particularly relevant: Whether Iraq is or isn't a "part of the war on terror," whatever that means, doesn't have a whole lot to do with the fact that the Bush administration misled the American public -- and successfully so -- about a link between Saddam and 9/11.

It reminds us of something Muhammad Ali is said to have whispered once into George Foreman's ear: "Is that all you got, George?"

The biggest issue with this White House effort is the big issue with all propoganda: it only works if people believe it. That seems more and more unlikely these days.

[Ted Striker]

They can only run the same old tricks for so long before the majority of people pickup on it. Still works on Drake and Dinodoc though. But they will hold down the fort even when it's burning down around them.

[Drake Tungsten]

Thanks Rufus.

As for the Democratic plan for Iraq, why did it take them so long to finally come out with it? I mean, it was suspected that Kerry really planned on pulling out of Iraq, but he never came out and said it. Why wait until after the election to advocate a withdrawal?

[Dinner]

I suspect that the Dems were terrified of Bush's high poll numbers and didn't want to offer an alternative plan out of fear they'd be hammered as disloyal citizens or what not. Now that Bush's numbers have collapsed more and more of them have signed on to the plan that just one year ago only a minority of Democrats were brave enough to publically support. The good news is that several high profile Republicans have also backed this phase out/draw down plan since it seems to be the only alternative to Bush's "stay the course" message.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
As for the Democratic plan for Iraq, why did it take them so long to finally come out with it? I mean, it was suspected that Kerry really planned on pulling out of Iraq, but he never came out and said it. Why wait until after the election to advocate a withdrawal?

"I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat." -- Will Rogers

First, the Dems have little in the way of their own ideas, and less in the way of party discipline, which is one reason why this has taken so long. Second, given how many high-profile Dems voted for the war, they know exactly what kind of minefield they are stepping into now. They would have been bashed over the head as surrender monkeys if they had unveiled this during the election; now, however, with Bush's poll numbers in a nosedive. they can use it to build momentum for the midterm elections.

What really surprises me is that the Dems haven't taken the obvious tack on this and said to Americans: "Of course we supported the war, and for the same reason you did: because we believed the president and his administration. They lied to all of us." That would be an incredibly powerful political move, letting the Dems off the hook and positioning them on the side of average Americans.

On second thought, that's probably why they're not saying it.

My party. And here's a surprise: I'm a Cubs fan, too.

[DRoseDARs]

John Edwards and another Dem have already publically stated they acknowledge and regret their previous positions, though it does admittedly have the appearance of pandering for votes.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
First, the Dems have little in the way of their own ideas, and less in the way of party discipline, which is one reason why this has taken so long.

The former is not true, and the latter is no longer true, thanks to Reid and Pelosi.

What really surprises me is that the Dems haven't taken the obvious tack on this and said to Americans: "Of course we supported the war, and for the same reason you did: because we believed the president and his administration. They lied to all of us." That would be an incredibly powerful political move, letting the Dems off the hook and positioning them on the side of average Americans.

Are you daft? This is exactly the tack Reid and other Dems have been taking, which is the only reason why Bush has been forced to launch this "counter attack" in the first place. The Dems have been using this line for a while now, pay attention.

[Drake Tungsten]

Second, given how many high-profile Dems voted for the war, they know exactly what kind of minefield they are stepping into now. They would have been bashed over the head as surrender monkeys if they had unveiled this during the election; now, however, with Bush's poll numbers in a nosedive. they can use it to build momentum for the midterm elections.

I actually thought of this on the way back from the grocery store, but you beat me to it.

John Edwards and another Dem have already publically stated they acknowledge and regret their previous positions, though it does admittedly have the appearance of pandering for votes.

The appearance?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


The former is not true, and the latter is no longer true, thanks to Reid and Pelosi.

Fair enough. Discipline is getting better; some credit needs to go to Chuck Shumer, too, who's been doing very sharp work on the 2006 Senate elections. As for ideas, I think the Dems have lots of individual ideas, but those ideas haven't cohered into an articulate vision, which definitely puts them at a disadvantage to the GOP.

Are you daft? This is exactly the tack Reid and other Dems have been taking, which is the only reason why Bush has been forced to launch this "counter attack" in the first place. The Dems have been using this line for a while now, pay attention.

Not daft, just away. I honestly haven't seen this put this way, but that may be a function of not living in the US. If they really are getting domestic exposure and mileage touting this line, than that's great news.