by DemFromCT
Hello? Anyone home?
Democrats said they had not yet figured out how to counter the White House's long assault on their national security credentials. And they said their opportunities to break through to voters with a coherent message on domestic and foreign policy — should they settle on one — were restricted by the lack of an established, nationally known leader to carry their message this fall.
As a result, some Democrats said, their party could lose its chance to do to Republicans this year what the Republicans did to them in 1994: make the midterm election, normally dominated by regional and local concerns, a national referendum on the party in power.
"I think that two-thirds of the American people think the country is going in the wrong direction," " said Senator Barack Obama, the first-term Illinois Democrat who is widely viewed as one of the party's promising stars. "They're not sure yet whether Democrats can move it in the right direction."
Mr. Obama said the Democratic Party had not seized the moment, adding: "We have been in a reactive posture for too long. I think we have been very good at saying no, but not good enough at saying yes."
Some Democrats said they favored remaining largely on the sidelines while Republicans struggled under the glare of a corruption inquiry. And some said there was still time for the party to get its act together. But many others said the party needed to move quickly to offer a comprehensive governing agenda, even as they expressed concern about who could make the case.
A unified party with a comprehensive plan. Ignore the 'some Democrats' part... the same tired advisors need not speak on the record. But Obama and Dodd have the target in sight. If the Dems can't get behind Murtha and others like him qualified to speak on Iraq, why should they be surprised about their national security image? They and their staffs, whether they like each other or not, have got to get their act together. Obama's too junior to do it... but they'd better find someone who they can accept leading them (including non-team players like John Kerry, and would-be presidents like Tom Vilsak), and they'd better do it soon.
The Republican are going to get weaker, not stronger. But the Dems still have work to do. Americans wil be receptive to their message, if they can only figure out what the heck it is.
Democrats: Defending the Constitution and the American way of life.
Posted by: g | February 08, 2006 at 07:29
as opposed to destroying it. The message is there. good government by people who know how.
Posted by: DemFromCT | February 08, 2006 at 07:34
"If the Dems can't get behind Murtha and others like him qualified to speak on Iraq, why should they be surprised about their national security image?"
Wha?
And why on Earth would you consider Murtha the correct spokesman?
-----
The problem, of course, is that you've got Evan Bayh this week offering the correct electoral stance on national security, but nobody's interested in stuff like that.
Want another spokesman? Try Jane Harman.
Do national security that way, and we win back the House. But stuff like that isn't what the Democratic troops want to hear.
And so we've got the same national security division we've had since 9/11. The administration will attempt to use at as a wedge yet again, and god help us.
Posted by: Petey | February 08, 2006 at 07:42
1. It looks to me that Kerry is angry enough to start taking clear, unequivocal positions about shit that matters. I must say, he seems to have learned that lesson. The hard way. Better late than never. I just wish the other Democratic presidential hopefuls would see what Kerry is doing and learn that same lesson the easy way, especially Clinton. I think Maureen Dowd has it right today about her.
2. I am of Danish extraction (well, as much as an American mutt can be anything). Salon has a good article today about the conservative newspaper (the largest in Denmark) that printed the cartoons. Honestly, I think the best thing we in America can do for the rest of the world is run Bush, his cronies, and the cabal out of office, in dramatic fashion. Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before conservatives in Europe try the same formula there--and I wouldn't bet on it not working.
Posted by: rasmus | February 08, 2006 at 08:25
I live in rural, central Ohio -- Bible Belt country. I never miss an opportunity to strike up a conversation with repair folks that come into our home; hunters who ask to hunt or search for mushrooms on our land; the transit drivers who carry me to various appointments; the clerks, and the professionals and their staffs, I consult while I'm there.
Almost without exception the folks I talk with are church go-ers for whom religious affiliation is a central part of their identity. I talk to Apostolics, 7th Day Adventists, Baptists, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, Methodists, members of the UUC and tiny independent churches that dot the rural landscape here.
I have never had a conversation with anyone who expressed a belief that the Democrats are weak on defense. No one has ever said to me that Democrats don't care about keeping us safe. Such claims are historically fabricated and repeatedly amplified canards.
Everyone I talk to accepts now that we were lied into war; that when it came to Osama, BushCo deliberately took its eye off the ball. And we accept this in spite of being inundated by conservative media trying to sell something different. Almost no one I talk with has much use for the internet, so they're shaping their opinions by word of mouth.
The problem as I understand it from my vantage point is that folks want to hear an overall critique of this administration's debacles and a plan that makes sense for putting things right.
We know tax cuts didn't create jobs; the War on Terror isn't making us safe; NCLB isn't helping make the big cities we're hostile to safer or preparing kids to become productive citizen-adults. We know the corruption stems from legislative systems that serve a moribund corporate state. We know the wall between church and state protects both, and that our faith is being used as a tool to rob us blind of our public purse, our good will, our hopes and dreams.
And here in Ohio we know election fraud will help keep it that way until leaders of courage stand up, speak out and fight.
Posted by: cs | February 08, 2006 at 10:35
I reject the idea that the Democratic Party should have (or can have) an Iraq policy.
Republicans -- as a party -- don't have an Iraq policy. The President is a Republican, and he has an Iraq policy, and many Republicans are inclined to align themselves with it. Others do not.
If a Democrat were President, he or she would adopt and express a policy. The policy, and associated strategies, would depend on that President's conscience, judgment, vision and advisors, and depend further on an underdetermined choice from within a universe of possibilities consistent with those constraints. Many Democrats would likely align with it, as might some Republicans.
But the "What's the Democrats' policy?" question is inapt no matter which side of the aisle (or gallery) it comes from.
Posted by: RonK, Seattle | February 08, 2006 at 10:40
"We know tax cuts didn't create jobs; the War on Terror isn't making us safe; NCLB isn't helping make the big cities we're hostile to safer or preparing kids to become productive citizen-adults."
Exactly.
Here’s my prescription for the Dems national security plan: ignore Iraq.
Iraq, especially after 9/11, should never have been part of the WOT. The situation is completely unpredicatable and we will be reactive to what happens no matter what we plan for (in other words, whatever plan is laid out will probably turn out wrong).
Instead, lay out a cogent plan to go after al Qaeda and otherwise undermine Muslim radicals. If necessary Democrats should warmly embrace the neocons call for democracy as a solution to political disenfranchisement and powerlessness of Arabs in the ME. Portray Iraq as a terrible mistake (not very hard, you know) in the war against radicalism – there was none before we got there - and something we’ll have to weather as best we can while we put an effective (Democrat) foreign policy back in place.
Of course the Democrats, being grownups, will include more than JDAMS and coercive diplomacy in their program. The Dems should lay-out (and expand) all of the institution-building and outreach diplomacy that Democrats, being the party of rational, effective government, have practiced in the (peaceful and secure) past.
Democrats need to remember, people want security but they want it through peace not military adventurism. Republicans don't do peace.
Again, Republicans have ceded the ground of diplomats and peacemakers completely to Democrats. Dems need to point out that the chickenhawks (who, unlike Murtha and Kerry, have never laid boot to battlefield) and the pointy-headed neoconservatives (who’ve never been out of their publishing suites) one-dimensional ideologically-driven policies have been a miserable failure (again, that’s intuitive to many). Then, with an aggressive program (anti-up serious budget numbers for special forces, interdiction, adjudication, port security, etc.) to go after Al Qaeda, they can show a more pragmatic, comprehensive plan. Can Democrats still say “carrot and stick”?
Posted by: shep | February 08, 2006 at 10:54
I agree with RonK that we don't need an Iraq policy as much as we need lessons on howe to talk about it. OTOH, domestic policy can and should be better articulated.
What I deplore (even if Murtha isn't the spokesperson) is running away from him. Lieberman may be the poster boy of what not to do (embrace Bush while lecturing Dems)but he's not the only one.
They should be figuring out how to build a bigger tent, not consigning part of the electorate (and the party) to the children's tent (with disdain). Petey, your advice may be sound but needs (much) better execution.
Posted by: DemFromCT | February 08, 2006 at 11:08
"I reject the idea that the Democratic Party should have (or can have) an Iraq policy."
Well, I'd at least agree with you on the "can't" part.
I'm sympathetic to your 'foreign policy is an executive function' argument, but it strikes me as more of a sensible policy argument than a useful politics argument.
And while I think you're right that we probably can't have a unified argument about how to head forward on Iraq, we do need a unified set of principles on national security to run under this fall.
I'd argue that those principles should be something along what Bayh was chattering about this weak - saying that Bush's incompetence has weakened America's defenses.
Posted by: Petey | February 08, 2006 at 11:21
"What I deplore (even if Murtha isn't the spokesperson) is running away from him."
I respectfully disagree. The caucus as a whole in an election year should be running away from Murtha as fast as their legs can carry them.
Note that running away from him is not the same as Sister Souljah-ing him, which would be utterly inappropriate in Murtha's case.
Posted by: Petey | February 08, 2006 at 11:35
Find the "some". Kick them out. They can whine all they want from the republican sidelines. We need hard data. Let's get names, positions, campaigns. Publish them to the blogs. Give us some phone numbers. These wankers can't stand the light of day. So let's shine away baby.
Posted by: patience | February 08, 2006 at 11:49
"I respectfully disagree. The caucus as a whole in an election year should be running away from Murtha as fast as their legs can carry them."
Why? Murtha is an actual, bonafied, wounded-in-combat, never-met-a-defense-appropriation-he-didn’t-like, actually loves and is beloved by the troops, Democrat hawk.
He hasn’t said anything commanders on the ground haven’t said publicly: “we’re buggin’ out.”
You’re responding to Republicans exactly the way they want you to. Respectfully, stop it.
In fact: message to all Democrats: STOP TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRATS! Every time some media hack tries to bait you with a question about the party (“why no leaders, policies, values, etc.?”) or another Democrat (“do you think Obama is partsian, Dean is crazy, Hillary is mean, etc.”) take it as an open invitation to TALK ABOUT REPUBLICANS ([“it, he, she] is not as [adrift, valueless, partisan, crazy, mean] as…”)
Jesus people. They’ve been doing it to you for a generation, haven’t you been taking notes?
Posted by: shep | February 08, 2006 at 12:08
A day or two ago Digby had a really good piece called "Process Talk" that said, speaking of something Tom Vilsack said,
"A process answer is saying what "we should say" instead of just saying it. Nothing drives me more nuts than a politician who talks process instead of engaging voters directly. In this instance it's a backstab equal to anything one of those run-at-the-mouth strategists says to the NY Times to boost his cool factor among the mediatarts. He's positioning himself as a "reasonable" centrist on national security, but he clearly has nothing to offer on the subject at hand so he just talks about what "we should be doing."
"A lot of politicians do this, in different ways. Even Howard Dean used to do it when he said "we should be appealing to those guys with the confederate flags on their pick ups --- they don't have health care either." I wanted to shout "Great! Do it. What's the pitch?" The pitch never came. That's the rub with these process discussions. Just saying that we should do something or we need to do something is not the same as doing it. And it's a big reason why people are confused about what we stand for."
This is exactly right and something that has infuriated me about some of our candidates and spokespeople for a couple of years now--the inability to speak directly and say something the speaker truly believes and has thought about. You "project" strength by being strong, not talking about being strong.
If the Dems can't agree on Iraq, ok. Have a reasonably unified policy on what to do going forward to stop al Qaeda and reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks. But I think that within 6 months the need to withdrawq will be so crystal clear that the Dem policy will basically write itself.
Posted by: Mimikatz | February 08, 2006 at 12:13
If the Dems can't get behind the, still imperial, policy advocated by Murtha (which polls off the charts according to the myDD poll), they are worthless. Why bother?
Posted by: janinsanfran | February 08, 2006 at 12:24
Petey, you may be right. I don't know. But Murtha is only reflecting what the military wants to do. There is nothing cowardly or "cut-and-run" about his plan, which is a starting point for a new and different approach to fighting the insurgency. It never got anything close to a fair shake, since the knee-jerk reaction in politics was to run away and hide.
If we can get four or five of Kos's "Fighting Dems" into office, then there might be a way to bring the issue back. The Iraq-veterans caucus. You can bet your ass they won't run away from Murtha! How are they doing?
Posted by: rasmus | February 08, 2006 at 12:26
"Why? Murtha is an actual, bonafied, wounded-in-combat, never-met-a-defense-appropriation-he-didn’t-like, actually loves and is beloved by the troops, Democrat hawk."
Because his message will end up helping the GOP this fall more than it will help us. That's the only calculation I care about at this moment in time. We've got a decent shot at taking the House if everyone plays their cards right.
I like Murtha. I don't think anyone should be trying to shut him up. As the idiotic phrase goes, he's earned the right to speak. But the rest of the caucus ought to keep their distance.
Posted by: Petey | February 08, 2006 at 12:32
If everyone plays their cards right?
With 400 some-odd hands being dealt, that's not a "decent shot."
Posted by: Kagro X | February 08, 2006 at 12:38
"With 400 some-odd hands being dealt, that's not a "decent shot."
Well, we only gotta win 200 some-odd hands to get the House back...
Posted by: Petey | February 08, 2006 at 12:54
RonK:
Careful. I think you just agreed with me.
Can't have that.
Posted by: Armando | February 08, 2006 at 12:56
"Because his message will end up helping the GOP this fall more than it will help us."
What message? Iraq is a mess? How does that help Republicans?
Posted by: shep | February 08, 2006 at 12:59
The one prominent Democrat who can speak with authority on military and national security matters (and if a Democrat can't do that, the country will not listen), and has a liberal-enough stand on most important Democratic issues to satisfy the largest majority of Democrats, is Wes Clark. He has no baggage, is well respected by the public and the media, and is probably the only person who can get a consensus of approval by all of the various factions vying for attention in the Democratic Party right now. Are we Democrats wise enough to see this and give him the reins? Time will tell.
Posted by: Roosevelt Democrat | February 08, 2006 at 13:15
OK, I was being a little obtuse.
The only effective narrative the GOP can throw at Murtha is “if we cut-and-run we won’t win”. The counter narrative is “we’ve already won (at least, I’m pretty sure I saw a banner to that effect). If the object was to overthrow Saddam’s regime and turn the country back over to the Iraqi people, let’s finish the mission. Right now, having a large troop presence on the ground is inflaming Iraqi resentment and risking setting off a civil war, as well as putting our soldiers at unnecessary risk.”
GOP talking-point hack: “But what about the terrorists?”
Dem: “We’ll continue to hunt down, kill or capture those who threaten the Unites States”.
Both Bush’s “Mission accomplished” and Rumsfeld’s “The Iraqi security forces are doing an excellent job” ("then let's let them do it") can be effective counter-attacks to the “we need stay to win” narrative.
Posted by: shep | February 08, 2006 at 14:00
"The one prominent Democrat who can speak with authority on military and national security matters..."
We have a number of such voices, Clark, Murtha, Kerry, (now) Webb, the Fighting Dems, etc. (probably more than Republicans).
They just need to speak with one voice: "We've been there, we know what we're talking about. Republicans haven't, Republicans don't".
Posted by: shep | February 08, 2006 at 14:05
link
Domestic policy ought to be clear... 'strong on defense' and skipping the tactics discussion will do for now. Republicans are vulnerable, however:
Posted by: DemFromCT | February 08, 2006 at 15:28
You have to wonder just what the fuck is going through their rat-like brains.
Is the GOP actively trying to lose?
Out of every 4 Dem ads this fall, one should be on corruption, one on Medicare Part D, one on Social Security, and one on local or defense issues.
"Domestic policy ought to be clear... 'strong on defense' and skipping the tactics discussion will do for now."
We can even have a detailed and unified defense posture for this fall. It just has to avoid the "how would you micro-manage the Iraq mess" question.
And I'll reiterate that the Evan Bayh vocabulary and tone is exactly how we should be hitting them.
-----
NSA only plays positive for us if it gets really bi-partisan. In which case it can't really be planned for, and can only fall like manna into our laps if the gods are shining upon us.
Posted by: Petey | February 08, 2006 at 16:30
We have a number of such voices, Clark, Murtha, Kerry, (now) Webb, the Fighting Dems, etc. (probably more than Republicans).
The Fighting Dems. Am I the only one who has a serious problem with this notion of mixing up military service with politics in such a direct way? Kerry's campaign opened this Pandora's Box with their band of brothers thing last fall. I wonder if the consultants who did it knew the implications of what they were doing. Seems to be commonly accepted around the liberal blogosphere that this makes us look strong on defense/security. I think this is not so, in fact quite the opposite. My sense of it is that we're crossing a line we ought not to cross, and I wish I could explain better, but this kind of "that ain't right" gut feeling that I get sometimes comes from growing up in conservative small town USA..
Posted by: dar1a g | February 08, 2006 at 16:35
"The Fighting Dems. Am I the only one who has a serious problem with this notion of mixing up military service with politics in such a direct way?"
Yes you are.
It's got a very long and very honorable tradition.
Murtha came out of Vietnam into the House. Nixon and Kennedy came out of world war II into the House. Eisenhower came of commanding world war II into the Presidency.
And it continues going back through American history. Teddy Roosevelt comes out of the Spanish American war into the Vice-Presidency. Grant goes from commander of the union army to the Presidency.
And it keeps going further back all the way to Geroge Washington coming out of commanding the revolutionary war into the first Presidency.
Posted by: Petey | February 08, 2006 at 16:55
And Andrew Jackson. And Bob Dole. And John Kerry (well, kinda, sorta). And John McCain after a decade hiatus.
Posted by: Petey | February 08, 2006 at 16:59
I know they served and were known for their service, that isn't quite the point, and those are fairly obvious examples that I'd hope you'd give me credit for knowing about! The fact that we have a group of them together is part of what gets me. But, maybe this is me wandering off into meta theory land, trying to find a way to say, one political party sending out such an overtly militaristic group of candidates to run for office against candidates of another party.. goes too far. War by other means, but if it's other means, why do we need to play up the war..
Posted by: dar1a g | February 08, 2006 at 17:13
And John Kerry (well, kinda, sorta)
Huh? The better part of four years on active duty in the U.S. Naval Reserve is not enough? Just because one or two jerks didn't like him when he was on the ground in Vietnam, or so they say now? Plenty of others did, although the single most important witness, the man who led Kerry's first training mission on the Swift Boats in Vietnam and who wrote the spot reports for the Silver Star mission (Don Droz, also present at the other disputed mission, and probably also the author of that report as well), died there. A small-town kid from Missouri who got into Annapolis on his own merit, the smear was as much an attack on Droz's integrity as Kerry's. It really was a new low, though the media never really got its teeth into that aspect of it.
Note that I don't necessarily support Kerry in 2008, but I do find the idea that he's not a legitimate veteran ludicrous.
dar1a g, I don't know much about the Iraq veterans who are running as Democrats, but I wouldn't automatically characterize them as "militaristic." The point is to expose the chickenhawks on the Republican side who got us into this war and are making a mess of it, precisely because they don't know what they are doing. Think Wilkerson, a man with serious military credentials, and his "cabal" observations.
Posted by: rasmus | February 08, 2006 at 18:02
"But, maybe this is me wandering off into meta theory land, trying to find a way to say, one political party sending out such an overtly militaristic group of candidates to run for office against candidates of another party.. goes too far."
Not to worry. Biden should soften things up a bit, if not Hillary.
Posted by: shep | February 08, 2006 at 22:56
There's a hole in Digby's wishbook.
Step 1: Dem #1 stands up and says "Here's the way". (As several have, in divergent expressions.)
Step 2: ???
Step 3: The rest of us Dem's fall into line.
What's Step 2? Apparently it's a process. It may not be a process that can feasibly exist within the universe we're talking about, but it's most assuredly a process.
Foreign policy is not just an executive function. It's a personal and discretionary executive function. Different leader -- different answer. Same leader, different breakfast on Punctuated Equilibrium Day -- different answer.
For now, Dem's stand in opposition to a failed leader executive who leaves us with a battered army and a tattered rationale for being "over there", on a more hostile, less stable planet.
New policy presumes new leadership. We (Dem's) can't impose new policy. We can only nibble around the edges of W's governing coalition. Faced with sufficiently grave political consequences, he may alter course ... but we can't define that course, much less impose our own.
Murtha's move is a perfectly good pressure tactic, and a stimulus to debate. I like it from those standpoints, but it's not a policy, and it's certainly not THE Democratic policy.
Anyone who deals our whole party into the "what's your answer?" game is wittingly or unwittingly helping the GOP.
Posted by: RonK, Seattle | February 09, 2006 at 12:58
There is no way that we Democrats can appear "overtly militaristic" with people like Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, and many others with similar holes in their national security/defense/military service record running around reminding the public that we have our own group of chicken hawks and chicken doves. In national security and defense matters, we Democrats are the Avis of political parties. We have to try harder. Thank goodness we have Wes Clark, John Kerry, John Murtha, and the Fighting Democrats to give our party some credibility on national security, defense, and military matters. Otherwise, we would still be perceived as perennial wimps when it comes to defending this nation.
Posted by: Roosevelt Democrat | February 09, 2006 at 13:12
"Thank goodness we have Wes Clark, John Kerry, John Murtha, and the Fighting Democrats to give our party some credibility on national security, defense, and military matters. Otherwise, we would still be perceived as perennial wimps when it comes to defending this nation."
This is our chance to make this about policy not personality. Cult of personality lives only as long as the personality. And Democrats are never going to be as good at hero worship and opponent hate as the RW base. Period.
Good, rational, responsive-to-the-people government policy is what all Democrats stand for. That's the counter-narrative to the current Republican corruption and malfeasance. And that could affect both party brands for years.
Posted by: shep | February 09, 2006 at 13:48
It is about having the correct policy in the final analysis, but the messenger has to be credible. The simple truth is that the most credible people we have on national security and defense matters are people who have served in the military, such as Wes Clark, John Kerry, John Murtha, and the Fightinmg Democrats. Democrats like Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, and Hillary Clinton can come up with the best-souding national security and defense policy, but it will not get a hearing because their resumes do not back up their words. That is the legacy of the Democratic Party being successfully portrayed and thus perceived as weak on national security and defense for the past three decades. We have to work harder to be believable. Fortunately, someone like Wes Clark does not have to prove himself to the public on national security and defense, he already has done that on the battlefield and as a commander in chief. Others must try to prove themselves with policy statements only, but that doesn't register with the public. When it comes to national security and defense in the public mind (beyond Democratic circles only), actions speak louder than words. That's where the military service on the resume can win if we have enough military people running as Democrats. That can overcome the Republican perception advantage and help the public once again perceive the Democratic Party as the party that can successfully wage and win a war when we have to fight for our liberty. That's the image we need if we are to be trusted with the government in 2006 and 2008.
Posted by: Roosevelt Democrat | February 09, 2006 at 16:54
Agreed. The '08 national ticket will need strong national security cred. I just don't want to get fixated on that now.
Right now is about Republican failure at government and the Democrats' explanation for why that happens. Right now is about branding Republicans as the party that has no faith in government and Democrats as the party that keeps faith with the people.
Think big.
Posted by: shep | February 09, 2006 at 17:55