101 103 Of Our Children Died In Iraq This Month

Amidst the chaos headlines, like Infiltration of Iraqi Police Could Delay Handover of Control for Years and Bush Says 'America Loses' Under Democrats, it's too easy to get distracted and forget what this election is about. Sure, there are issues from the economy to national security that matter. In Ohio, the economy matters more than just about anything, except maybe the complete collapse of the corrupt Ohio Republican party.

But as small town America sends its boxes of goods to our soldiers in the military, the beef jerky and baby wipes and anti-fungal foot powder, the cookies and books and magazines to read, the extra supplies to hand out to the kids who don't get boxes from home, voters do not forget what this election is about, and they are not in a forgiving mood.

George Bush promised to be the the War President. American voters weren't certain he was up to the job. Still, the office of Commander-in-Chief was given the benefit of the doubt, as that office usually is. But as Dick Morris told Hannity, if you want to be the War President, you have to win the war. That battle was lost by August.

Two separate points are colluding to stall the political benefit of the WoT^TM to the WH (and by extention, Republicans). One is that there is now a major separation in American's mind between Iraq and the WoT^TM. They are not perceived to be the same thing.

    51% in Poll See No Link Between Iraq and Terror Fight

Americans increasingly see the war in Iraq  as distinct from the fight against terrorism, and nearly half believe President Bush has focused too much on Iraq to the exclusion of other threats, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Nor is the Iraq War popular.

Opposition among Americans to the war in Iraq has reached a new high, with only about a third of respondents saying they favor it, according to a poll released Monday

Nor will the Iraq War be the source of "optimism about winning against terrorism [that] is highly related to major military offensives" because there's none on the horizon.

Bush is now in danger of losing four wars simultaneously - the Iraq civil war, Afghanistan, the WoT and the war for hearts and minds. That latter war is already deeply in trouble overseas, with allies along with everyone else. The weight of bad policy hangs around every change in tactics.

But somewhere between the NIE, Woodward's book, and the violence in Iraq, American voters realized the price our children are paying for Republican loyalty to Bush's pigheaded policies. it's not that others aren't dying at astounding rates, but in one week, the voters are going to be thinking about their kids, their neighbor's kids and the kids down the block.

They're going to consider the meaning of waiting until after the election to unveil the Iraq Study Group recommendations (like the House Ethics Committee report, we can't let facts influence the election - that's far too political). They're going to think about how many lives are wasted because politics trump everything. And when they consider the facts, the circumstance, and what little they can do about it, they are going to show up at the polls. And when they do, they are not going to vote Republican.

There's plenty of bone-headed election analysis I have seen this fall (most of it by me, maybe), and there's plenty of silly things said (some of it here). The polls are all wrong. This is the week the Republicans surge with their national security message (said every week since July). Bush is coming back - how high will he go? Your vote doesn't count. But the dumbest thing you will read, usually on the right and not by the non-partisans, is that the middle just won't show up at the polls.

Fewer people vote in off-year elections than in presidential years. In 2002, 75 million people voted. In 2004, 122 million did. My hunch is that people who identify themselves as independents are substantially less likely to vote this year than people who identify as Republicans or Democrats -- which would be good news for Republicans, since independents give Bush low job ratings.

The independents and swing voters don't vote in mid-term elections. What planet are these people living on? These are our kids and they are dying every day. The middle will show. And the middle is not in a forgiving mood.

Update: Barone is more nuanced than saying they won't show (he's saying they won't show in numbers), but then again, so is Stu Rothenberg

Independents may not turn out at the same rate as strong partisans in midterm elections, but for dozens of Republicans trying to hold their seats in a potentially strong Democratic wave -- particularly those running in marginal districts -- independents will be plentiful enough at the polls to separate winners from losers. In Connecticut, for example, independents (unaffiliated voters) constitute a plurality of all state voters..."There just aren't any independents this year," joked one Republican strategist I talked with recently. "There are Republicans, Democrats and soft Democrats."

Comments

[DemFromCT]

stu rothenberg

Independents may not turn out at the same rate as strong partisans in midterm elections, but for dozens of Republicans trying to hold their seats in a potentially strong Democratic wave — particularly those running in marginal districts — independents will be plentiful enough at the polls to separate winners from losers. In Connecticut, for example, independents (unaffiliated voters) constitute a plurality of all state voters.

Normally, independents break roughly evenly between the two parties. In the 2000 presidential election, independents went for then-Texas Gov. Bush over Al Gore, 47 percent to 45 percent. Four years later, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) bested Bush 49 percent to 48 percent among independents.

This year, that’s not close to being the case. “There just aren’t any independents this year,” joked one Republican strategist I talked with recently. “There are Republicans, Democrats and soft Democrats.”

That means Jodi is a soft Democrat. ;-)

[Jodi]

DemFromCT,

It will probably be higher. They are about 8 hours ahead
of us, but there is still time in the day over there. I
usually call early morning, to get them at Noon.

:(

you are right. Soft Democrat, queasy Republican,
Radical/Right Center! I feel like I am on pretty choppy
water, and I am stepping from one canoe to another.
You should see my younger brother's and his wife's
reaction to my views on Social Security.

They are moving comfortably into Rich Independent
Doctor Types.

But he was in Afghanistan, and he is starting to show
some doubts. My sister in-law pales if there is talk of him
being called back.

[Jodi]

Well, DemFromCT, it is essentially one (1) week to the
moment of truth, and you didn't answer this earlier-----

You are from CT!
Are you willing to put forward a prediction on the CT
Senate race?

Yoda might say ~I sense fear, anger, leading to pain, ...~

But anyway Padawon DemFromCT, what say you one
week from the moment of truth?

In CT (Senate), National Control of House & Senate, Washington 8th

((I remember so clearly -"Padawon Kenobi - "I have a
bad feeling about this"."))

[DemFromCT]

If the election were today, CT Sen Lieberman by 5, D's win CT-04 and CT-05. CT-02 is too close to call but leans Simmons.

[orionATL]

thanks for the comments on our (adult) children at great risk.

i just returned from a small town in appalachia where one military family waits proudly but very anxiously for a child to safely finish a tour - a tour that has no guaranteed end date.

i don't know polling, or how stars on the window of a house translate into voting decisions, but i am one member of one family that knows damn good and well how he is going to vote.

[sti1es]

"It's not that others aren't dying at astounding rates, but in one week, the voters are going to be thinking about their kids, their neighbor's kids and the kids down the block."

Will "they" think about Iraqis at all?

[DemFromCT]

Will "they" think about Iraqis at all?

Many will, most won't. So it goes.

[freepatriot]

Will "they" think about Iraqis at all?

if by "think" you mean "care", the answer is "NO"

I live in and amonst the great unwashed masses, and except for the people I've personally enlightened, I don't know a single person who understands the secterian aspects of the Muslim religion, or a single person who could explain the difference between an Arab and a Persian

thanks to the history channel, I know a lot of people with some fucked up views of the past, but mideast history ain't a big seller in the heartland. Most people don't even have "Bad Information" about the real problems in the MidEast

Most Americans don't care about the Iraqis. That's how we got here in the first place

In my experience, people just care about "the Soldiers"

[freepatriot]

I shoulda said that the Christian Americans I know don't understand the mideast

I know some Muslims who are very adept at reciting the problems of the mideast

(I know some pretty pissed off Palastinians)

I also know a Muslim Morrocan guy who doesn't know shit about Arabs and Persians, and he doesn't care, except for how it has made his religion appear in the media

so I can't really say that all Americans don't care. But with the exception of Americans whose ancestors are from the region, most Americans are ignorant about the mideast

[hauksdottir]

Actually, some of us do care about the Iraqis... note all of the people who followed Salam Pax, Raed, and who fretted when Riverbend didn't post for several weeks. The descriptions of daily life: getting gas, cleaning house for a holiday, going to a government office for a permit, buying groceries, etc., make the Iraqi bloggers as real as our own friends. So when a family member is displaced, missing, kidnapped by paramilitary gangsters, it is also real.

Riverbend's comment upon the Lancet study:

"We literally do not know a single Iraqi family that has not seen the violent death of a first or second-degree relative these last three years. Abductions, militias, sectarian violence, revenge killings, assassinations, car-bombs, suicide bombers, American military strikes, Iraqi military raids, death squads, extremists, armed robberies, executions, detentions, secret prisons, torture, mysterious weapons – with so many different ways to die, is the number so far fetched?"

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

Soldiers are persuaded to go into danger, to kill or be killed. They are armed and trained. They have safe areas and dangerous areas. Civilians don't expect to be killed when they go to the market or church or ceremonies such as weddings and funerals... and they certainly don't expect to be killed in their own homes! In American cities, we do have pockets where punks or gangsters rule a few blocks of "turf", but it isn't the entire country. We tend to trust officers in uniform: most of them serve the public good, and the few bad apples get exposed and removed. Iraqis have lived under bombardment and restraint and curfews for 3 1/2 years, and with civil war, they can't even trust their neighbors or officers or government for protection. Family is all they have.

From a secular society, where women had reasonable rights and folks could socialize in the marketplaces, Iraq is regressing to the stone age with each family huddled in a cave, unsafe water, and religious leaders flaying their opponents over a difference of dogma.

The half million dead is a burden, but Cheney and Rummy are also responsible for the scars on the living.