The Politics Of Iraq Part III

by DemFromCT

Part I and Part II look at how and why Republicans are deserting Bush, and on what time scale.

Republicans are feeling the heat. From the LA Times:

Republicans say they hope passion about the Iraq war will cool by the time 2008 ballots are cast. But they acknowledge that if the election were held tomorrow, the war would be a ball and chain around the GOP ankle.

The party was hobbled by antiwar sentiment in the 2006 midterm election, when Republicans lost control of Congress. If the politics of the war do not change, Republicans fear, their hope of regaining control of Congress in 2008 will not be realized.

"Do we hope Iraq is not an issue by election day? Sure," said Rebecca Fisher, spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "But can we guess where we will be next year? No way."

The political fallout from the Iraq debate is hard to gauge, analysts say, because it will hinge in large part on uncertain developments in the war and whether Bush changes course.

That is why more Republican senators, after standing by Bush for years, are now trying to reshape policy well before election day arrives. Last week's Senate debate on defense policy featured a who's who of Republicans facing reelection in 2008 signing on to proposals designed to signal their dissatisfaction with the course of the war.

"If the politics of the war do not change..." Yeah. "The political fallout from the Iraq debate is hard to gauge, analysts say, because it will hinge in large part on uncertain developments in the war and whether Bush changes course." Sure.

What the press simply won't write is that Iraq is not going to get better, and there's zero chance Bush will change course without being forced to. Somehow in the "he said, she said" style of the New Journalism, Bush's stubborn insistance on leading the the country over a cliff is portrayed as 'resolute' as opposed to stubborn to the point of simple-mindedness (there is no Plan B, Bush has no intention of changing course, and these statements have been repeatedly made by the WH to a disbelieving press who can't fathom that Bush actually means what he says. How often the press has failed us for that very reason! What he says is unreasonable but he's never called on it).

As noted, signing on to Lugar and Warner's amendment gets us nowhere. There's no teeth in the amendment. However, it does embarrass the WH to have to be told to get your head of wherever it's been placed and rejoin the reality-based community.

The fact that so few Republicans have been willing to endorse a firm deadline means they will continue to be exposed to criticism from Democrats and from constituents weary of the war. Some Republican strategists worry that no matter what lawmakers do now, the issue will leave some Republican incumbents vulnerable.

"There will be races that will be more competitive in places you don't expect," said a senior advisor to one Republican facing a tough reelection contest. "Fifteen months is a lifetime in politics, it's true. But questions like this war don't go away quickly. This has been three years coming. I don't think it goes away in a New York minute."

John McCain banked on the war to spearhead his drive for the WH. The result?

However, you can also count on Bush to assume he can't go any lower, and with good reason (Charles Franklin writing at pollster.com):

The question is whether Republicans are yet willing to reduce their support for President Bush still further. Republican Senators have begun a series of breaks with the President over Iraq policy and could signal to the grass roots that it is time for an end to unconditional support for Bush. On the other hand, Republicans in the House have retained their unity in support of the President's Iraq policy and so far Republican presidential candidates have refused to repudiate the President. With the divisive immigration bill behind him Bush may be able to sustain a new plateau in partisan support leading to a flattening out of his approval trend.

That assumes independents, or at least 20-25% of them, will also stay on board.

That's why Bush won't change course unless forced, why the August recess is so important, and why R congress critters are not likely to bolt until the get home and hear what the country is really saying.

Follow the news, but keep your expectations realistic. Anything that happens now to advance the discussion is a bonus and worth going for. But when the press writes that this amendment 'failed' or that attempt 'did not succeed' put it in perspective. The Administration is losing support everywhere; it just takes time to work its way to DC.

Comments

[knut wicksell]

If you are correct about Republics scurrying back to their districts to shore up support and hide from the war, the Democratic play should be to keep them in DC all summer, forcing them to filibuster the Senate and protect their flanks at the investigative hearings. I hope Harry and Nancy push this line and keep pouring in fire until the Republic ranks break.

[Mauimom]

Hi Marcy,

I just came over from FDL, after a short detour to write to my friends in NE, urging them to call their Senators re today's vote on the restoration of habeas corpus. [I actually have TWO friends in NE, and I urged them to phone-tree this effort far & wide.]

The list of Waivering Weasels is not too promising, but I think it would be great if we could all

a) contact our own Congresscritters;
b) attend our Congresscritters event(s) to question/remind them
c) contact our friends in other states to remind them to do the same.

Recess is the time these folks "go home to listen to their constituents," so it's particularly important to give them an earful. [I'm thinking mainly of the war, although this post started out on the subject of habeas restoration.]

It looks to me like a lot of the Waivering Weasels live in states with small populations, so a letter, phone call or appearance at an event might have even greater impact. Don't forget too, that these folks -- both Senators & Reps -- have one or more "home offices" scattered around the district or state. Contact with that office, rather than the one in DC, is often felt more.

My plea is that folks both do their own contacting, but that we each make a special effort to think of friends we have in "Red" states or districts who might be responsive to our urgings. The "tubes" are here; let's use 'em.

[JEP]

Dem from CT;

Add one more important point to your chart, and the downward trend might have a very specific starting place; put it the day that McCain hired the Bush 2004 team (Rove's top operatives).

McCain did not just embrace the war, he embraced the very same crooked crew that his Straight Talk express defied in 2000.

McCain's assimilation of Rove's evil minions into his campaign ranks (or vice-versa, maybe) is what started the implosion that we saw in the past week.

The fact that the funding dried up about the same time as he hired those free-spending neocons is just another ironic twist that hastened the McCain campaign's financial disasters and assured its inevitable, politically premature end.

[Boo Radley]

"However, you can also count on Bush to assume he can't go any lower."

I think this is an excellent point. Long before Enron's death spiral, there was complete DENIAL, among the people who knew and could have done something, about the inherent dangers of the special purpose entities they were using to hide their debt. I think DENIAL and paralysis are what really characterize the Bush WH in 2007.

[JEP]

"why R congress critters are not likely to bolt until the get home and hear what the country is really saying."

We had a preview of this when they all went back home for the 4th of July break. Isn't it interesting they came back to Washington even MORE determined to end the war?

I would bet the Republicans who just recently bolted from the Bushco crowd got a lot of that in-your-face, "mad-as-hell-and-not-taking-any-more" constituent indignation when they were back in those home pastures. And not just from the street-level D's protesting outside the building, but from many of their top Republican supporters.

So I would heartily agree with Mauimom's assessment and I think we should all take her good advice to heart. This next recess can and should bring about many more of these real-people reality-check moments for our brainwashed congresscritters.

And it is up to all of us to try to make it happen.

The blogging community, posters AND commentors, can take advantage of this recess to search out and confront(or cajole) these homebound lawmakers in their own constituencies, outside the beltway and away from the pernicious influence of the cocktail weenie crowd, I think we all could help assure that when they return to Washington again, they will be even more determined to enact the will of those constituents back home than they were after the 4th of July break.

[Ace Armstrong]

In all the considerations I have heard and read over the situation in Iraq, no one has hit on the notion that the twenty-some percent who support the president is that portion of the society that is directly benefiting from war profits. I keep seeing and hearing the statement about money spent over there, when the reality is money spent here. Before the invasion, oil was $20/bbl and Haliburton was $20/share. Today oil is over $70/bbl and Haliburton hovers around $35/share after splitting 2for1 last summer. DOD is the largest consumer of pertroleum products in the world.
Everyone presumes that the population at large acknowledges the same definition of sucess, while there is a minority well vested in the military-industrial complex whose only concern is the bottom line. And thus, sucess becomes a matter of perspective and financial portfolio.
Since the last major war fought on american soil was over 150 years ago, no family is in direct harm's way - no suicide bombers outside Starbucks, no landmines in the local playground, no snipers picking off random targets. The universal draft is the closest we've come to establishing a common responsibility. But the substitution of a military caste has resolved that.
As one who became opposed to and demonstrated against the war in Vietnam, I have yet to witness the culture viberance that materialized to coalesce the disparate groups of resistance to that war.

[JEP]

Just some reference material concerning McCain's hiring of top Rove aides; Nelson hired on in March of 2006, and McCain's downward spiral started almost immediately.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/12/mccain_moves_forward.html

You can tell from my comment here that I was very disappointed in McCain.

And from the hopeful, cheery tone of the article, it would seem that Chris Cilliza (a WaPo blog host and a "top poundit" respected by many on the right," was not nearly as politically prescient as his rank and file commentors. On this WaPo blog, at least, that tends to be the standard.

Reading this "old" spin from a known Republican enabler like Cilliza, puts the truth into a very clear perspective. Those happy- days of easy spin are over, and any "top poundit" that continues putting lipstick on that pig, will one day have to kiss that porkine snbout, or admit it's just another made-up pig.

Cilliza's happy-happy view of McCain's acts of political self-destruction, as if it was some sort of politically savvy coup, only proves what most of us already know; the mainstream media is not the source for reliable information and informed opinions any more.

We all know where to go to sort out the REAL truth. And it isn't the mainstream media.

My only question now is, was McCain torpedoes from within? Did another wealthier Republican (say, Romney) and another dangerously connected Republican (Giulliani) dedide to take out the front-runner, and they used Rove to accomplish it?

Just food for thought...

[JEP]

"I have yet to witness the culture viberance that materialized to coalesce the disparate groups of resistance to that war."

And for a very good reason...

As a "veteran" of the Viet Nam war protests, I have to respond that, I don't think the vibrance has diminished, but the conspiracy to cover-up the truth has expanded. With the media owned lock-stock and barrel by confirmed war profiteers, the truth has been covered up much better in this war than it was in the Viet Nam war.

Proof of my theory?

Johnson could not prohibit the media from broadcasting and publishing pictures of wounded or dead Americans, whether in the field or in a coffin.

Bush has managed to do with Iraq what Johnson couldn't with Viet Nam; control the media, TOTALLY. And still, we somehow manage to smell the pungent truth that rises from that sewer.

If not for the blogs, we would likely have a national military draft by now, and we would be at war with Iran and probably half the world.

Viva la Blogs!

[demtom]

As DemfromCT says, the level of denial is really staggering here. Imagine reading a piece in July 1931, hearing GOPers say "You never know if people will vote on the Depression 16 months from now". The catastrophe of this war is in the electorate's bones by now; it colors their every feeling about not only Bush, but the whole neocon/Republican power structure, and the idea that they'll forget all this in a year's time because Fred Thompson looks commanding on TV or because Rudy Giuliani talks tough is ludicrous.

My question: to what degree do the various parties actually believe all this? At the Bush/Cheney level of the White House, it's either close to 100%, or irrelevant, because they're going to damn well do what they want, anyway. (Dem is so right: at this point, expecting Bush to shift course when he's plainly saying he won't is a sign of collective DC insider delusion) At the Congressional level, it's harder to figure. Obviously the not-insane GOP caucus (Snowe, Lugar, Warner, etc.) sees the iceberg up ahead, and others apparently are saying behind the scenes Something Must Be Done -- but in the end, trapped between the fervor of the true belevers and fear of the election up ahead, they keep signing on for just one more extension, hoping the problem will somehow disappear or finesse itself in the interim. They don't seem to understand that the time/space in which change can be effected is dwindling every day. (It's like the first time I stayed up all night as a kid: I knew the hours were passing, but somehow it still shocked me when the sun came up and I hadn't been to sleep)

And, finally, the press: do they write these stories laughing at the quotees, or do they on some level believe the "well, it can still work itself out" rationales? I mean, come on: Republicans imagining they can REGAIN Congress in this atmosphere? They'll be lucky not to be wiped off the map. I read somewhere that political junkies are like the Guy Pearce character in Memento: they treat every moment as new, free of context -- thus, despite the abject failures of the administration, they tell us the presidential election will turn on Edwards' hair, or Thompson's TV credentials, or Hillary-hate. Nonsense. The '08 election, like every election before it, will be a response to the political environment. That environment is purely toxic for Republicans, and I see nothing short of a Sunni/Shia Unity rally that can change that.

[Dismayed]

I have this crazy idea that it may not be only McCain that falls away before election time.

I think many of the frontrunners may find themselve vulnerable near the beginning of the year just due to campain fatigue. Yeah, a lot of people will simply be tired of seeing their mugs, and a fresh powerful voice will have the opportunity to come in and pull momentum away from them.

Also, the war could become a chain around even Democrat candidates. Things will go badly, and a later candidate will be able to come in with a strong message against it. Then these guys who have been out pimping for a while are going to be burdened with stale half asses messages that we've seen for almost a year now.

I wouldn't want to be a frontrunner from either party right now.

[mighty mouse]

demtom--so is what you are describing here Republican political strategy or simply magical thinking? You gotta wonder...

[Mimikatz]

The 20% who support the war are really just low information authoritarians who would equally support Bush if he went on TeeVee tomorrow and announced that we had made sufficient progress to be able to begin pulling out. That's the irony--the people who have stuck with him would stick with him no matter what he did. They don't necessarily want the war to continue; they just trust and support Bush.

I am of two minds what Harry Reid should do--keep the Senate in session all August until McConnell allows an upperdown vote on the war amendments or take a recess before the vote and don't vote on the Defense Bill until the GOPers go home one more time. I think either way would net us a few more votes. Certainly either would highlight the GOP obstructionism.

[freepatriot]

is this really true:

Republicans say they hope passion about the Iraq war will cool by the time 2008 ballots are cast

what fucking planet are these people on ???

"Passion about the Iraq War" ???

gone in less than two years ???

when did Vietnam end ???

April of 1975 ???

and we still see a little bit of "PASSION" about THAT war affecting our political debates 32 years later

so some repuglicans "HOPE" the "Passion" about Iraq will dissappate in less than 18 months

that Koolaide is a lot better than we think

ROTFLMAO

[Powerpuff]

In 1952 the main issue in the presidential election was the Korean War. I do not recall much debate about US troops in Korea in the 1972 campaign, and I do not expect much debate about US troops in Iraq during the 2028 election either.