What Democrats Need To Say Before Bush's Speech

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have now reported to Congress on the situation in Iraq. President Bush will address the nation tomorrow night on television. But we already know in advance what he's going to say -- that he is in favor of American forces in Iraq going through a gradual drawdown of the "surge," which will end in the summer of 2008. This will leave us right in front of the final stretch of the presidential election, with exactly the same number of soldiers in Iraq -- 130,000 -- as we had when the Iraq Survey Group gave its report in 2006 (just after the midterm congressional elections). This is supposed to be "progress," according to the White House.

Democrats in Congress have to quickly decide what to do about this state of affairs. Because if they do nothing, the Republicans are going to run next year on the following slogan: "Trust us to take care of national security -- we are bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq, but we're doing it in a sober, reasonable, and adult way; by listening to the counsel of generals and taking their advice seriously. Democrats have obviously proven they do not have what it takes to put America's interests before politics, and we do."

Whether this political strategy will work or not is an open question, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be the campaign spin from the Republicans. And it might prove to be more effective than it now sounds. If Democrats aren't careful, Republicans could wind up owning the "withdrawal" as a political issue.

The American public has already decided that it's time to get out of Iraq. No matter what the consequences, voters are sick of the situation and want us out. But they also want a plan to get out that both (1) protects soldiers as we leave, and (2) also seems like a reasonable and intelligent plan.

Congressional Democrats have been unable to provide this one solid plan to the public. Some might argue that they simply don't have the votes to force through whatever they want (especially over the inevitable Bush veto), but this ignores a larger political problem for the party. This problem can be accurately stated as: they don't even appear to be trying very hard. And that could reap disaster in next year's election for the party as a whole.

Political impressions are almost as important as political realities, and if Democrats seem as if they can't even stand up to congressional Republicans, then why should American voters trust them to stand up to Osama Bin Laden (for instance)?

For everyone who cheered the resignation of Karl Rove, the White House PR machine seems to be humming along very nicely without him. Congressional Democrats (while carping about the Iraqi Parliament's month-long vacation) took the entire month of August off -- as, indeed, they do every year. They were all supposed to go back to their home district and eat barbeque and corn dogs for a month, then come back to Washington for the Iraq debate.

Problem is, the White House didn't waste August in this fashion. They put on a blitzkrieg PR offensive to sell the idea that the "surge" is working -- both to the press and to the public at large. To a large degree, this has changed the debate in Washington. Not so much with the public, but when the Democrats finally put down the spareribs and potato salad and returned to Congress, they found that the entire Washington political atmosphere surrounding the Iraq debate had changed.

Now, they're struggling to coalesce around a strategy for what to do next. As always, the inherent "herding cats" nature of the Democratic Party is in the spotlight for all to see. Which is a shame. They've already lost on how to "frame" the debate in September, and they're desperately trying to figure out a cohesive response that will resonate with the American people. Unfortunately, they're coming up with some pretty weak answers.

Now, to be sure, this is happening during the presidential primary season, which means that several Democratic candidates are trying to claim the mantle of "leader of the party," so there's bound to be some jockeying for position. But (unlike Republicans), rather than trying to outdo each other, Democrats seem to be falling all over themselves to appear polite and reasonable to the other side in the debate (with the notable exceptions of Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel, who are all valiantly trying to pull Democrats towards a stronger anti-war position).

Granted, the Democrats just do not have the votes in Congress to shove something down Bush's throat, so in the end they're probably going to have to compromise a bit to gain Republican support. But the key phrase in that sentence (which the Democratic leadership seems to be ignoring) is: "in the end." Not: "at the beginning."

Some will balk at what I am about to say, and call it "playing politics" in the midst of a war debate. I disagree. Because the Democrats are on the side of protecting U.S. troops by getting them out of an impossible situation. In other words, they have the high moral road in this debate. If they were playing politics with soldiers' lives merely for political gain then I would agree that this is crass, unseemly, and borders on the criminal. Fortunately, this is Bush's position and not the Democratic position.

A basic political truth is that the majority party in Congress can't always get what it wants passed and signed into law, especially with a sitting President from the opposing party. But the way this situation is supposed to be handled is that the majority votes on the strongest possible bill first, which forces the minority to vote on record opposing such a measure. When the bill dies (through presidential veto or other means), then these votes can be quite effectively used on the campaign trail against the minority party's incumbents.

This is Politics 101. If you'd like an example of how devastating this can be on the campaign trail, please see John Kerry's quote: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

After you've forced such votes on the minority, then you can start talking about compromises. But not before. In the immortal words of drive-in movie critic (and at-large social critic, to boot) Joe Bob Briggs: "I'm surprised I have to explain this stuff."

While the American public understands that Democrats may fail in their efforts to rein Bush in (due to the congressional math of adding up veto-proof votes), they simply will not understand or forgive if Democrats don't even make the attempt. If, on the one hand, the party is seen as trying as hard as possible to get their plan passed -- but failing in the end -- then the public will still respect them for trying. But if they are seen as not even able to make that attempt in the first place -- then the public will have nothing but scorn for the party. And rightly so.

Do the Democrats want to increase their majority in the Senate? This is the way to do it. There are several Republican senators already horrified about their chances for re-election, who really need to be on the record on such votes; from such states as Maine, New Hampshire, and Oregon... to name but a few. Their feet need to be held to the fire, first and foremost. After doing so, and after the strongly-worded measures go down to defeat, then start talking compromise.

[Sigh.]

Sorry, but sometimes it's depressing to root for congressional Democrats. Their love of consultants and triangulating does wear on one at times....

In any case, I wrote this article because I saw the three alternatives (read that as "compromises") floated by Democrats this week to the mainstream media. Now, I must say that in the past few days, Democrats seem to be waking up to the political reality that they're about to get steamrolled (once again) on Iraq, and they have begun stating their case a bit more forcefully... but they've still got a long way to go. And President Bush is about to use his "bully pulpit" to the nation tomorrow night, so it's not as if Democrats have a whole lot of time to turn this around.

From an AP article on the subject of what Democrats may do next:

Other Democrats and several Republicans say there is plenty of room for compromise. Congressional aides say bipartisan proposals are in the works and that [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid has reached out to several GOP senators to discuss potential common ground. However, a major hurdle remaining are politically influential organizations like MoveOn.org who say Democrats shouldn't water down the debate with more moderate legislation.

Alternative legislative proposals on Iraq include:

* Ordering troop withdrawals to begin this fall, but set the spring date of completion as a nonbinding goal.

* Limit the mission of U.S. troops to training the Iraqi security forces, fighting terrorists and protecting U.S. assets, but leave it up to military commanders to determine force levels.

* Demanding Bush submit a new war strategy to Congress by fall that would limit the mission of U.S. forces and begin drawing down force levels in coming months.

Didn't Democrats used to have some union bosses in their makeup? When did Democrats lose all sense of how to conduct negotiations? If you're in a position of strength, don't lead with a weak compromise!

[Sigh.] Sorry.

Instead of capitulating before the debate even begins, how about flooding the airwaves today with the following unified Democratic message, from every Democrat who comes within range of a microphone or camera:

"We're pleased that President Bush is about to come around to the Democratic way of thinking. He will be announcing tomorrow night what the Democratic leaders in Congress have been strongly advocating for months now: that we need to start intelligently and safely withdrawing American troops from Iraq. Bush has resisted this commonsense strategic shift in our efforts in Iraq for over four years now, and he has even vetoed legislation designed to bring about this goal, but he now finds himself backed into a corner. He has the choice of either completely breaking the Army, instituting a mandatory military draft, or of pulling soldiers out... because there are no soldiers left to send into his senseless pre-emptive war.

"Democrats have been pleading with Bush to change course for years now, and he is finally admitting that the Democrats have been right all along. The only way political progress in Iraq can be achieved is by letting the Iraqis fight their own battles, and for America to cease to be seen as an occupying force in Iraq. The vast majority of American citizens came to this conclusion long ago, and it has taken the White House until now to follow the people's lead on the matter.

"While we are glad that President Bush is now seeing things in the same cold light of reality that Democrats have been attempting to shine for a long time on the situation in Iraq; we also believe he is coming very late to this conclusion, and that his withdrawal plan -- like most things the White House does -- is a problem of 'too little, too late.' We will work with the White House to insure a safe and effective withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in the coming weeks, and we are glad President Bush is finally coming around to the Democratic position -- which is also the mainstream position of two-thirds of the American public.

"We Democrats are confident we can convince congressional Republicans to get on board such a Democratic initiative to save American troops' lives, and we are also confident that the White House will also see the wisdom of the American people on this matter. We would hate for the war critics to be proved right when they assert that Bush is only interested in passing this matter off to the next administration, and that Bush's biggest goal right now is to 'kick the can down the road' for the next President to deal with.

"That is a horrifying thought to contemplate when American fighting men and women's lives are on the line, and we instead feel assured that Bush will indeed see the wisdom of our approach. Instead of sacrificing American soldiers needlessly in a shallow attempt to inject politics into what should be a rational debate about how best to protect American interests and American soldiers' lives, Bush should indeed take this chance to follow the Democrats' lead on this issue."

That is what I am waiting for the Democrats to say. But they've got to say it today, or at the latest tomorrow, in response to Bush's speech. Because if they wait past that point, they're going to lose the PR fight once again.

Democrats need to present such a narrative to the public. Because if they don't, Bush and the Republicans are going to present "getting out of Iraq" as a Republican idea. And with their echo chamber in the right-wing news media, they could actually get away with it.

What continually astonishes me is that I am one average American sitting at a keyboard, and I can come up with such "framing" for Democrats to use -- fairly easily on my part. Is it really so hard for Democratic politicians (and their advisors) to recognize what seems to be so obvious? Have these people truly been inside the Beltway so long they have lost all perspective on how the public sees these things?

I sincerely hope not, but I have to wonder. The next week or so will tell.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[loslobo]

I wish during the President's speech every sane American would do a Howard Beale, and scream out their windows "I'm mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore"

one way out - impeach the bastards

[Plowboy]

Fallon is an admirable admiral. He told the truth about the Bushgeneral. Honor is restored to our military.

[texanna]

So, have you sent this directly to Harry and Nancy? I think they could really use the talking points, since it doesn't look like they've come up with anything during the recess. While you're at it, maybe you could make some suggestions to them to harden their images -- tougher sounding names or maybe something other than the college English professor and PTA Mom look? I don't know what those two actually do, but from the public side it doesn't look like much! They have about used up my last ounce of patience, for sure.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Be my guest.

Pelosi (webform):

http://www.speaker.gov/contact

Pelosi (email address):

AmericanVo­ices@mail.­house.gov

Harry Reid, according to his official web page, does not accept emails from non-constituents. Residents of Nevada can use the following webform:

http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm

Forward it on...

-CW

[Qbear]

The Bush Speech

"The dog and pony show is over, SEND IN THE CLOWNS"
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/z/e/1/bush_clown.jpg

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

OK, that link was funny, too!

Got one with Bush as Alfred E. Neumann?

-CW

[Qbear]

here's a link to an Afred E Newman Bush
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushpic8.htm

[jcheadsup]

I would suggest that congress stand and chant…

IMOEACHMENT IS, VETO PROOF
IMOEACHMENT IS, VETO PROOF
IMOEACHMENT IS, VETO PROOF

[Fairfloss]

Playing offense instead of defense is not a new idea to the Democrats. They have been using this tactic all a long. It's just that some of their plays have been lousy and their team is not working well together.

Team work has broken down into show-boating by those who want the trophy, i.e. to be called "President."

You are going to have to look towards Nancy and Harry and by the way, have you looked at these two people's approval ratings lately?

The worse they look, the better President Bush looks.

The ad in the New York Times is going to come back to bite the Democrats in the behind. Just remember, for everyone of those troops serving in Iraq, there are numerous family members that support them and to insult their General as they did, is an insult to them.

I realize the Democrats are saying quietly, they don't agree, but they are not shouting it out. They are allowing the Moveon.org people, the Progressives, (?) to rule them.

Who else will be able to RULE them if a Democrat is elected?

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Fairfloss -

Where I used the term "blitzkreig" in the article I was considering using a sports metaphor, but my attempt was so mixed and muddled that I just gave up ("Democrats need to do a full-court blitz...").

I looked at what I wrote and said "wait a minute, those aren't even from the same sport....

-CW

[RobertPaul]

Great article Chris, as usual.

I agree on your suggestions for the Democratic framing and, YES, it should be glaringly obvious to them, but...as you said...sigh...

But I disagree somewhat on the reason there is no coherent response from the Dems.

You've got 5 or 6 candidates all trying to outdo each other without sound plans of their own. And, in Hillary's case anyway, she is scared to death that she will inherit this clusterf**k that Iraq has become.

So, you've got all of these competing views out there but you don't have the one thing this party so desperately needs. Leadership!

Harry Reid talks sorta tough but rolls over when he gets cornered...or in a room with corners.

Pelosi is hopeless. When she took impeachment off the table, she lost all credibility and hasn't found her way back since.

The Dems NEED a leader but they are afraid that if they anoint one that s/he will consider it an endorsement for President.

So there is no one at the head of the boat to yell "stoke!"

Except maybe Sen. Craig...snark.

[b322da]

If only -- but it will never happen. Chris knows more about political reality than Pelosi and Reid put together.
The Dems are giving the country to the Repugs again. Sigh....
Jim
*****
General Petraeus' testimony could have been the transcript of the testimony my generation heard from General Westmoreland. "Just give us a little more time...." Sigh....
*****

[RDixon]

With one notable exception: Westmoreland was under oath when he testified and lied.

[Qbear]

Obama's got that covered,

OUT NOW!

[cautionbug]

"Sorry, but sometimes it's depressing to root for congressional Democrats. Their love of consultants and triangulating does wear on one at times...."

Indeed. i've had to resist a strong urge to unload on some of the comments i see in these blogs. People posting incessantly, "They must be stopped!" and offering nothing for ideas or showing they actually want "Them" to be stopped by means of at LEAST contacting their Senators to say so.

It's difficult to watch the people we've counted on to help us consistently letting us down by sleeping with the enemy. And feeling a sense of true futility and despair, i question in myself whether i'm taking it too seriously. But then, isn't that the point? Shouldn't we all be taking this more seriously? At the very LEAST offering ideas for our leaders and publishing them, or contacting our legislators to the point of annoyance to make sure they cannot deny their obligation to us.

Mr. Weigant, Your framing speech is awesome! It IS obvious, and it really should be as simple as that to turn the public opinion around and force Republicans to play ball, because it becomes a Democrat-led debate. But i'm sure we're all bracing for impact of the thumping Republicans are going to give Democrats on this course. It leaves my stomach lurching every time i read a new story of Democrats losing even MORE ground in the public eye, losing even MORE tactical ground politically, and freely (and it seems gladly) bending over to Republicans every single day.

We NEED to take it seriously, but the consequence to us is despair, frustration, stress, and you nailed it: depression.

Maybe Democrats aren't even concerned with this thing? Maybe they're doing all of this to get Big Medicine in their corner by spurring antidepressant prescriptions to record highs?

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

cautionbug -

heh heh. Your last line got me. Now THAT was funny!

-CW

[cautionbug]

i'm flattered. Thank you.

[timm0]

I don't like what you want to hear. I think this is better:

For the last 4 years, the president has lied about and blundered through his "war on terror" and a need to attack the sovereign nation of Iraq. His lies and incompetence has resulted in the loss of thousands of American lives, the shattering of tens of thousands of other soldier lives, the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and millions of displaced innocent Iraqis. His almost child-like stubbornness to take valid steps to increase tax revenue and push for competitive military contracts has led us to a run up of our national debt to levels that are going to be a massive burden to our children's children's children. We've heard all the 'mission accomplished - we're making great progress - they're in the last throes' nonsense during these 4 years from the president and his henchmen. And now his latest hired messengers come to the Capitol with more of the same. Problem is, we commissioned a study that proves they are lying. The numbers of deaths to violence that the general reports are cooked. Hiding behind an aura of honor - a trait that the vast majority of our fine young men and women in the military actually possess - general petreaus now adds his name to the list of disgraced tools used by the president and this corrupt administration to report unbelievable status to an appropriately cynical audience.

[timm0]

As has been demanded by the vast majority of American citizens, we are done playing the fool for this president. We will put forth legislation that will fund a withdrawal of our troops from combat and from Iraq. If he vetoes it, then there will be no funding and it will force the military to withdraw. We don't want lack of funds to force a withdrawal, but we have no more choices left. This petulant president has made it perfectly clear that he will only accept things the way he wants them, and when he doesn't get it, he pitches a fit. We can't tolerate bratty behavior any longer while lives are at stake. We are done trying to negotiate in good faith with someone who lies as naturally as he breathes. Thank you.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

timm0 -

Works for me. The words are easy, the hard part is to get Democrats to say the words on camera.

I have heard that there will be an official Democratic response to Bush's speech tomorrow night, but I haven't heard yet who is going to be delivering it. My vote would be for Russ Feingold, personally, or maybe Jim Webb.

Thanks for commenting.

-CW

[coonce]

What you say is 100% correct. The Bush machine has planned this HEADLINE news for several months now. They wanted to be able to announce a BIG troop withdrawal just before the election - knowing it would SEEM to AMERICANS that we are withdrawing from Iraq - when in reality we are at the same rate we were at the beginning of the year.

A commercial needs to be made and shown across America - clips of Bush announcing SURGE plans, saying Sept would be date to discuss situation, in Aug we hear stories about Sept no longer being breaking point, Petraeus speaks, Bush announces troop withdrawal.

By the way, I predicted all this would happen back on May 30th of this year:

Cooncey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/predictionletter.htm

[castlerider]

Thanks Chris, Great post. I sure hope Dems dont have their heads up where sun dont shine on this.It's so absolutely frustrating when someone you're rooting for won't even put up their dukes to really fight...
You're right. It's extremely important they make hay while there's daylight.

[Plowboy]

Is it permissible to throw rotten eggs at ridiculous politicians? If so, the Democrats (and any decent Republicans who may exist) should go well supplied to hear him and launch one every time he lies -- or says something totally inane.
That would make the stink of this B-C administration obvious even to the staunchest Zionist this side of Connecticut.
Just a suggestion. I've made others, but then people voted for Joe anyway, and before that -- long ago -- there was a whole pack of treasonous creeps who voted Bush his own personal Enabling Act, even though I said they shouldnn't. So donn't blame me, folks. Nobody ever listens to me anyway.

[RDixon]

Democrats do not need to say anything.
We did not place them in power to say; we gave them Control of Congress to do.
The Democrats need to do something.
Will that happen?