After Petraeus, Conciliation: The Report Must Not Derail a Moderate Democratic Strategy

On the heels of General Petraeus' report, there is no doubt a temptation in the Democratic camp to dismiss the more unsavory findings as the work of a political lackey. The general did not recommend a substantive timetable for withdrawal, much to the ire, though not surprise, of the Left. Also unsurprisingly, he argues that there has been modest progress.

The situation in Iraq is deteriorating, improving, or staying the same, depending on who is asked. To dispute minor improvement accomplishes little. If the Democrats are serious about winning in Iraq, building their majority, and taking the White House, they will "stay the course" -- the moderate course of the past few weeks, that is.

After months of demanding a hard-and-fast deadline for an American troop withdrawal, Harry Reid recently changed his tune, calling for a strongly bipartisan approach. The move was both sound policy and shrewd politics; it puts the security of American troops first, and ultimately sets the Democratic Party up for victory in 2008.

Gone is the posturing and preaching that marked Reid's pronouncements earlier in the year (when he announced solemnly that the war in Iraq was "lost.") The new Reid appears better in touch with reality: Democrats simply do not have the votes to force a unilateral withdrawal, and advocating such a position is bad for America and bad for the Democratic Party.

The Petraeus report must not distract from this logic.

The electorate has had it with the war in Iraq -- close to two thirds want an orderly withdrawal of troops to begin immediately. That being said, the American people understand that to withdrawal completely and unilaterally without a clear strategy for pacifying the country is risky.

Petraeus, of course, argued this very point before Congress on Monday. His personal approval ratings -- coupled with findings this week that the public most trusts the military to make decisions on Iraq -- ensures that the Democrats could shoot themselves in the foot by resurrecting the divisive rhetoric of early 2007.

Indeed, what Reid has recently advocated -- a bipartisan approach that takes into account relevant recommendations of the Iraq Study Group -- is overwhelmingly supported by vast majorities of the American people. An orderly drawdown of the troops must take place on a schedule that is agreeable to the military and not just the political leadership.

This movement away from unilateralism, threats of filibusters, all-nighters, and rhetorical excess could well win the 2008 election for the Democrats. Bringing back acrimonious and partisan tones could prove disastrous.

Polling from Penn Schoen & Berland shows a strong desire for the parties to work together to develop coherent, long term strategies to fight terrorism and protect American interests around the world.

Right now, Democrats clearly have the '08 advantage. The American people are fed up with George Bush and the Republicans. Democrats have opened up double-digit leads on party identification and the generic congressional vote.

But the Democratic Party is also vulnerable on Iraq, where the lead over the Republicans dropped 10 percent in August to a narrow four percent margin. Rather than harp on the withdrawal, the Democrats should continue to strike a bipartisan tone and refocus the debate to other international and domestic issues. This will help them carry the day in November 2008.

The only way that the Democrats will lose the 2008 election is through self-inflicted wounds. The electorate is demanding a fundamentally different methodology to policymaking. Partisanship will mollify only the base; conciliation must rule.

Hopefully Senator Reid's approach of late will not be thwarted by the Petraeus report. On the contrary, it must carry over to other foreign policy and domestic issues.

Comments

[thegulliblecitizen]

STAY THE COURSE

Of course we'll stay the course until every man is down! Then we'll send all of our daughters and fight another round. When our daughters have all fallen on Iraq's barren ground, we'll send their squallin' younguns to die for Samuel clown! Legions of metallegged men will we next enlist, and the poor Chicanos, Samuel insists. The mighty American daemon will never be put down until yesterday becomes tomorrow, and the whiskey bills are found!

[DrenchedOtter]

I guess Mr. Schoen believes that Mr. or Ms. undecided swing voter wants to vote for someone who promises "a fundamentally different methodology to policymaking" instead of someone who has a plan for Iraq, or the economy, or health care. I know that's what I always hear down at the church social, those politicians just don't have the right methodology. Never mind the boy who just came back from Iraq with a horrible injury, let's just "refocus the debate to other international and domestic issues". Which issues? Well, nothing divisive, only the issues that the Republicans want to talk about. If that's what the Democrats stand for, they'll get about zero votes around here.

[AlphaSam]

You seem to be saying that the endless war Bush
started is moral, and the path to winning is more lies,
death and destruction. After all, the bushboys need more time to sign their oil contracts. This is not about
winning or losing, it's about stopping the madness
right now. If Congress would refuse to sign another
check, impeach Bush and Cheney, the war would be
over. Our country would be on the path to healing the
wounds inflicted by the warmongers.

[RoxyDriscoll]

People who want this war ended should rally behind the Webb Amendment, and get our congresspeople to do the same. The Democratic leadership should force the Republicans to filibuster against giving our servicepeople adequate time home. Make them show themselves for the anti-troop endless war perpetuators they are. That's my idea of bipartisan moderation.

[nippersdad]

Well, that would be a good start, anyway.

[theonewhopullsthestrings]

the fact of the matter is, Dems are behaving like republican, our democratic leaders have proven themselves to be in lock step with big business and will screw the troops and the middle class just like clinton did. Of course Clinton is known for being the best Republican President the Republicans ever had.

[emjay1954]

How many times do we have to go over this? It takes 41 Senators to filibuster any bill that provides more money for the war. It doesn't require one Republican. Only 41 Democrats with guts. I guess that's the problem.

Because IF the Democrats did that, they'd win in 2008 in a landslide. So why don't they do it? Fear. Fear of how the Republicans would speak badly of them, yes. But more fear of how their corporate masters would regard them.

[Billb62]

When ever Democrats gain power, centrist Democrats and stealth Republicans in the MSM immediately call on Democrats to become moderate, conciliatory and bi-partisan.

Did the Republicans take over the Congress, White House and Supreme Court during the past decade by being moderate, conciliatory, and bi-partisan?

If Democrats fall in line with the Bush/Repub­lican/Petr­aeus war strategy, then Dems will certainly lose to the Republicans in 2008. And the would deserve to.

[FlowerGirl]

OK, here's the deal we are offered: if we don't oppose them too strongly, they wonn't rape us but a little bit.
Sorry, but I can't buy that.

[xargaw]

It is the cowardice of the middle, indecision, moderation, not standing for anything that cost the Democrats the last two presidential elections. Only when they stand up and show real courage will the people respond. The country wants change NOW. That is why the GOP lost both houses in '06. This is the DEMs chance. If they do nothing, they will loose in '08. Those of us that voted for them are running out of patience fast.

[foolme1ns]

Nice spin!!!! I get the definitel feeling that this is another republican telling democrats what they "have to do".

I don't know you Mr. Schoen, but I must say I am not impressed with your advice or your numbers. They seem so close to THE MATH that Karl Rove talked about just before the democrats took the majority in both houses. I am very dubious of the "moderate" democrats as well as the petrified republicans, who seem to want to insist that we stay the course, which of course means not "we" but they, the soldiers there fighting in this immoral and unholy oil grabbing war day after day, year after year with no end in sight.

[Qbear]

"Polling from Penn Schoen & Berland shows a strong desire for the parties to work together to develop coherent, long term strategies to fight terrorism and protect American interests around the world."

NOTICE nowhere does the word IRAQ appear in your poll.


Out of Iraq
Out of Congress


pick one

[freedomis]

I have no intention of being moderate.
TO THE DEMS


I have been meaning to write something like this for awhile because of your feckless responses and kowtowing to a president who is out to destroy this country. Why? Because you are cynical and political to an extreme. It is either that or you want to have all the stuff that is on the books now plus a war that you think will help you and without the blame. This is neither humanistic or morally defendable. Petraeus got what he deserves and cutting off funds for this war is the way to go because when it comes to priorities for this occupation it is contractors first and troops last. You can see this from any facts that you look at. So who cares for the troops? Some of you have been doing a lot of talking but nobody has thrown a rock at this glass house of an administration. Leave it to the people thru MoveOn.Org to do the heavy lifting for what you are supposed to be doing. You will not get my vote because you are no better than the repubs. Is there any difference in dictators, if one is a dem. or a repub? The way that you are acting you just want the whole pie for yourselves and forget the people again. I’m 71 and cant help but wonder what of the younger people? Because of your feckless nature it is a bleak future for them. Tony

[Qbear]

Any Democrat who caves, capitulates, or compromises with Surge cheerleaders

is GONE in 08

Republicans in Congress are EXTINCT.

Another outcome of Democrats caving to Cheney, will be a Democratic Convention with larger and ANGRIER demonstartions than Chicago 68.
It will be anti war activists and Democrats doing a pas de deux DEUX. In prime time with demonstrators being beaten with riot sticks and tasered.

[Danny]

Yes, the Democrats' claim that they can't do anything about the war because "they don't have the votes" in the Senate irks me, because the Repugs, while they had the same slim majority as the Dems do now were able to bulldoze their way into passing their agenda, by preventing any Dem legislation from reaching the floor. Why can't the Dems use the same tactic?

Ed Schultz, on his talk show today, had a new "talking point" -- the Dems can't risk facing the elections next year for fear of "looking weak on defense, or homeland security", or some such, such a scary bugaboo. The country is behind the idea of ENDING the war, so who gives a sh*t what the Senate Repugs think? They certainly didn't give us the same courtesy in the lean long years when the Repugs held the very same slim "majority" as the Dems do now.

[sternn]

This is a lukewarm spittle aproach that will accomplish nothing good. The reason the Democrats are losing their advantage on Iraq is, I would argue, the exact opposite of what Schoen proposes. I think there is a very good chance that the Democrats are suffering because they are being seen as not doing enough to end the war. In fact their so called "moderate" approach equates to nothing more than capitulating to Bush at every opportunity in the vague hope that they can run out the clock and ride Bush's ownership of the war into and electoral victory in November 08.

I have news for you. The moment the Democrats took control of the Senate and House, they became partners in the war's ownership. As Bush suffers for his part in perpetuating this unpopuluar war so to will the Democrats to the degree they they are seen as being party to it's continuation. As the weeks and months drag on with the Democrats doing nothing to affect the will of the people their poll numbers will continue to drop.

It's my firm belief that the "moderate" approach will see the Democrats in 08 with little or no advantage at all visa via Iraq. If the Democrats manage the herculean task of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory it will be in large part because they followed the advice of people like Schoen.

[Robert59]

Sternn,

A moderate approach might work if the folks across the aisle were sincere, but they aren't. I heard Lugar bemoan the surge and voice in the same breath he wouldn't vote with the Democrats. Warner has said the same thing.

The Republicans are stringing them along and have no intention of breaking with the president.

Only when the Democratic leadership realizes this will they come up with a different strategy. By using those 41 votes to block debate on a bill how many independents, liberal Republicans, fiscal Republicans, and plain old disgusted Republicans will they attract to their cause?

I'd say millions.

[eztempo]

Schoen writes,"a strong desire for the parties to work together to develop coherent, long term strategies to fight terrorism and protect American interests around the world" is the sentiment among voters that'll be rewarded in '08.

I agree.

But, first, SOUND, "coherent" long-term policy must be based upon reality -- not an ideological substitute -- and so far the Dems' Congressional Republican 'negotiating partners' are still drinking the Administration Kool-Aid. Compromising on such an either/or fact that every day longer American forces remain in Iraq weakens the United States, and to capitulate on a firm, enforceable withdrawal timetable is merely to give Bush his 'indefinite occupation', and perpetuates the damage this war is wreaking upon our military and upon our National interests around the world. Either we're getting out, or we're staying.

[And, I believe that to continue the killing just in order to position candidates for a future election is morally bankrupt, frankly.]

Secondly, a "strategy" implies an objective, and a "bi-partisan strategy" requires agreement upon that objective. George Bush said Thursday night that his objective is permanent American bases in Iraq, and a long-term occupation in the region. He's suggested our troops in Korea and Germany as his model. I don't believe we citizens share his 'perpetual occupation­/perpetual war' goal, and to suggest that Congressional Democrats can get on board with that objective is to, well, not be a Democrat.

Thirdly, to be "bi-partisan" is to suggest compromise on policy. To compromise, one needs willing partners on both sides of the question. This Administration has used repeated attempts by Congressional Democrats to compromise and find bi-partisan agreement on any number of issues as a wedge within the Democratic Party in order to steamroll its agenda. So far, we've seen little inclination by the "Bushies" to actually discuss and find common ground on much of anything, particularly on this war.

Forget the "Democratic base," in November '08 ALL VOTERS across the board will PUNISH those -- Republican or Democrat -- that have stood against a quick and definite end to this war.