home

The Beltway Mentality on Iraq

Matt Stoller and David Sirota lay into the Beltway Elite on their analysis of the Iraq Supplemental. Stoller lambastes Stu Rothenberg's thinking:

Why take a chance alienating swing voters, Rothenberg asks, completely oblivious to the fact that this vote cost Democrats ten points among independents. We're already seeing rural voters turn against the occupation, and towards the Democrats. . . . Note also the contempt for the left, for people who want to end the occupation in Iraq. Where are we going to go, if it's not for Mark Udall in Colorado or Hillary Clinton in 2008? Well, I can say that this energy is going to translate either into primary challenges or into apathy, but it won't go into helping this party leadership much longer. I'm going to encourage primaries as much as possible, because what they want is for us to go away. . . .

Good for Matt. Sirota takes on the Beltway Dem class:

[T]his [rural voters poll showing Iraq breaking the GOP strength with rural voters] cuts directly against the conventional wisdom that is spewed inside the Washington Beltway. As just one example, let's remember pollster Fred Yang, who said that Democrats' recent move to give President Bush a blank check for his Iraq policy was "obviously a good move" - yet according to the actual data, it was only "obviously a good move" if Democrats' goal was to alienate voters. . . . Let's hope this new poll breaks through the Beltway echo chamber - and gets Democratic politicians to stop listening to their insulated, cliche-driven consultants who play into the Fox News meme of "supporting the war means you are strong on national security" - a meme that most Americans do not believe. And let's hope that those Democrats who have been trying to end the war are seen for what they really are: Heroes who are not only trying to stop a destructive foreign policy, but also doing what needs to be done to strengthen the Democratic majority in Congress.

Back in February I wrote:

[N]ow Dems control the Congress, and this approach will no longer work. For in 2008, the American People will PROPERLY ask 'what did the Dems do to end the Iraq Debacle?

Via Greg Sargent, Stu Rothenberg writes [How ironic.]:

Democrats are trying so hard to avoid allowing Republicans to label their criticism as merely partisan that they won't even acknowledge the obvious. Instead, they are looking for any opportunity to portray their opposition to the President's policies as part of the nation's dissatisfaction with the administration's Iraq policy.

While that's understandable - one of the few ways Democrats could screw up during the next year and a half would be to appear to be basing their opposition on possible political gain and a petty desire to punish Bush politically - there is no indication that Democrats have been too aggressive in criticizing the President or his policies so far.

In fact, a partisan division over the war probably would help Democrats by further damaging the Republicans between now and next year's Presidential election. After all, if it isn't merely President Bush, but also his entire party, that supports the war and ignores public opinion, Democrats would seem to benefit.
[(Emphasis supplied.)]

This is right and wrong. Certainly pinning Bush on the GOP helps the Democrats, but political grandstanding alone will not cut it for the Dems now. They control the Congress. They can end the Iraq Debacle. And if they do not, the GOP will try and neuter them on Iraq by saying they did not - Dems were all partisan bluster and no action. And the GOP would be right.

As Greg Sargent points out, Dems hold a 20 point polling edge on Bush on Iraq, 54-34. But if Dems do not do anything about ending the Iraq Debacle, then why SHOULD the American People trust Democrats on Iraq?

And now we come to some practical realities - the Congress can only end the Iraq Debacle by NOT FUNDING IT. It may scare some people to say those words - I think it is an unfounded fear as I have explained many times. But let me give them a political scenario that is scarier -- come 2008 -- when faced with the question "What did a Democratic Congress do to end the Iraq Debacle?", when the answer is nothing, what do you think the voters are going to say?

Spineless Dems ALWAYS lose. Always.

I still think that. More than ever.

< SCOTUS Accepts New Sentencing Cases | 4th Cir.: No Detention Without Trial for Person Arrested Within U.S. >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:55:30 PM EST
    The supplemental debacle has made me think twice about defending Congressional leadership. If they keep thinking what they're thinking, they're going to lose us the election and get us stuck in Iraq for the better part of forever.

    Complete Lack Of Vision And Understanding (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:57:23 PM EST
    Rothenberg and many of the D.C. establishment seems to think that the Dems capitulation on Iraq will only put off the so-called left fringe of the party. What they forgotten, as the polls show, is the so-called left fringe is now almost 2/3rds. of the population. The Democratic party did not win in November because the left of the party supported their end the occupation in Iraq position. They won in November because a large number of independents also supported that position and because many military families voted Democratic for the first time in their lives so that their loved ones would not have to go back again and again to Iraq. Their willing blindness to the facts is not only astounding but a formula for returning to a minority status in 08.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#2)
    by talex on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    Well, I can say that this energy is going to translate either into primary challenges or into apathy, but it won't go into helping this party leadership much longer.

    Well pick one would you? Now apathy isn't going to help so forget that. In fact the mere mention of it smacks of an emotional outcry rather than rationality. But then Stoller was not exactly rational when he help lead the senseless charge to deny the Dems of two debates either so he is staying true to form.

    And then if I read this correctly he is advocating for primary challenges but still blaming leadership at the same time? That makes about as much sense as putting your pants on before your underwear.

    If the Dem holdouts (Blue Dogs et al) are at fault here, and they are, for a timeline bill or a short leash bill not making it to the floor for lack of their votes then primary challenges in those districts and states make perfect sense. But if their votes held this up why blame leadership? If the votes were not there for a good bill they were not there. Leadership can't hold a gun to their head literally or metaphorically - nor should we want them to.

    When I read stuff like this I cringe. Emotional outbursts combined with blaming people who should not be blamed is not a sign of straight thinking at all and it explains why bloggers are bloggers and not elected political leaders.

    It doesn't scare people (none / 0) (#3)
    by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:47:48 PM EST
    to say those words.

    OK.  Maybe "some" people.  Although I wouldn't know who they are.  So.. Not everyone.  But not the people who matter, and the people who matter are giving cover to the people who might be actually be scared.

    "What did a Democratic Congress do to end the Iraq Debacle?"

    is a great question that may have some political consequences.

    And I have no doubt that there are those who will conclude that anything done short of defunding is the same as nothing.

    If the rest of the world makes that same conclusion then you will be right, after all.

    So far they have done nothing (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:07:24 PM EST
    to end the Iraq Debacle except force you (and everyone else) to pay for something you say you don't want and they say they don't want. And you have supported them doing that.

    What do you conclude from those two things?

    Parent

    I know what you want (none / 0) (#10)
    by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:05:52 PM EST
    too.  I do.  I know exactly what you want.

    your comment should be deleted.  It's very uncivil.


    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:12:02 PM EST
    People dying in Iraq that shouldn't be dying is very uncivil.

    Parent
    Which is what you (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:21:13 PM EST
    want.

    As the genius points out, incivility begets incivility.

    just give me the "1" and move along.  we know this for sure.  you don't want a discussion.  for you, there is no discussion here at all.

    tell me i'm wrong.


    Parent

    You're wrong. And you know it. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:22:20 PM EST
    But I wasn't wrong about the "1" (none / 0) (#15)
    by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:31:17 PM EST
    LOL.

    I hope you're more effective at ending the war than you are making me look wrong.


    Parent

    Me too. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:36:32 PM EST
    What is your objection to ending the occupation?

    Parent
    I have no such objection (none / 0) (#18)
    by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:38:52 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Then how about (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:41:30 PM EST
    STOP paying for it's continuance. Or do you have an objection to that? Keep in mind that paying for it to continue is not ending it.

    Parent
    i'm not for funding the occupation (none / 0) (#20)
    by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:44:41 PM EST
    i'm for funding the troops.


    Parent
    Those are two separate things. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:50:21 PM EST
    Funding the occupation is what the Emergency Supplementals passed by the republicans and now by the democrats, does.

    Regular appropriations for DOD budget are what fund the troops. No one has suggested not funding the troops. SO we're in agreement on that point.

    Why do you support the democrats passing Emergency Supplementals? IOW, why do you support paying for the continuance of the occupation?

    Parent

    It appears (none / 0) (#22)
    by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:58:20 PM EST
    there's a difference of opinion about what the supplemental does.  it also provides funding for the troops, according to some.

    you'll have to do better than a self-referential link to yourself on a blog.

    show me someone with the experience level of someone like rep. murtha who says what you are saying...  "why are we voting for a supplemental bill that funds the occupation?  we can fund the troops separately!!!!"

    something like that might get me on board.

    Parent

    The links and references within the link that (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 06:01:47 PM EST
    I just gave you are exactly what you have just asked me for. I could repost them all here, but that would be a waste of TL's bandwidth.

    If you are not willing to read them there, you wouldn't be any more willing to read them here.

    Parent

    sorry (none / 0) (#25)
    by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 06:05:48 PM EST
    it's mostly links to another blog and greenwald.

    i can read through them more at my liesure, but if there was a statement from someone like murtha like i just described then i would think it would be at your fingertips, and that's all you'd have to post.  


    Parent

    There is no sound bite for this Stewie. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 06:08:51 PM EST
    It's going to take some effort. Not much, but some. Peoples lives depend on it. Or does a little bit of effort mean you'll throw up your hands and support the occupation because you were too lazy to learn?

    Parent
    Take your time.... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 06:14:58 PM EST
    It doesn't have to be a sound byte (none / 0) (#29)
    by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 06:32:12 PM EST
    I just need to hear what you're saying from someone else besides bloggers.

    as previously discussed i do have statements from people besides myself and/or other bloggers that defunding would not be a good idea in any context at all.

    i'm not trying to create a meme or substantiate a frame or what have you.  i am trying to understand the truth of this situation.  and in so doing i have valued the testimony of people who we all know do not want to continue the occupation.

    if it's true that the military can be funded separately from the war and the war can be defunded separately from the military, then it just seems to me that this would be something that would be communicated through retired military personel (i say retired because if they're active then it's clear they're still operating under orders of the CiC) or people like rep. murtha who has never shown anything other than a deep and abiding concern for the health and safety of our men and women in uniform.

    at least that's what everyone was saying a year ago.  so.  what gives?  murtha now wants to continue the occupation and suddenly just doesn't care about the troops?  i won't buy that.  i REFUSE to buy that.

    there has to be a better explanation.

    Parent

    As I said (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 06:59:34 PM EST
    everything you keep asking me for is inside that link.

    You keep repeating that you need to hear it from someone else besides bloggers.

    Everything you keep asking me for is inside that link.

    You can also read it at Kos here: Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies

    Parent

    Next time someone asks you about all this (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 07:04:35 PM EST
    you can give them this link.

    Parent
    If you'd rather not read them there (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 06:06:25 PM EST
    you can read them here: Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies, or you can read them here.

    Regardless of where you read them they contain what you asked me for.

    Parent

    To be fair, Stewie. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:59:10 PM EST
    I believe that you do not support continuing the occupation. I also believe that you have been convinced by the propaganda that emergency supplementals are what fund the troops.

    They don't. Anyone who tells you different is lying to you.

    Parent

    The situation is analogous (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 01:08:36 PM EST
    to a business enterprise that has, for example, 100 employeees to whom they pay salaries and provide food and lodging. The budget for that is something planned for every year. We'll call that the budget for the 'troops'.

    Then one year they decide to take on an extra contract to complete a project in another city and they send those 100 employees (troops) to the new city.

    The project will require incurring added costs over and above the budget for the employees (troops), so management arranges a bank loan to pay for the added costs for transportation, materials, overtime, extra fuel required, etc. etc.

    They then begin to run into delays, extreme competetion from a better suited and skilled company, and start incurring huge cost overruns, which they cover with repeated visits to the bank for more loans.

    Eventually the bank says look - this is bankrupting you and placing your employees in danger of being abandonded in the new city if continue down this path - here is your last loan - it will cover you for 90 days, after which the bank will provide no more money for this project. Your regular budget covers your employment (troop) costs. Bring them home to their original city and continue operating there. Your project in the new city is failing.

    None of the bank loans had anything to do with the regular budget for the employees (troops).


    Parent

    We never had the votes (none / 0) (#4)
    by fairleft on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:48:25 PM EST
    In fact the second sentence of the following was never true:

    [Democrats] control the Congress. They can end the Iraq Debacle.

    In fact a sizeable minority of Democrats supported and supports the occupation of Iraq. Adding them to the Republicans meant Congress could not end the Iraq debacle, Bush would always have the votes to continue funding the quagmire.

    What was needed was to draw a clear distinction between the pro-occupation and anti-occupation wings of the party. And then to run 2008 candidates against the pro-occupation Democrats. The problem going forward is that we don't know which Democrats are 'really' anti-occupation and which ones were pretending. All by (pro-occupation leadership) design, I suppose.

    A vote against reid/feingold (none / 0) (#5)
    by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:07:23 PM EST
    was not, by definition, a pro-occuation vote in my opinion.

    but ... ok.... set that aside, i'll pretend for a moment that i agree with youl...  taking your comment at face value, i might point out that reid did actually provide us with enough information to make such a determination before 2008.

    he let reid/feingold and the supplemental go to a vote knowing that dems would not unite behind one position on those votes.

    so your "pro-occupation" dem list is right there in the open, and it's time to start getting to work.

    Parent

    reid-feingold was symbolic only (none / 0) (#7)
    by fairleft on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:35:24 PM EST
    it would have been vetoed if passed, so it was meaningless.

    $$$ votes, voting against funding the occupation, were meaningful. But once it was clear the occupation would be funded, then votes against funding (yes, I'm referring to Obama's wait and vote) once again became meaningless.

    Parent

    sounds like the whole thing is (none / 0) (#11)
    by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:07:16 PM EST
    meaningless, what's an example of a vote that wasn't meaningless?

    Parent
    that was my point n/t (none / 0) (#16)
    by fairleft on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:35:31 PM EST
    Attitude, Perspective and Risk (none / 0) (#6)
    by pioneer111 on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:14:24 PM EST
    Much of the attitude of beltway CW is to avoid risk as Rothenberg says:
    Why take a chance alienating swing voters, Rothenberg asks, completely oblivious to the fact that this vote cost Democrats ten points among independents.
    Yet it is in trying to avoid risk that Democrats make bad choices.  Edwards on the campaign trail this weekend in New Hampshire delivered one of the best lines for Democrats to consider.  Jerid in his Buckeye State Blog entry captured the moment.  Edwards responded with force, declaring that
    "we're in a time in America's history where small changes will not solve our problems, and that big strong, bold changes are going to be necessary." Furthering that up, "Our party has always been at its best when we were forward leaning, bold, and leading...When we're timid and careful and cautious - we lose."
    You can see it in the one of the absolute best Youtube segments that I've seen for Edwards and I think the substance of his comments is something for all Democrats to espouse - Edwards on Electablility.  It is in direct contrast to Rothenberg and the CW of the DC elite.