On the Politics Of Iraq: What Steve Benen Said

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 10:55:04 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Finding that his previous analysis of the Politics of Iraq has fallen flat, Jonathan Alter grasps at straws and argues that the Dems' problem is one of sloganeering. Steven Benen gently guts Alter's argument:

. . . Alter's broader argument is off-base. He argues that Democrats have the right policy, but it's not "getting through" to the rest of the country. I disagree -- they have the right policy, it's getting through just fine, but Dems are coming up short executing their own strategy. Indeed, Alter suggests what's standing between Democrats and broader acceptance of their policy prescription is "some way of framing their position that commits firmly to withdrawal from Iraq, but doesn't make them look like surrender monkeys." Alter's heart is in the right place, but he's missing a key point here -- the public has already accepted the Democratic war policy. The problem isn't in framing; Dems' poll numbers started to sag only after they gave in and gave the Bush White House the war funding bill the president demanded. The sales pitch was irrelevant. . . . I think he's fallen into the same belief that tends to dominate the DC conventional wisdom -- that the Dems have fallen short in convincing Americans that it's time to withdraw from Iraq. That's just not so; Americans already want out and are waiting for Washington to catch up.

What Steve said.

< The Ugly Face of the Right Blogs | It Isn't 'Risky' to Investigate the White House >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

On the Politics Of Iraq: What Steve Benen Said | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well, Alter does get one thing right (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:24:51 AM EST

about Democrats:

they have no coherent policy

But does he know how insane he sounds? Shift the war over there instead of over here in order to have a better bumper sticker - to look "sensible and strong" for voters.

Here's my sensible policy suggestion: do what Bin Laden asks - get US troops the h*ll out of the Middle East and stop meddling with the affairs of Islamic countries for the sake of oil. Stop trying to push around just about every country on Earth under the guise of "spreading freedom". It's starting to make democracy itself look bad.

Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:40:09 AM EST

But it shouldn't be done because bin Ladin "asks". It should have been done long before he "asked" because it's the right thing to do and because the only long term viable basis for foreign policy is being part of a world community - a good neighbor instead of the domineering assh*le down the street who wants to push everyone around and piss off everyone else on the street by stealing from them, burning their houses and killing their kids, and then crying and whining and attacking harder because he gets a punch in the nose for what he's been doing.


OK (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Alien Abductee on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:39:54 AM EST

But it shouldn't be done because bin Ladin "asks".

All the blather about "islamofascists," and how evil they are, and how they "hate our freedom" and want to impose sharia on us is designed to obscure the simple fact that what they actually want is not unreasonable - leave us alone, let us develop as we wish, different from you.


: Re: designed to obscure the simple facts (none / 0) (#28)
by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:05:26 AM EST

Yep. Nothing they want can be anything but unreasonable. They have to be demonized to justify the killing of so many of them. And if they attack back in response to being killed, well... they just prove how unreasonable they are. Terrists, after all.

I'll bet poker chips (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by chemoelectric on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:21:59 AM EST

I'll bet (tokens, only) that merely being combative with Bush would raise Democratic numbers in the short term. In other words, there is no need to sound conciliatory--it's actually better to appear to have 'had it up to here'. And to really mean it, of course.

Reality (1.00 / 2) (#29)
by Lacy on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:19:15 AM EST

Sorry to have to again interject the fact that when the public voted for change in 2006, it was not necessarily for anyone's specific personal objective or project. The public by often close majorities rejected GWB and his congressional supporters.

In that election, there was a lot of debate on the stupidity of initiating the Iraq war. Polls then and now show the public angry about the way the war has been conducted and wish it never had been started. But no polling has shown that the public favors an abrupt withdrawal disregarding consequences. So please just be honest.

The public rejected GWB and what he stands for. But claims that vote was for immediate withdrawal from Iraq are as deceitful as were claims in 2002 that the public supported an Iraq invasion because polls show they supported the "war on terror".

And if anyone wishes to claim a poll(s) has/have supported an "immediate withdrawal regardless of consequences", please provide a link to the poll instead of mere rhetoric and insults.

: Strawman much? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by andgarden on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:32:20 AM EST

: Oh please (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:20:54 AM EST

Reality? Have you NOT read any polls before and after the election?
This is a joke.

With any luck (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:11:12 PM EST

the Dems in Congress will figure this out and stop trying to "refill the Iraq tank"® for the 2008 elections.

You don't take any comfort in (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by oculus on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:16:32 PM EST

Saturday's report that 40% of Baghdad is now secure? Me neither.


OT (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:16:44 PM EST

I saw Tracy's diary at dkos and I am amazed at how misunderstood it was.


Heh. Link? (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:17:35 PM EST

: Link (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:23:08 PM EST

here.

Yeah (none / 0) (#6)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:37:17 PM EST

She obviously put her heart into it. That can be difficult to read when you don't know context.


No one thinks to ask for the context (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:39:59 PM EST

and just assumes they know what it is.

Did anyone thnk to ask about Tracy's husband and what ending the war means to her family and thousands of families?

she writes a diary about how no one thinks about the military families and lo and behold, no one thinks about the military families in the very thread to the diary.

Astounding.


It's what happens (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:49:05 PM EST

when you turn Iraq into a political game. To see it coming from Democrats is especially disgusting.


: My pet peeve for today is hearing (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:53:06 PM EST

Bush say he will veto "earmarks." Isn't that what got the Iraq funding bills though Congress this time?

Tracy always writes from the heart (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Maryb2004 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:44:15 AM EST

and she always writes in the moment. But that doesn't make her writing easy to understand - in fact, the opposite. I seldom know if I fully understand her and I've known her online for a good long time.


Pretty common there, though. (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:46:57 PM EST

People seem to be writing their next diary while commenting.


Forget about the "big tent" (none / 0) (#10)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:50:59 PM EST

these are soap box democrats. Kinda defeats the whole purpose of having such a big community, doesn't it?


: MT's acknowledgment (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by oculus on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:27:50 AM EST

of BTD seems to have escaped the notice of the commenters.

: You nailed it w/ "soap box." (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:55:05 AM EST

maybe because (none / 0) (#24)
by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 04:08:23 AM EST

petraeus providing cover for bush is hurting those families.

and it appears the diarist there is providing cover for...... petreaus.

it could be the people who responded in that thread care about those families too!


s'more thoughts on (none / 0) (#25)
by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 04:18:51 AM EST

petreaus.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/sen-reid-is-right-to-sta_b_52485.html


i mean really (none / 0) (#26)
by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 04:37:47 AM EST

militarytracy wants petraeus to be able to come back in september and be able talk about how great everything is going in iraq? because to do anything less would require him to go home the big loser on the job?

militarytracy wants everyone to recognize that petraeus is the most competent military general we have?

and then militarytracy would have senator reid ignore the pro-iraq war report of the most competent military general we have and then go convince his (already divided) caucus to enact legislation that would exist in direct refutation of the report given to us by the most competent general we have?

yes. there's a reason why folks might respond without understanding the full context.

there's a reason why some might be confused.

but i read that diary.

and i get it.

this is the comment that sums up the entirety of that diary...

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/6/17/201429/020/34#c34

the question is, do you agree with that comment?


From the newspaper devotee's (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:10:30 AM EST

point of view, this post was much easier to figure out than the last one. Thanks.

the public is like that guy (none / 0) (#21)
by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:59:01 AM EST

who says "I'm better off without her" and then she leaves him and he's like "please come back please come back please come back."

yes. the public wants us out of iraq asap. no. sooner than that. yesterday.

but the people who do what they want in that regard are still going to blamed for everything that happens because of that.

this is a price that most people here think is worth it. the balance of history will not show that dems caused the escalation of civil war to the point of sectarian genocide. the balance of history will show that dems stood up to bush and the republicans and did what they were voted into office to do: end the war.

I suppose so.

rudeness (none / 0) (#23)
by Stewieeeee on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 03:52:20 AM EST

gets you nowhere.

you failed to do anything but endear yourself to anyone who already agrees with you and render yourself a most excellent ass to anyone who does not already.

fact is, there will be political negatives. the argument goes that they are either irrelevant (to the goal of saving lives) or that the political negatives of doing nothing will be worse.

now pls, grown up that you are. toddler that i am. tell me that i do not understand the argument being presented here.

ok? Thanks!

Indignation over tone when you've misrepresented (none / 0) (#27)
by Ellie on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:16:36 AM EST

... the facts that are supposed to bolster your own argument is kind of ridiculous. But you're not even coloring inside the lines of your own arguments so rail away.

Thing is, proceeding from the assumption that the public was not only impatient in the past but will be fickle and ungrateful in the future is not only untruthful, but unfair and highhanded. This huffy knee jerk indignation also doesn't bode well for your claim to be concerned about the the political downside. (I didn't believe for a second that you care a speck about the wanton destruction this war wreaks daily; you wouldn't be so quick to wrongly and ungenerously typify people who have lost more than you.)

Now STAMP that foot! SLAM that hand! You were being outraged about something ... ?

Alter was right (none / 0) (#32)
by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:00:43 AM EST

with 'Dems' problem is one of sloganeering', just not in the way he meant.

If they want to use the Iraq Debacle as a political issue to run on next year, they need to be listening to a slogan instead of trying invent slogans.

End the Iraq Debacle to avoid an Electoral Debacle in 2008.