As Atrios noted, the latest Washington Post editorial is drawing the ire of nearly everyone, and with good cause; the piece is a mess, based on a misguided premise.
The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible…. A Democratic strategy of trying to use Iraq as a polarizing campaign issue and as a club against moderate Republicans who are up for reelection will certainly have the effect of making consensus impossible — and deepening the trouble for Iraq and for American security.
One wonders if perhaps the Post editorial board simply hasn’t been paying attention to current events. As Kevin Drum noted, “After four years of Republican insistence that Congress’s only role in the war is to pony up trainloads of money and then shut the hell up, it turns out that it’s actually Democrats who are making consensus impossible.”
Yes, that dastardly Harry Reid insisted on bringing to the floor a measure that enjoys bi-partisan support, is popular with the vast majority of the country, and offers a realistic chance to improve the country’s security interests. How “irresponsible.” Doesn’t the Senate Majority Leader realize that a watered-down measure of dubious reliability that offers craven WINOs political cover is the only way to reach “consensus”? He’s obviously history’s greatest monster.
It’s worth adding, by the way, that a new meme seems to be quickly emerging within the chattering class: the lack of Senate progress on Iraq legislation isn’t Bush’s fault (he’s vowed to veto any measure that undercut his authority to do what he pleases), or the GOP’s fault (the party has voted to filibuster any measure that might pass), but actually Harry Reid’s fault.
The Post editorial obviously holds Reid responsible, as does an analysis piece in today’s LA Times, which blames the Majority Leader for not “compromising” enough with Republicans. For that matter, David Brooks added this assessment last night:
“[A] lot of Republicans who detest where the White House is are furious at Harry Reid…. [A] lot of Republicans would like to peel off from the president, but they feel that Harry Reid is making it impossible. He’s taking this as an issue, forcing them to vote with the president for political reasons. […]
“Republican senators were anxious to move away from the White House, to move towards some sort of withdrawal. Now they’re not talking that way. They’re talking, ‘We’ve got to stick with the president.’ And why? Two words: Harry Reid.'”
As hilzoy put it, “If David Brooks is right, then ‘senior Republican senators’ are planning to cast their votes on the question what to do in Iraq … not on the basis of what is actually best for Iraq, or for our country, or for our troops, or for our long-term national interests, but because of ‘Two words: Harry Reid.'”
And for inexplicable reasons, the Washington Post editorial board seems to find this persuasive.
Rudy Giuliani delivered a speech in Iowa recently on “Restoring Fiscal Discipline and Cutting Wasteful Washington Spending.” Just two minutes and 14 seconds into it, the former mayor said, “I will continue to keep America on offense in the terrorist war against us, because I think that’s the overriding issue of our day.”
Giuliani was also asked recently about his position on taxes. After a few soundbites, he said, “[Democratic presidential candidates] never mentioned the word ‘Islamic terrorist’ during the debate…. Maybe they think they’re going to be insulting somebody if they say it. I’m trying to figure out who would be insulted — other than Islamic terrorists.”
And this week, also in Iowa, Giuliani was asked about increasing federal support for HIV treatments. He responded:
“My general experience has been that the federal government works best when it helps and assists and encourages and sets guidelines… on a state-by-state, locality-by-locality basis. It’s no different from the way I look at homeland security. Maybe having been mayor of the city, I know that your first defense against terrorist attack is that local police station, or that local firehouse.”
I’m generally not in the habit of offering advice to Republican presidential hopefuls, but I have an idea for the Giuliani campaign. As a way to save time at future appearances, perhaps one of his aides could give Giuliani a placard with the word “terrorism” on one side, and “9/11” on the other. That way, whenever anyone asks him a question about anything, he can simply point to the sign, instead of having to go to the trouble of coming up with an excuse to end up at the same point anyway.
The Washington Post had an odd front-page item today on a 211-page study conducted by the Rand Corp. for the U.S. Joint Forces Command. The subject: how to boost the image of U.S. military operations through “shaping” the product and the marketplace.
In an urban insurgency, for example, civilians can help identify enemy infiltrators and otherwise assist U.S. forces. They are less likely to help, the study says, when they become “collateral damage” in U.S. attacks, have their doors broken down or are shot at checkpoints because they do not speak English.
I see. So, in other words, public relations is more challenging in a foreign environment in which your “target customers” suspect you might kill them.
While not abandoning the more aggressive elements of warfare, the report suggested, a more attractive brand for the Iraqi people might have been “We will help you.”
You’ll notice, of course, that the report put this in past tense — it’s a little late for Iraq — so the administration will have to keep it in mind for the next war.
I was on a conference call a couple of months ago with Speaker Pelosi in which she alluded to getting the Democratic caucus out of the minority-party “mindset.” The Dems had won back both chambers of Congress, a feat few expected, and it was time to start governing with some confidence, especially when it comes to Iraq.
David Espo reports that it took a while, but the new majority party no longer seems afraid of its own shadow. Indeed, it’s the GOP that’s divided and unsure of itself.
Senate Republicans are growing increasingly nervous defending the war in Iraq, and Democrats more confident in their attempts to end it.
More than a year before the 2008 elections, it is a political role reversal that bodes ill for President Bush’s war strategy, not to mention his recent statement that Congress’ role should merely be “funding the troops.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, made that clear Friday when he dismissed any suggestion that it could be November before a verdict is possible on the effects of the administration’s current troop increase.
“September is the month we’re looking at,” he said unequivocally.
Espo notes that cheap slogans like “cut and run” have “largely come and gone” because Republicans find the alternative — stay the course — increasingly untenable. At the same time, Dems are stepping up with conviction. “Time and the American people are … on our side,” Harry Reid said.
It’s perhaps easy to forget how far the party has come since last year. Espo notes that it was just 13 months ago that Reid “was the one hoping to avoid a vote on a troop withdrawal.” When the Feingold-Kerry measure, which included a withdrawal deadline of July 2007, came to the floor, it garnered 13 votes. “Now,” Kerry said last week, “it’s the unified Democratic position…. In May, Republicans were dismissing even tough questions about the escalation. Now, they’re falling all over themselves to distance themselves from the president.”
Better late than never.
It’s one thing for a Romney supporter to make a sign with homemade writing that reads, “NO TO OBAMA OSAMA AND CHELSEA’S MOMA” (sic). It’s slightly worse for Romney to be photographed with it. And it’s slightly worse still for Romney to then hold up the sign himself.
Is it any wonder, then, that the Romney campaign is struggling to explain all of this?
There was an interesting tidbit towards the end of the David Espo piece from last night that caught my eye.
According to several officials, Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and McCain engaged in a brief, impromptu debate touching on that point recently at a private meeting of the rank and file.
Voinovich said the Sunni and Shiites in Iraq would together drive al-Qaida from their country if the U.S. were not there. McCain took the opposite view.
Maybe some enterprising political reporter can follow up with McCain to find out why, exactly, he believes this, because all available evidence suggests Voinovich is absolutely right. al Qaeda isn’t going to seize control of Iraq if the U.S. withdraws; al Qaeda is going to be driven from Iraq if the U.S. withdraws.
Kevin Drum recently explained the dynamic.
If we leave Iraq, the country is unlikely in the extreme to become an al-Qaeda haven. Partly this is because it’s rage at the American presence itself that provides a big part of the fuel for AQI’s growth. Our withdrawal would eliminate that source of rage and devastate AQI’s ability to continue its recruiting. Partly it’s because, as we’re seeing in Anbar province right now, even Sunni extremists don’t like AQI. Left to their own devices they’ll kill off AQI jihadists in order to protect their own tribal turf. And partly it’s because once we withdraw, non-Kurdish Iraq will be free to finish its inevitable transition into a Shiite theocracy — a transition that’s sadly unavoidable whether we stay or not. Yes, this transition will be bloody, but in the end Iraq will almost certainly be composed of the Kurdish north, which has no use for al-Qaeda; the remaining Sunni sheikhs, who also have no use for al-Qaeda; and the victorious Shiite central government itself, which likewise has no use for murderous Sunni jihadists on its soil. Between the three of them, AQI isn’t likely to last a year.
Indeed, as the administration’s own policy makes clear, Sunnis in Iraq are anxious to take up arms against al Qaeda. We could withdraw and let them.
The AP article doesn’t include any specific quotes, other than to say McCain believes the “opposite.” It’d be interesting to hear him justify the belief publicly.
“Bush and the Republicans aren’t dominant. They’re a minority, but an unusually effective one. One measure of this: At the end of 2007, there will be more American troops in Iraq than when Democrats took over Congress in January.” — Fred Barnes in the new issue of the Weekly Standard.
Given that Barnes generally can’t speak while Karl Rove is drinking water, one should probably assume this reflects the White House’s thinking on troop deployments in Iraq.
Fans of the “All Muck is Local” feature on TPM Muckraker will definitely want to check out the latest installment, which spotlights Simon Speights, mayor of Lipscomb, Alabama.
[Speights] got the job back in 2005 when his predecessor resigned and the City Council voted him in. But Speights isnât exactly eligible to be mayor.
Speights pleaded guilty to burglary in 1994, and while his voting rights have since been restored, his right to run for political office has not. Records show Speights occasionally uses the surname Speight, which might account for no one realizing the mayorâs criminal record. Oh, and heâs driving a stolen car (no one knows how he got it). And heâs collecting more than twice his authorized salary (no one knows how that happened). Last week, the local district attorney demanded that a judge remove the mayor from office.
As it turns out, Speights’ would-be replacement is the mayor pro tempore — who has faced a variety of criminal charges, including stalking, extortion, bribing and impersonating an officer.
Hapless Romney aide Jay Garrity resigns from campaign amid allegations that he play-acted the role of cop and faked police badges. That and other political news of the day in today’s Election Central Sunday Roundup.
Earlier this week, Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly got the ball rolling, lashing out at DailyKos, which he called “one of the worst examples of hatred America has to offer,” and JetBlue, for its sponsorship role in the YearlyKos convention. (The airline, in response to O’Reilly’s complaints, has since pulled its support.)
This morning, Bill Kristol joined in on the fun.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol attacked the Democratic presidential candidates for their decision to attend the YearlyKos blogger convention. He held it up as evidence that the presidential candidates have “gone left.”
“Every Democratic presidential nominee is going to the DailyKos convention,” said Kristol. “That’s the left-wing blogger who was not respectable three or four years ago. The Howard Dean kind of sponsor. Now the whole party is going to pay court to him and to left wing blogs.”
TP highlighted some Kristol’s factual errors, but I was also struck by the general attitude from Kristol and O’Reilly that Democratic political figures should distance themselves from those the GOP establishment finds intemperate.
I suspect they haven’t thought this one through — high-profile Republicans have no qualms about maintaining close professional ties to some of the most vitriolic voices in our public discourse.
Consider some of the “mainstream” personalities the president chose to hang out with shortly before the 2006 elections.
* Sean Hannity (“[M]aking sure Nancy Pelosi doesn’t become the [House] speaker” is “worth … dying for“)
* Neal Boortz (Islam is a “deadly virus“)
* Laura Ingraham (Sens. Biden and Boxer are “on the side of” Kim Jong-Il)
* Mike Gallagher (Gore and Hitler “brilliantly put together side by side” in campaign video) [He later called on the government to “round up” several left-leaning voices, including Keith Olbermann, label them “traitors,” and have them sent to “detention camps.”]
Rush Limbaugh, shortly after he publicly mocked a man for having Parkinson’s, was invited to the White House. Ann Coulter still draws support from Republican presidential candidates. In 2001, just 48 hours after 9/11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said Americans were to blame for the attacks and said the nation “deserved” the terrorism, but that didn’t stop Republican presidential hopefuls from reaching out to them for support.
And now Democratic candidates are supposed to avoid YearlyKos because Fox News dug up a handful of hot-headed remarks from anonymous commenters? Please.