Defeat with dignity

When Democrats come back to their constituents for the Memorial Day break they better not try to portray their cave in as some kind of victory as some have tried. I'm with Christy Hardin Smith ("We are not dumb, and we refuse to be your rubber stamps.") and Digby ("They really shouldn't try to spin this. If they have to lose, they could at least do it with some dignity.")

And if any Democrats try to do just that, I hope said constituents will respond by pile-driving them into the ground.

Maybe he'll be nice to us now?

Matt Stoller noticed the same thing I did: that the Dems capitulation on the Iraq supplemental bill is an echo of their capitulation on the original authorization of force against Iraq.

"Obviously it's a good move," said Democratic pollster Fred Yang. "It gives President Bush and Republicans one less thing to shoot at" during the upcoming recess week.

Once again the Democrats are ruled by consultants who think that playing defense is the best way of winning. But all this really does is reinforce the idea that Democrats won't fight for what they believe in. And if they won't fight for what they believe in then why should we (The American People) trust them to defend them against people who want to kill them?

The language of capitulation is clear: if you give up something in the belief that it will make an enemy treat you better you are a fool. Would Osama bin Laden be nicer to us if we give up something to him?

There's a reason why Republicans, for all their incompetence, corruption and general all around loopiness, still has an appeal for the voters: at least we know they will fight.

(Aside: I'm breaking my general rule of not using Republican talking points when describing Democrats because to do so only validates them. But when the Democrats live down to the negative portrayal the Republicans have made of them then there is really no choice but to point out how they are doing so.)

Crap is crap

Cong. Louise Slaughter:

With this White House, and with this Republican minority, it is safe to say that a standoff with the Administration would have meant that our troops would be left in harm's way, only now with even less funding to back them up.

Bullshit. I don't buy it in the least. It has been a Republican talking point that this debate is about "funding the troops". The minute you allowed them to frame it this way you were guaranteed to lose this battle, for exactly the reasons so ably demonstrated in your post: you don't want to "look" like you are harming the troops so you vote to spend the money that will continue put the troops in harms way.

I don't for a second believe that there was nothing you could do but allow this travesty to go forward. For one thing, you could have rejected the Presidents frame from the beginning and loudly and repeatedly asserted that you were having a debate about "funding Bush's war". If that was the debate you forced then you might have had a chance of peeling off more Republicans. You certainly would have won the public relations battle.

Don't bullshit us by telling us that you had no choice in this matter. You did. You chose to adopt the Republican frame on Iraq and now you are paying the price for it.

Don't like it? You know exactly what you can do about it.

In the meantime, don't try to tell me that your shit doesn't stink.

Messaging and Reason

As an addendum to my point yesterday that Messaging Matters, consider this from Glenn Greenwald:

What does seem clear is that one of the principal factors accounting for the reluctance of Democrats to advocate de-funding is that the standard corruption that infects our political discourse has rendered the de-funding option truly radioactive. Republicans and the media have propagated -- and Democrats have frequently affirmed -- the proposition that to de-fund a war is to endanger the "troops in the field."

This unbelievably irrational, even stupid, concept has arisen and has now taken root -- that to cut off funds for the war means that, one day, our troops are going to be in the middle of a vicious fire-fight and suddenly they will run out of bullets -- or run out of gas or armor -- because Nancy Pelosi refused to pay for the things they need to protect themselves, and so they are going to find themselves in the middle of the Iraq war with no supplies and no money to pay for what they need. That is just one of those grossly distorting, idiotic myths the media allows to become immovably lodged in our political discourse and which infects our political analysis and prevents any sort of rational examination of our options.

That is why virtually all political figures run away as fast and desperately as possible from the idea of de-funding a war -- it's as though they have to strongly repudiate de-funding options because de-funding has become tantamount to "endangering our troops" (notwithstanding the fact that Congress has de-funded wars in the past and it is obviously done in coordination with the military and over a scheduled time frame so as to avoid "endangering the troops").

When the Democrats allowed the debate to become one about "funding the troops" instead of about "funding Bush's war" they set themselves up for inevitable failure.

I received my copy of Al Gore's new book, The Assault On Reason, just yesterday. I haven't cracked it open yet but just from what I have heard in excerpts it may be the first attempt to do what should have been done long ago: initiate a program of bringing back reasoned discourse to our public dialog. It was when Reason was thrown to the wolves that our country truly started to go to hell.

Messaging Matters

No matter how annoying this may be it must be repeated a thousand times (and then a thousand more). For all that people scoff at the importance of messaging, the battle over the Iraq War is the greatest evidence for it.

The Iraq War supplemental debate should have been framed as "funding Bush's War". Instead, the Democrats allowed it to be framed as "funding the troops".

They lost the minute they allowed that.

1. Messaging Matters.

2. Rinse.

3. Repeat.

400 dead Americans

Let's run the numbers.

If the Iraq war supplemental passes then Bush will have his war, free and clear, at least through September. Let's call that an even four months of unhindered war.

The first four months of 2007 saw 348 U.S. casualities, and this was before Bush's escalation has taken full effect. So we can expect the casualty rates to be even higher in the next four months.

This means that approximately 400 American service men and women will die before the next chance arrives to do anything to reign in Bush's folly.

That is what voting for this measure means.

400 more dead Americans.

Losing the (Message) War

You know, even if it turns out that the Democrats haven't entirely folded on Iraq (as reports over the last 24 hours have suggested but which are now being contested) they are still losing the message war by allowing the idea that they might fold gain so much traction.

I'll be glad if they don't fold, of course. But right now they are failing messaging 101.

(Oh, and self-imposed deadlines aren't helping at all. War is to important an issue to rush simply because it might interfere with an upcoming vacation. Remember what happened the last time Democrats wanted to get a fight behind them?)

Go Joe Go!

Please!

Pretty Please!

Pretty Please With Sugar on Top!

Trapped in the system

The previously linked EJ Dionne column actually contains some good stuff. Such as:

For example, when Gore is asked if any of the Democrats running for president were changing the system he holds in such low esteem, he pulls no punches. "They're good people trapped in a bad system," he says, "and I think it's the system that needs to be changed and I don't see them changing it." The campaign dialogue so far, he says, has not been "very enriching or illuminating" in "either party." But, no, that doesn't mean he's going to run, though he never completely shuts the door. It's part of the fun he's having.

I, like Gore, realize that most of the Democrats are good people who want to do the right thing. But they have allowed themselves to be hamstrung by the accepted standards of political discourse. They cannot hope to achieve what they want to achieve until they learn how to break out of the the system in which they are trapped.

Changing the dialog is as important today as changing the policy. More so, since you can't change the policy without first changing the dialog.

"Propaganda doesn't effect me!"

EJ Dionne (courtesy Tom Tomorrow):

…the larger change is that the very process Gore describes — of propaganda taken as fact, of slogans taken as arguments, of repetition substituting for logic and, yes, of lies and half-truths taken as truth — is now well-recognized. What worked against Gore during the recount and what worked for the administration in the run-up to the Iraq war doesn’t work anymore. That is an advance for democracy and for reason.

Becoming aware of the propaganda tools arrayed against us is the first step. But awareness will not help if you believe that just knowing that these tools exist somehow magically protects you from their use.

The very act of saying that you are immune from them is one of the surest signs that they will continue to work on you. When you are that certain of your immunity, you will refuse to acknowledge any instance when they actually worked on you.

We are all vulnerable to propaganda. Witness the Democrats and their handling of the Iraq War issue. They want to end the war, but they have allowed themselves to be swayed by the propaganda that says that anything they do to end it will be viewed as "harming the troops".

All the news channels this morning are leading with "Bush Wins!" headlines specifically because the Democrats have not understand this or, even worse, think that it won't effect them.

Beltway Cynicism

Just to be clear on this, I trust that the large majority of Democrats in DC want to do the right thing. They have just bought into the beltway cynicism that says that any attempt to end this war is "harming the troops".

It's time for the Democrats to stop going to Republicans for image advice.

Shit or get off the pot

Amen to this.

I'm a realist, so I understand all the reasons given for why politicians dance around on these issues.

But real leaders don't make excuses. They just do what needs to be done.

They ALL know what needs to be done, but they are ALL looking for the safe route to the eventual goal.

It doesn't exist. So, if you are going to do it, just do it, or get out of the way and let others who are willing to try, try and get it done.

Defend Yourself!

Joe Sudbay of AmericaBlog:

Also, got an email from a friend who said, "Here's how the gop is still better than the dems: Jimmy Carter is getting blasted for his comments -- and no one from the dems is defending him." That seems true, even though Carter is absolutely right. On this morning's Today Show, Carter, ever the statesman, tried to de-escalate the situation. In any event, we'll defend Carter, because he's right.

Joe's friend is right. The GOP have (at least until very recently) had a knee jerk response to any form of attack on their leadership: they close ranks and blast back at the attacker, calling their humanity, patriotism and sanity into question. Of course Bush is getting so unpopular that even the GOP has shown some hesitation to defend him, but considering how unpopular he is it is still shocking how quickly they come to his defense.

Put it this way, if any Democratic President had Bush's approval ratings and the GOP proposed impeaching him, you can bet there would be a few Democrats who could be quoted, on the record, as saying that it was an idea that was worthy of consideration.

I don't know if it is something inherent in the character of Democrats or whether they are still pulling themselves out of a defensive posture that they have grown used to over the last 20 years, but until such time as Democrats learn to be reflexive defenders of the honor and integrity of their leading lights their chances of achieving long-lasting leadership is doomed (as of now the only reason they have any power is because the Republicans have pissed The People off so much that they are desperate for an alternative and the Democrats provide the only viable one).

Democrats must learn that coming to the defense of a fellow Democrat does not automatically mean that you agree with them. Sure, the media mouthpieces will try to echo GOP propaganda that says that that is exactly what you are doing. But a GOP frame can only hurt the Democrats if the Democrats are willing to give it any credence.

Laugh it off as the ineffectual bleating that it is. Then get out there and fight back!