According to Charlie Cook, writing in the National Journal (behind firewall):

*"For congressional Republicans to have a realistic chance of breaking even or even gaining a bit of ground next year, the situation in Iraq will have to fundamentally change."

*"If the election hinges on Iraq and forces Republicans to defend Bush administration policies, the president's job-approval rating provides a clue as to the outcome."

By the way, Cook's analysis of last year's elections is that "While scandal, arrogance, complacency, and profligacy cost Republicans about 15 House seats and three or four in the Senate last fall, a dramatic worsening of the situation in Iraq cost them another 15 House seats, another two or three Senate seats -- and control of both chambers." 

Finally, I think this analysis is sure to get blasted by the blogosphere - but that doesn't mean it's wrong:

The most liberal 5 percent or so of Democrats are livid about congressional Democrats' decision to throw in the towel on their effort to attach timetables to the Iraq supplemental spending bill. But when a party's most ideological bloc is happy for very long, that's generally a sign that the party is taking an extreme position and is in danger of alienating most other voters. By giving in when they did, congressional Democrats avoided the charge of yanking support for American troops -- a tag that Republicans desperately wanted to stick them with.

That's Charlie Cook's analysis of the poltiics of the Iraq War funding vote.  What do you think?

Point 1 agree

Point 2 agree to a point but along with the quote in the box

With the Dem candidates sprinting to the 5% left to try and win the primary, will people still vote for them as they slide back to more of the mainstream to win the general?

or in other words  Clinton, Obama, and Dodd (voted), and Edwards (voiced) support for the 5% left position.  Most people propably wont remember that vote 16 months from now but it may come up.

All of this is mute depending on how Iraq changes.  This election really does hinge on Iraq and no one knows what the situation will be in Spetember, when people vote in early 2008 and when people vote in November 2008.

The question:

"Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?"

  5/18-23/07  Should 63% Should not 34%.

Why is anyone discussing sprinting to the 5% left?  We should be discussing disappointing the 63% center.
 

to agree on a timetable?

*"In the end, the Democrats did not hold up funding for the troops, but they made it clear that if they were in charge they would find a way to change and get us out. If Bush keeps this up, in 18 months Democrats will get their chance."

Wait a minute you have a majority in both houses you are in charge here you blinked and let Bush beat you.

"Although most Democrats are against the war and want to start withdrawing troops, many understand the importance of funding the war, which is the right thing to do to support the troops. It shows that the Democrats are reasonable"

huh this sounds exactly like the Kerry quote that sunk you guys last time (i.e. I was against the war before I was for it)  You need some better message people.

"Simply put, the more discussion of a disastrous war, the worse it is for the party who brought us that war."

Discussion!!! people are freaking dying and you talk about discussion terribe word to pick there.  Also, talk about politiczing the war.

The last three quotes show this issue is still a tossup.
I agree with Lowell neither party is doing well. 

However, you guys really do need better message people. Your position is more popular by 2 to 1.  The problem is we as Republicans are united on our side.  With you guys there are lots of different versions of what withdrawal actually means.

"you have a majority in both houses you are in charge here you blinked and let Bush beat you."

With Tim Johnson out and Lieberman threatening to caucus with the Repubs how did the Dems have a majority in the Senate?  And without 67 votes to override a veto, even a bare majority would not have been enough, which you already know.

Effectively speaking, Democrats do NOT have a majority in the US Senate.  Also, I'd point out that to get anything done in the Senate, you need 60 votes, and Dems aren't even close to that.

As long as the GOP in Congress is united behind Bush, no matter what the Democrats pass to end the war, Bush can veto it without fear that it will be overturned.  Only when the GOP ranks start splintering will we be able to get some of our desires in. Bush has demonstrated he can stick his head in a hole and keep it there.  We aren't going to get him to see reason.

Bush has nothing left to lose, as far as he is concerned.  The war is his legacy.  If he shows any signs of giving in, he knows he'll be a failure. So there really is no advantage to him to work with the Democrats on this issue at all! As long as he keeps the GOP united behind him, he will never compromise. 

Yes, I'm disappointed that the Democrats gave him what he wanted for now.  But I also recall back in 1995 when the GOP refused to send Clinton a bill to fund the government that he would sign.  Clinton shut the government down rather than give in to the GOP's cuts.  And in the end, it was the GOP who had egg on their faces.

People's lives are more at stake now than they were in 95.  It's possible, if war funding was cut off, that the Democrats would end up stuck holding the bag.

If it takes a few more months to finally crack the shell of GOP unity, then it will have been worth it.  But if we never revisit this issue, then they will have failed.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

Great to have you back and writing on RK. :)

Thank you, Lowell!  This is still my favorite blog, no matter where I live! :-)

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

First: the results of an "insiders" poll has got to be highly suspect. Why would Democratic "insiders" admit to failure?

Soccerdem wrote, what I think, is the counter position to "we can do nothing".  We could have used that opportunity to put the blame on the President.  I'd urge you to read it. http://raisingkaine....

Second: George Lakoff, Rockbridge Institute, agrees with posters on earlier diaries on this topic. http://www.rockridge...

Lakoff's article is a must read.  Lakoff understands framing just like Luntz (the Republican's mouthpiece) does, but he's one of us. 

Congress allowed the president to take over its job to decide the strategic mission and to put Congress in the role of merely providing funding. This allowed the president to cast Congress in the role of "refusing to fund the troops," "endangering the safety of our troops," "playing chicken with the lives of our troops," "hamstringing our troops," and so on. It allowed President Bush to portray Congress as responsible for the safety of our troops, whereas the real responsibility lay with him. By allowing the president to reframe the Constitution and take away their powers, Congress made itself fatally vulnerable. Most of the Democrats wound up adopting the president's framing of them as responsible for the safety of the troops.

...

Progressives must point out that it is the president, with an enabling Congress, who commenced a foolhardy adventure with no clear exit strategy or way to "win." That same president has refused to properly prepare or adequately equip soldiers - and now he is blaming Congress. When Congress passed a supplemental spending bill with reasonable timetables attached, he refused it. The betrayer is the president. Say it over and over: The president has betrayed our troops and the nation.

...

ACTION: Write to your Congresspersons and Senators and ask them to frame their Constitutional role as the Framers did. We suggest that you raise the following issues:
-- The Constitution provides Congress with the power to define the military agenda, including troop re-deployment and the establishment of timetables.
-- The role of the president is to carry out the agenda defined by Congress.
-- Congress must continuously assert its Constitutional power and responsibility.
-- Congress must not give in to the betrayal myth. The president was offered funding with timetables but he turned it down - he is the betrayer.
-- Congress must frame the matter as an issue of Constitutional authority
-- Congress must place the safety of the troops directly in the hands of the commander-in-chief, whose job is to carry out the agenda given by Congress, which includes protecting the safety of our troops. [empahsis provided}

Don't just write to your Congressperson. Write to the editors of your local newspapers. Flood the email boxes of the television and radio news shows, as well as national magazines. Send this call for action to your email lists. And write to progressive activist organizations like MoveOn, Democracy for America, and so on, to ask their memberships to support this action.

And don't do it just once. Repetition is the key to success. Keep it up until the next funding vote in September.

Let's start looking strong.

"If it takes a few more months to finally crack the shell of GOP unity, then it will have been worth it." !!!

Do you think it would have been worth it to the estimated 500+ soldiers who will sacrifice their lives (and their families and loved ones) up until September?  And to the soldiers who will come home without limbs or whose head injuries will doom them to a mere pitance of a life?

...all while we are working on cracking the shell of GOP unity?  We could have acted on May 24th...and we didn't. 

Just heard that Petraeus is now saying September may be a little to early to measure "success".  Surprise, surprise. 

will be immense, whether it's on ending the war in Iraq, on global warming, on civil liberties, on national health care, on a woman's right to choose, and on a host of other issues.  I would just point out that there are a lot of lives - and human suffering, and the fate of the planet - at stake here, that we are in a long-term battle for the future of our nation and the world.  That's why we need to demolish conservatism once and for all, so we can create an enduring Democratic/Progressive majority in America and return to the values that made America great.

because as others have said on RK, Republicans stick together and are unified.  Remember the 11 Republican invaders of the White House?  They all voted for extending the war, allowing more soldiers to die and be maimed. 

Cracking the shell of GOP unity?  They're all over the airwaves and internet making political hay of our backing down.  "First they're against the war and now they are for the war!!!  Trust me they want to get re-elected and I don't see them kowtowing to Democrats.  It will be spun to their advantage and re-election.

Of course we all want to fix the tragedies that Bush has laid on the United States.  But to hang your hat on "a change of the Republican's heart"....well, we've fallen for that before.

They have plenty of fault lines, such as immigration, just waiting to be given the "wedge" treatment they know and love so much. :)

Who are the Democratic "insiders" who believed the funding vote cave-in helped the party?  Are they the advisors who handled Kerry's campaign in 2004, advising  him not to respond within minutes to charges of wartime cowardice, as well as deception about how he won his medals, thereby entrenching doubt in the voters?  Or do they include Al Gore's 2000 handlers/advisors/braintrust who allowed the right-wing media network to attribute, unanswered by the Gore campaign, a gaggle of  false quotes to Gore?  For months, even non-right wing TV pundits (Chris Matthews, Margaret Carlson, etc.) laughingly repeated these so-called quotes until Gore became a national liar and the public perceived him as such (e.g., "If he lied about inventing the internet, how can we trust him to be president?").

Public perception is formed by the repetition of statements by the loudest, most widely disseminated voices.  Remember "Bush is a uniter, not a divider,"  or "He's a reformer, with results."  That was 30 million bucks seed money and a right-wing media in action.  And people bought it and repeated it as utter truth even though they, as yet, had no idea who or what George Bush was.  The Democrats don't have Rush, Sean, Laura Ingraham, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, et al.  They have Air America, with its miniscule audience, and Keith  Olberman, with perhaps a million viewers.  Basically, that's it for Democratic Party agitprop!  The Right's nationwide propoganda machine is going full blast over this funding vote, labeling the left as flip floppers, cowards and hypocrites for funding  a war they claim they do not support!  The right will be heard by Rush's 16-20 million listeners and  by Sean's 12 million or so listeners, and rest assured, these listeners vote.

And what argument could the Left put forward, assuming they had the bully pulpit held by the Right?  Having heeded Harry Reid and Murtha in drafting the funding bill, before the Bush veto, can they now say "Well, we voted for it after we voted against it"?  See how far that'll get you.

But the worst is yet to come.  In 2008. the Republicans will campaign on the premise that the Democratic Party fully supported the war and the President's position, as seen by their funding vote.  The Dems will not be able to claim they were really against this disaster of  a war  while voting for funding lest they be accused, rightly, of playing "hypocricy politics."  In other words, if Iraq's outcome is a total fiasco, the Dems, in voting for funding Bush's war, will be accused of equal complicity in the outcome.

If  you don't believe that the Democrats have lost this contest, just look back to the right-wing machine's constant referral to the vote authorizing the President to go to war with Iraq (if he so chose).  All over the airwaves, on all TV talk shows, the faint-hearted responses by Kerry, Hillary, and other Dems trying to explain away their vote do not resonate, even with staunch Democratic Party defenders like myself.  It is the crowning achievement  f the Bush party, that they were able to get so many of the Dems to vote against their conscience, and they use that vote constantly to support their failed policy and explain  away 3,500 American deaths and 12,000 troops badly injured--after all, "We all voted for the war."

The only valid choice the Dems had was to resubmit a bill containing  real, mandatory benchmarks 2 or 3 more times and let Bush veto it and argue who gets the blame for non-support.  I believe Bush would have been hard pressed to explain (in his inimitable manner) his vetos, since Americans want to see some signs of progress before more money and lives are poured down this sinkhole of a conflict.

So don't tell me that the Dems didn't shoot themselves in the foot on the war funding vote.  If you believe that, you might as well buy into Barney Frank dating Paris Hilton.

Hey, now THERE'S an idea! :)

is two-fold:

#1, in regards to the "we voted for it after we voted against it" matter: no.  Democrats voted for funding the troops with an emergency appropriations measure that included timelines.  They then voted for funding the troops in an emergency appropriations measure that did not include timelines because the initial measure was vetoed.  At no time did the Majority vote against funding the troops.  I'm guessing you probably hate that, but the fact remains that there's not going to be the same framing problem during next year's elections that Kerry had, "I voted for it before I voted against it."

#2, despite all the election coverage going on right now, November 2008 is still a year and a half away.  There is plenty of time to continue hammering away on this issue through another avenue of approach without cutting off funds for the troops.  It's a mistake to think this will ultimately have any influence either way without knowing the calculus of what will happen in the next year.

There's a third minor error in that polling done shortly before election day '06 indicated that the majority of Americans believed that Democrats would set a timetable for withdrawl (which is probably why they eventually decided to take that approach instead of another--it was expected of them).  They did NOT think anyone was going to cut off funding, however.

Don't get me wrong, I'm disappointed in the Leadership.  I think rather than trying to compromise on the funding the Leadership should have pressed harder with the message that we already GAVE him the emergency appropriations, HE was the one holding up the process.  Apparently the indications were that the message wasn't selling, but I think a little more presistence might have at least painted the Democrats in a stronger light.  In the meantime, someone once asked wisely, "when's the right time to say no?"  It wasn't now, but it's coming soon.

Re #1:  I never said that the Democrats voted against funding, as you've implied!!! The Democrats first voted for funding with timelines/benchmarks then voted for funding without timelines/benchmarks.  What this results in is the right being able to criticize the left for the next 17 months as being flip flopping cowards (listen to Mr. Limbaugh already).  I have no doubt that when this issue will be frequently raised, the Dems will respond with the Kerryesque remark I made.

As for "error" #2, I did not write that funding should be cut off, only that Bush would be the one cutting funding, if he did not accept the legitimate benchmarks.  The onus should be on Bush, not Democrats.  We should expect that there would be some sort of compromise with the funding had the Democrats worked up enough nerve to send the bill back another 2 or 3 times!  This is politics. 

Your opinion that "It's a mistake to think this will ultimately have any influence either way without knowing the calculus of what will happen in the next year" is easily disproved by going back to the Gore campaign.  To believe that this funding issue will go away because there are 17 months left before the 2008 election, does not take into account the influence of Rush and the right wing on the electorate.  Just remember the Buddhist Temple episode regarding Gore's fundraising.  Rush et. al. kept this issue alive for almost two years, making a minor incident into a major character flaw, which the right lapped up.  They also kept alive the supposed "lies" Gore told (which he never did) which further alienated voters from Gore; the pundits still refer to "Love Story", "Love Canal", and "Inventing the Internet" as actual Gore statements. 

As to the 3rd minor error, it is unclear to me what you are saying.

Overall, in politics, perception is reality.  At first, the Democrats were willing to fund the troops only if some sort of progress was made (using benchmarks).  But then when Bush vetoed the bill, the Democrats stated that we'll give you the money even if NO progress is made!  Gone were the mandatory benchmarks.  So now the perception of the Democrats is that they are a Party of appeasement, caving in, and wimps. 

Wouldn't "a little more persistence" have been for the Democrats to have resubmitted the bill and paint Bush as the "defunder" if he vetoed it again and again and again?  That's political persistence and decisiveness!  That's what the voters want --- macho!

Sitting around waiting for the GOP to "crack" or hope that time will change opinions, I believe, is naive and a waste of valuable time.  The right wing will not relent in their lies about and attacks on Democrats, and the main stream media (Russert, Matthews, etc.) will ultimately repeat Republican propoganda, if only for ratings!!!

Inside "thinkers" believe that "After the dust has cleared, the status quo still exists: The president still owns an unpopular war, and the Democrats still have a confused message about it."

I believe that after the dust has settled, Democrats will be remembered as being weaklings who, though they had a majority in both houses, did not stand up to a failed policy and a President with ratings that makes Jimmy Carter's presidency look like a success story. 

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid failed.  I think Democrats need new leadership because there was no room for failure on this one.

Insiders can talk politics all day long and decide whom this vote hurts the most.  In my view the people hurt the most are the American soldiers and Iraqi civilians who are getting hurt or killed.  Not to mention my son who will be left paying this massive war debt off.  My brother is off to Iraq this fall as an Army doctor, and my father (civilian engineer) will be going next year. 

Although I will be proud of their contribution to saving lives and rebuilding Iraq, I am discusted that their efforts will likely end in failure because of incompetant civilian leadership in both parties.  Reid and Pelosi need to be held to the fire on this one - they failed our troops by backing down.  I hold Democrats to a higher standard - I expect this out of Republicans.

In this instance, I could care less who comes out ahead politically.  What I care about is that we have resolution to this wreckless war and smart leadership who can bring that about.

Can't we care about what's going on in Iraq AND care about "who comes out ahead politically?"  My attitude is that unless Democrats "come out ahead poltically," we'll be stuck with a FUBAR foreign policy, budget deficits forever, infringements on our civil liberties, melting polar icecaps, tens of millions of Americans without adequate heath care (how many die every day because of THAT, by the way?), abominations like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, etc., etc.  That's why I care about who "comes out ahead politically."

I accept that this is a politically driven nation (hell, I participate in it), but this is also about war.  So in this case, politics should be the last thing on our minds.

I'm just as partisan as anyone else - which you are probably well aware of ;-)  In the case of war we must rise above that. 

I think that if Senator Reid held his ground, he would come out ahead politically.  I think that you should gain in politics because you do what is viewed as the right thing - not because your opponent comes out smelling worse than you.

I didn't cheer on Senator Webb because I thought he would be a good politician.  I cheered him on because I thought he was the type of person who would do what he believed to be the right thing. 

There is a time to negotiate, retreat, and hold your ground.  I believe that if there was ever a time to hold ground, it was on this issue.  We can play politics when our troops are home safe.

Think Progress, Russ Feingold, May 24th: http://thinkprogress...

Feingold: ?This Is No Time To Back Off?
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) responded today to congressional war critics who dropped the Iraq timeline because they feared that ?White House attacks? would be ?politically threatening?: ?Tell that to the families who lose their loved ones in the next few months while we?re dillying and dallying.

...
You know what?s going to happen in September? They?ll bring General Petraeus back and he?ll say, Just give me until the end of year. I think things are turning around. And then we?ll be out of session, come back in late January, February, and the fact is a thousand more troops will lose their lives in a situation that doesn?t make any sense and it is hurting our military, hurting our country. This should not wait till September."

It is this simple folks.  As long as Bush is President, he can veto anything the Democratic Congress sends forward.

It is that simple. 

In 2008, we have  an opportunity to elect a Democratic President.  We'd better take it, because every GOP candidate wants to keep the war going indefinitely.

We have a 16 seat majority in the House, and a 1 seat majority in the Senate (and with Liebermann, it's practically nonexistent in the Senate on this issue).  Without significant Republican support, we cannot overturn a Presidential veto.

Many in the GOP hate this war now, but they don't want to get primaried from the right for giving in to MoveOn, or DailyKos, or RK.  As sick as it is, they want some rock solid cover before they vote to end the war. 

Somebody posted about the Republican media machine.  It's true, it's there, and it is undermining any effort to grow any GOP support for ending the war.

These are the obstacles we face, ladies and gentleman.  Quite frankly, anybody who thought with the Democratic takeover of Congress last year that the war was going to be over soon was kidding themselves.  Bush is President, no matter how much we hate it and wish it weren't so.  He's the one who has to sign these bills into law, and he's the one who gets to veto them.  And he will never give up on his war.  Never.

Don't tell me about all those lives that are dying.  I know it very well.  But with a crazy man at the wheel, the only thing we can hope to do is persuade enough of the passengers to help steer the wheel in another direction so we don't keep running over the innocent.

And sadly, we aren't there yet.  And if we push too hard now, Democrats might lose in the next elections, in which case, thousands more will die and there will be nothing at all we can do about it then either.

'A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty; but a fool's wrath is heaver than them both' - Dune

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

I don't agree with you that if we push too hard, Democrats might lose in the next election.  For heavens sake, the public is with us on ending the Iraq war.  Right now after giving the President cart blanche permission to do what ever he wants in Iraq, with no strings, shows that we haven't pushed nearly hard enough.  We had the opportunity to send the bill back again to him with meaningful benchmarks, telling the public that we are funding the war with benchmarks, just as they want and just like they asked us to do.  Then let Bush veto it again and then who's the obstructionist?  Who is the defunder?  The President. And the Democrats would look strong, faithful to those who elected them, and decisive.  And that would bring over the Independents and the moderate Republicans!

We made the mistake of not forcing his hand. He should have been forced to compromise, which is what politics is all about, or look like the lunatic dictator that he is.  In this case, politics and compromise was thrown on the floor and Democrats have let Bush continue to "dictate" to all of us what he wants not what we want. 

It doesn't matter that we don't have a veto-proof majority!!!  So what.  We haven't shown the public, must less the Democratic base, that we have learned from our weakness mistakes in the past. 

To our Democratic Reprentatives:  Stand up to the President, do what the public is expecting us to do instead of playing a polical guessing game. 

And as much as you don't want to be told again about the lives being lost (I find that a bit callous), others do care about their loved ones dying over there!  Just how do you think the soldiers in Iraq feel now that we say that benchmarks aren't important enough to us to ensure that this war is being executed intelligently to protect them, while we are asking them to lay there lives down for us? 

You said "But with a crazy man at the wheel, the only thing we can hope to do is persuade enough of the passengers to help steer the wheel in another direction so we don't keep running over the innocent."  No one needs to be persuaded that the war is a disaster (the Republicans all know it).  What they needed to be persuaded of....is that we will not walk away from the soldiers and that we wouldn't "cut and run" on doing the right thing:  HAVE BENCHMARKS!