When I read stories like today’s AP contribution to pack journalism, I’m reminded of one of Dave Poisson’s best lines in his debate against Dick Black for the eastern Loudoun County’s House seat in Virginia’s General Assembly. Black repeatedly attacked Poisson for not being in lock step with his party’s gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine on some issues. Black, meanwhile, touted his devotion to every one of Jerry Kilgore’s positions. Poisson rose to respond and said, “One thing great about being a Democrat is that we get to think for ourselves.” The crowd roared its approval.
Democrats in Congress almost unanimously agree on many things: that the war was a mistake (Sen. Joe Lieberman the only noteworthy exception); that Social Security should not be privatized; that deficits need to be addressed; that tax cuts have helped overwhelmingly the well-to-do; that the economic playing filed is anything but level; and on and on. But because they don’t have a single answer as to the timeline for getting out of Iraq — while the GOP has no timeline at all and simply wants to stay the disastrous course — Democrats are headed for defeat in November.
[P]rimary clashes are drawing unwanted attention to Democratic divisions on the war while raising questions about whether the Democrats’ competing factions are, in effect, torpedoing the party’s chances to make 2006 a referendum on Bush’s handling of Iraq.
If I’m a voter unhappy with the war — as an overwhelming majority of Americans are — and hold George Bush responsible for the debacle — as they do — they why would the Democrats, who are not in power and but for a very few, feel we should set some type of timetable for getting out, be the party at risk in November?
Because the press, regurgitating the Bush spin, says so.
Of course, the GOP has no view on when the war should end, except when the mission is accomplished, when they Iraqis step up. Completely lacking in the press are any voices asking very simple questions of the president: How will we know that the Iraqis have “stepped up”? What constitutes a “stable Iraq”? How will we know when we’ve won the war on terror? What will victory look like? Will one terrorist attack in the world every month mean the war is still on? How about one per year?
And again, courtesy of the AP, we get from the press the idea that it is liberals and leftists who want out of Iraq.
Senate primary fights in Connecticut and Washington state as well as a few House contests pit the party’s liberal wing — proponents of candidates who want an immediate end to the conflict — against moderates favored by Democratic leaders in Washington.
Arguably the most high-profile and contentious case is Connecticut, where three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman is under siege for his staunch support of the war and Bush’s national security policies. Liberal bloggers and left-leaning groups are pushing the candidacy of multimillionaire businessman Ned Lamont, who wants U.S. troops to start coming home now.
… Jerry McNerney said it was time to withdraw U.S. troops, and his campaign had the support of proponents of former anti-war presidential candidate Howard Dean. Moderate Democrat Steve Filson opposed an immediate withdrawal and was preferred by House Democratic leaders. McNerney won the June primary and will try to unseat seven-term Republican Rep. Richard Pombo (news, bio, voting record).
Liberals also have targeted first-term Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., who supported the war but has criticized Bush’s stewardship. She faces challenges from anti-war activists who want U.S. troops out, including one candidate who has the support of peace activist Cindy Sheehan. The challengers lack the cash and name recognition, but their candidacies have caused the state’s political left to turn on Cantwell because of the war. The primary is Sept. 19.
… Eli Pariser, director of MoveOn, a liberal group backing Lamont, said: “We’re trying to play a constructive role in helping amplify the boldest voices and quiet the ones which are undermining the way that the Democrats are different from the Republicans.”
The November elections will be the arbiter on the effectiveness of liberal groups.
“Can they swing general elections is the big question, and so far we don’t know the answer. But they certainly can have an impact on primaries,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of Third Way, a group of moderate Democrats.
Just how many times can a reporter use the words “liberal” and “leftist” in a story to describe a viewpoint that is indeed moderate or even conservative — the notion that foreign entanglements should be taken very judiciously, while labeling such adventurism as “moderate”?
It is destructive to political discourse to choose incorrect adjectives to describe a viewpoint. Most people consider themselves moderates, rather than radicals or reactionaries, and most Americans are opposed to this war. Have Americans become radicalized?
Finally, this AP story ends with a poor analogy.
If 1968 is any guide, Iraq could continue to have repercussions. Nearly 40 years ago, Vietnam so divided the party that Democrats lost to Richard M. Nixon.
While the anti-war movement was only beginning to get its legs in 1968, the general public was not there yet. Contrary to today, the Vietnam war still had widespread support.
[I]n a poll conducted in February 1968, 25 per cent wanted to “gradually broaden and intensify our military operations”, and 28 per cent wanted to “start an all-out crash effort in the hope of winning the war quickly even at the risk of China or Russia entering the war”. Just 24 per cent wanted to “discontinue the struggle and begin to pull out of Vietnam gradually in the near future”, and 10 per cent wanted to “continue the war at the present level of military effort”.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good story?