What Bill Scher Said

5 comments March 10th, 2007at 02:31pm Posted by Eli

Bill Scher says what I was trying to say at the end of my last FDL post:

Regarding Iraq, There are four things Dems need to convey to the public:

1. They have a plan to stabilize Iraq by disengaging militarily, and re-engaging diplomatically and economically.

2. They are doing all they can to implement that plan.

3. If the plan is blocked, it’s because Dubya and his Republican backers never want to leave.

4. A new Oval Office occupant is needed to change course.

(…)

The public is seeing Dems unifying around an exit strategy, and GOPers not wanting to exit.

And that’s what is most important.

Because these bills are never becoming law.

Bush will veto, or the Senate GOP minority will filibuster. (Or Bush could sign it into law, then ignore the law.)

Yet either way, Dems have the ability to show they did what they constitutionally could to end the war, but Bush is keeping it going and therefore, is the sole problem.

(…)

Because the pushback against the new bills will be so fierce, maximum coordination is necessary.

It’s not enough to unify on the bill. You have to unify on the argument.

And unify in a manner that helps voters understand what the Dem foreign policy vision is, increasing the comfort level in their ability to manage world affairs.

While Republican hysteria continues to diminish the public’s comfort level in them.

If Dems could accomplish that, they will firmly reclaim the national security advantage for the first time in decades, making whoever the prez nominee is practically unstoppable.

Which will allow us to end the war in the soonest timeframe possible.

If we stipulate that it really is impossible for the Democrats to end the war, which is a true statement as long as all, or almost all Republicans-plus-Lieberman are committed to prolonging it, then the next-best thing the Democrats can do is cement the Republicans’ ownership of the war, and their own absolute opposition to it. If they don’t, they’ll be in the same position Kerry was in 2004, trying to run against a war that he himself had voted for.

(Cross-posted at Mia Culpa)

Entry Filed under: Bush,Democrats,Iraq,Politics,Republicans,War

5 Comments

  • 1. Anonymous  |  March 10th, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    I was checking out your post on FDL:

    “They still believe the toxic whispers of the DLC, telling them that compromising Democratic values and playing to the right is the only way to get elected.”

    I couldn’t agree more. There is this prevailing d.c. wisdom out there that we all have to move to the center in oder to be successful. That Democrats need their own K-Street inorder to win elections.

    I think “they” are dead wrong.

    “If we stipulate that it really is impossible for the Democrats to end the war, which is a true statement as long as all, or almost all Republicans-plus-Lieberman are committed to prolonging it, then the next-best thing the Democrats can do is cement the Republicans’ ownership of the war…”

    This is very important as Republicans are already trying to dump ownership of Iraq on to the Democrats. Republicans have always preyed on the Public’s short term memory. In 6 months time, Republicans will claim this whole botched occupation of Iraq was the Democrat’s fault from the get-go.

    Ofcourse this should be no surprise since they blamed Democrats for the past 4 years for everything that went wrong in Iraq since they had the audacity to speak out on it thereby emboldening our enemies.

  • 2. SPIIDERWEB™  |  March 10th, 2007 at 6:32 pm

    You’re absolutely right. No matter what the Dems do, Bush is one signing statement away from doing anything he wants.

    But the Dems can tar and feather the GOP and Lieberman so the voters know who really wanted to save the lives of Americans in Iraq.

  • 3. Eli  |  March 10th, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    No matter what the Dems do, Bush is one signing statement away from doing anything he wants.

    Or veto. But if they manage to peel off enough Republicans to override a veto, then Bush will unquestionably use a signing statement.

    On the other hand, a bill that bipartisan would probably have to be pretty watered-down to attract Republican votes, and I suspect Dubya would be more than happy to sign something that committed for the troops to come home *after* his term is over…

  • 4. jawbone  |  March 10th, 2007 at 10:29 pm

    Must add that there must be a filibuster proof Senate Democratic majority.

    It is not just BushBoy and his administration, bad as that is; it took the Repug majorities in Congress to allow ZERO oversight.

  • 5. charley  |  March 11th, 2007 at 9:55 pm

    all i know is the longer this thing drags on the uglier it’s going to get.

    pretty soon it’s going to start having a real impact on american’s lives.

    walter reed is just the tip of the iceburg.


Contact Eli





Feeds

Linkedelia!

Most Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Calendar

March 2007
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  


Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter


View My Stats *