Real Security

I think you have to give the Democrats some credit for actually pushing back on the issue of national security. This is a far cry from 2002 and 2004, when the party tried to split the difference on Iraq and security and focus on bread and butter issues. The historical time was simply not right for that strategy. They've at least realized that they need to speak up and show some kind of plan.

I touched on this "Real Security" initiative earlier today, and was a little dismissive because I figured it wouldn't get any press coverage, which it really didn't (the Times article is in the back of the paper). These stage-managed Democratic things simply don't get the time that, say, any speech by Bush gets. And while it's important to have some semblance of a plan on national security, the fact is that under the current White House none of it has any chance of being implemented even if the Democrats took back both houses of Congress. That's dangerous, in a way, because it could lead to charges of "broken promises" should we win on it.

And while Harry Reid's comprehensive, point-by-point summary of what Democrats have done and what the Administration isn't doing along these lines is great for changing the narrative should anyone wish to do so, it's freaking LONG. That's fine with me, but it's not exactly soundbite-friendly in an increasingly soundbite-dependent world. It's a great repository of information, a place I'll probably go back to again and again. Great research document, but shouldn't be part of what is essentially a PR presentation.

And the issue of Iraq, given that this plan is a consensus document among a group with no real consensus, is still troubling. Outside of Jack Murtha and Russ Feingold I've yet to see true leadership on Iraq; saying that "Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" doesn't mean anything. I mean honestly it doesn't. "responsible redeployment" is slicing the salami pretty thin. You're either for redeployment or you aren't. Chris Bowers puts it into one short summary:

Short version: if someone has an explanation for why Democrats aren't running on withdrawal when they themselves support it, when it is extremely popular nationwide, when it draws a contrast between congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans, when it creates a wedge in the Republican voter base, and when it is the number one issue nationwide, let me know, because I can't think of one.

It really is time to be bold. If you don't have a solid strategy, don't put out a position paper that doesn't really take a position on the number 1 issue to the country. I know the problem is that there are no good ideas with respect to Iraq. The window has closed on positive solutions, IMO. It's almost devious, how the Republicans can fuck up with such impunity and then say "See, the Democrats don't have any ideas on how to fix it!"

Murtha's position is at least one of principle, and one borne of sound military acumen. The country largely supports it in every opinion poll. Therefore no Democratic leader will touch it with a ten-foot pole. See how that works?

P.S. Actually Pachachutec has an excellent summary of all this.