Um, Democrats Actually ARE On The Offensive

Greg Sargent's blog The Horse's Mouth, rapidly becoming a must-read, dissects the media's obsession with continuing its familiar narratives:

Here's something we should keep an eye out for as the political battle over Iraq unfolds: How often do reporters and commentators portray the GOP as being on offense and the Democrats as being on the defensive? Compare these two takes on yesterday's Congressional skirmishing over the war:

The New York Times: Democrats have found themselves trying to fend off accusations from the White House and other Republicans that they are "cutting and running," and many lawmakers demonstrated flashes of exasperation and anger about the level of partisanship.

Los Angeles Times: Democrats and Republicans dueled over the Iraq war in the Senate on Wednesday, exchanging rhetorical jabs as each side sought political advantage on a debate many strategists believed could be a decisive factor in determining which party would control Congress after the November elections.

What happened yesterday was this: Both parties attacked each other. The L.A. Times piece made this very clear. The N.Y. Times piece, though it did quote a couple Dems criticizing the GOP, essentially downplayed it. It's important to understand that these were editorial choices. The L.A. Times's choice was closer to the whole truth.

What's going on in this debate is that the Republicans have started up their Election '06 strategy. It should be familiar to everyone, since it's exactly the same as the Election '02 and Election '04 strategies. They try to intimidate the Democrats by yelling loudly and hoping that and that alone forces them into a mushy submission. You can't blame them for doing it again: it worked in 2002 and 2004. But this year we have an unpopular President and an unpopular war. We had those in '04 as well, but it wasn't perceived by the Democrats or the media that way.

Those right-wing apologists in the media are re-running the script from past elections, claiming that the Democrats are divided and weak. ABC's The Note, subject of a brilliant expose by Eric Boehlert, have decided that the Democrats are "on the precipice of making Iraq a 2006 political winner for the Republican Party."

In fact, this is a load of crap. The Democrats have put out several plans about what to do in Iraq, unlike any other point since the war began. They're actually taking their job seriously and understanding that the American people are looking for answers on the war. They're not running from the debate at the first sound of the Republican attack dogs.

On the other hand, the Republicans are nothing but resigned to accepting the Bush strategy of "stay the course," which is empty, meaningless, and exactly what I feel the public DOESN'T want, by all accounts.

That emerging Republican approach reflects, at least for now, the success of a White House effort to bring a skittish party behind Mr. Bush on the war after months of political ambivalence in some vocal quarters. As President Bush offered another defense of his Iraq policy during a visit to Vienna on Wednesday, Republicans acknowledged that it was a strategy of necessity, an effort to turn what some party leaders had feared could become the party's greatest liability into an advantage in the midterm elections.

The approach might yet be upended by more problems in Iraq, as Republicans were reminded this week with reports about two American servicemen who were abducted, tortured and apparently killed. Some polls show a majority of Americans continue to think that entering Iraq was a mistake, and pollsters say independent voters are particularly open to the idea of setting some sort of timetable for withdrawal, the very policy Democrats have embraced and Republicans are now fighting.

The GOP unity only exists in absence of any actual plan to succeed in Iraq. They're "on the offensive" because they're trying to be the bully on the block, spitting "cut'n'run" at every opportunity to try and bend the Democrats to their will. But, as Sargent says, it's not working:

The reality is this: Republicans have a massive albatross around their neck that's getting heavier every day. It's not an option to throw off the albatross -- that is, initiate a big pullout -- because doing so would be an admission of failure. So their only option is to put some phony swagger in their step, act as if they're confident that they have a winner on their hands, and hope for two things. First, that Dems blink. And second, that reporters and commentators will be taken for suckers, that members of the media will portray the GOP's political hand as the stronger one and allow the Republicans' feigned brashness to distract them from the reality that the GOP simply can't come up with a way out of the mess it's created.

The Dems haven't blinked -- yet.

And I don't think they're going to blink, not from the way it looks. Very few Democrats wavered in today's losing vote to start a redeployment by the end of the year. 38 Democrats held together out of 44 (Lieberman doesn't count). That's pretty strong unity on an issue like this. And Ron Wyden got to the heart of the issue with this proposal:

“I rise today to offer a simple proposition: Congress should act like a co-equal branch of government and vote on whether or not to keep American troops in Iraq for at least three more years,” said Wyden on the Senate floor today. “I simply ask the President to come to Congress and describe his plan and his budget, in detail, and let us consider its potential to succeed before we, with our silence, consent to three more years of exceptionally costly involvement in Iraq. That vote, if held, won't be about cut-and-run. It won't be about who comes up with the best spin. It will be about holding the President and Congress accountable. The vote will hold the President accountable for presenting a plan and a budget for securing the peace. And the vote will hold Congress accountable by making it finally act like a co-equal branch of government.”

The President has said repeatedly that he won't leave Iraq, that the choice to leave will be up to future Presidents. Unless something dramatic happens, that's how it's going to be. By fighting against that, by saying that we can change course and come up with an effective way to salvage this misadventure, Democrats are on the exact same side as the American people. As long as they aren't bullied (and evidence shows they won't be), they can win with this strategy. Paul Begala, oddly enough, is right:

The only place in the American government where there is an honest and spirited debate over Iraq is within the Democratic Party. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer are not on the same page – and that’s a good thing. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry disagree. Hooray for that.

If anyone tells you the solution to Iraq is easy or obvious, they’re a liar or a fool (a false choice in the case of our president). So why not feature the debate? At least someone is debating what to do.

The fact is the American people want a new direction in Iraq, and the Democrats offer several. The Republicans, on the other hand, offer nothing more than a four-word strategy: more of the same.

Democrats should seize this moment to attack the rubber-stamp Republicans for their lemming-like devotion to a failed strategy and a set of incompetent and dishonest leaders. Republicans have a faith-based Iraq policy. They have faith in Donald Rumsfeld, they have faith in Dick Cheney, they have faith in George W. Bush. We don’t. They are liars and nincompoops – and the lives of tens of thousands of our best are in their hands.

Every time the GOP says “cut and run,” Democrats should say, “rubber stamp.” Every time they say we’re weak, we should say real strength is standing up to your president and your party when American lives are on the line. When they attack our patriotism, we should challenge them to sign their kids up for the military: “Since when did the sons and daughters of working people corner the market on patriotism, Senator? If this war is so wonderful, so noble, so vital, why the hell is your son throwing up on his date at Ivy League frat parties?”

In short, Democrats can and will win the debate over the war in Iraq not by playing defense (pleading “We’re NOT for cut and run!”) but on offense: the Republican Congress has blindly backed a failed strategy that has left 2,500 Americans dead, 20,000 wounded, and put us $2 trillion in the hole.

Being part of a party that has three or four different new approaches to Iraq beats the hell out of being part of a party that marches in lockstep off a cliff.

Hopefully the Dems won't chicken out and will stick with that message.

UPDATE: This is really the Clinton '92 strategy all over again: change vs. more of the same. This AP article tells you all you need to know in the headline and the nut graf:

Democrats Want Change in Iraq

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats want a different direction in Iraq. Republicans back President Bush.

That's a winner in November.