Democrats Don't Do Enough Grandstanding

Republicans got their marching orders to denounce the MoveOn Petraeus/BetrayUs ad, they came out day after day after day and manufactured a story. People don't pay a lot of attention to ads inside the New York Times, but the Republicans forced it onto the front page. They proposed resolutions of condemnation in the House and the Senate. They yelled loud enough and long enough that the media had to pay attention. They closed Daou's Triangle.

Yesterday John Boehner, who is apparently George Bush's new best friend, appeared on The Situation Room with Wolf and literally said that the death of over 4,000 Americans in Iraq was a "small price."

BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

I heard this on Randi Rhodes, a couple bloggers have linked to it. Beyond that? Nothing.

This is the Minority Leader in the House, perhaps the highest-ranking elected Republican under the President, and he's diminishing the sacrifice of those who've died in Iraq, not only in the long term but in the NEAR TERM. In other words, it's worth it to us today to have American men and women dying in the Arabian desert.

And nothing.

Um, Democrats? Hello? Anybody home? If the only elected official fighting back is John Kerry, you know they're out to lunch on this one.

The reason for this disparity, however, doesn't reside just within the media. Recall what happened last fall with Kerry's botched troop joke. In less than a day, virtually every Republican in public life was condemning the remark in every conceivable forum. And Kerry's gaffe was obviously a screwed up gag, whereas there's very good reason to believe that Boehner meant his remark in exactly the way it came across. A very similar Republican message eruption happened with the MoveOn ad blasting General Petraeus the other day. In both cases, the media responded in kind.

By contrast, only a single Dem -- John Kerry -- has stepped forward to condemn Boehner. We hear various Democrats are weighing right now whether to try to make an issue of his comment. But thus far, there's virtual silence. This is astonishing -- particularly because Boehner's remark captures rather nicely what's going on with the war debate. Boehner, like the White House and most Republicans, is willing to sink an untold number of American lives into the pursuit of the fantasy of a stable Middle East and into the illusion that civilization as we know it will come to an end if we don't defeat the ever omnipotent Al Qaeda.

Is there even the slightest doubt that the Repubs would have cranked up the message machine in a big way had a Dem made this "small price" remark? No, there isn't.

Bottom line: It's hard to see what Boehner said as anything but reprehensible. And his remarks could become a big story, if Dems wanted to make it one.

People take their cues from candidates and political parties by their actions. Not fighting back on something despicable like this shows weakness. You can say that Democrats aren't into grandstanding because they don't have such self-righteousness. Well, when voters are faced with self-righteousness versus nothing, they're not going to go with nothing.

This is the same problem I have with Barack Obama, who apparently is more interested in being a pundit than a leader.

Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama predicted Thursday that Congress won't directly challenge President Bush's plans and will focus instead on putting a ceiling on the number of troops deployed to that country.

Obama, on the second day of a trip to Iowa, conceded that Democrats who control Congress lack the votes to cut off funding for the war or even to tie continued funding to a timetable for withdrawing troops.

The Illinois senator said the most likely scenario would be to grant troops more time at home between deployments, a politically popular step that's difficult to oppose and one that would have a practical impact.

"You have to at least give people a one-year break for every year served in Iraq," Obama said. "At least that would put a ceiling on how many troops could be sent there at any given time.

The cue given to voters is that Democrats don't have the guts to stand up to George Bush or the Republicans, and that they'll have to go in through the back door to get anything done. There's no need for a political candidate to predict what Congress will do, especially when he's IN the Congress. Obama is not interested in leading, just throwing up his hands and saying "What can you do?" How about not funding any request without a withdrawal timeline? Bush has already taken away one of his responses to that - he's about to announce a timeline for (being forced to) ending the surge tonight.

Sometimes you want to give up on this party and start over.

UPDATE: Finally.

"Boehner’s comments yesterday are deplorable and he should apologize immediately," Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean said in a statement emailed to Election Central. "Bohener’s comments show how truly out of touch the Republicans are. The loss of a son or daughter is never a small price to pay, especially for a policy which was initiated by Republicans who misled the nation about why we are there."