April 7, 2006 PERMALINK
Piercing the GOP National Security Myth
(posted April 7 1:45 AM ET)
The Dem messages in response to the latest PlameGate revelation – that Dubya directed Scooter Libby to leak classified info in a stealth campaign to discredit Joe Wilson – were well-coordinated and on-point.
DNC Chair Howard Dean hit hardest:
The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put the interests of his political party ahead of America’s security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe.
And House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi laid some groundwork to cast doubt on future attempts to dupe the country into war:
...intelligence must never be classified or declassified for political purpose.
One of the constants in the Bush administration's miserable record on Iraq has been the manipulation of intelligence precisely for political purposes.
That has caused our intelligence... to be viewed with skepticism by the international community.
Against a backdrop of a failing Iraq policy, such messages – connecting misused classified info to bad policy -- help pierce the myth that Republicans are inherently stronger on foreign policy and national security.
But, to reiterate the point of yesterday’s post, once that myth is pierced Dems should be ready to articulate an alternative foreign policy vision and strategy.
Otherwise, we will not be able to alter the foreign policy debate.
For example, if Dems can successfully argue that we shouldn’t trust what the Bushies say about Iran, then the following question will still be: what would you do about Iran?
If the Dem response is akin to what Republicans say, that would undercut the message that Republicans are taking us down a bad road. Dems eventually have to offer a different road.
Some may worry that saying too much gives the GOP a target, an opening to move focus away from their failings.
But that’s a necessary political risk to take, if we are to build support for a diplomatic approach to stopping nuclear proliferation.
Speaking of yesterday’s post...
After LiberalOasis criticized Dems for lacking an Iran plan, an aide to Congresswoman Jane Harman called LO’s attention to this AP story from Tuesday:
U.S. intelligence information on Iran is inadequate and may contain misinformation that spy agencies are accepting as solid, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said Tuesday.
Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., told a Council on Foreign Relations gathering that she and other lawmakers recently received a briefing from intelligence agencies based on information shared with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N. Security Council.
Her bottom line: "I remain skeptical — lots of unanswered questions."
"The conjecture that I have is that if I were Iran, and I wanted to put out disinformation, it might look a lot like what our government is claiming is information," she said. "I can't tell you that's true, but I can't tell you it's not true."
...
Harman said she does not doubt that Iran is a threat.
"The issue is how capable are they and what are the real intentions of Iran's leaders, and I think the jury is out on both of those," Harman said.
In recent months, she and others on Capitol Hill have been seeking information about how to deal with Iran.
Bruises in Congress and elsewhere in the government remain fresh on the botched prewar intelligence on Iraq's never-to-be-found weapons of mass destruction.
"I want to be absolutely sure that we base decisions — especially tough decisions like what are the next steps with Iran, and I surely hope they are diplomatic because I think those are our best options — on pristine and pure intelligence or the closest we can get to that," Harman said.
It’s good to see a top Dem willing to challenge the propaganda effort. That bodes well.
But it will be difficult to sustain such a challenge unless it is buffeted and guided by party-wide vision and strategy.
Simply saying our intelligence is no good, and shrugging our shoulders when it comes to policy steps, will eventually come across as a cop-out.
And that would give an opening to neocons who will be trying to set up a false choice between bombing and “doing nothing.”
April 6, 2006 PERMALINK
Dems Need an Iran Plan. Now.
(posted April 6 1;30 AM ET)
The Bushies may force a confrontation with Iran faster than expected.
If Dems want to have any hope of shaping public perception and hampering Bush’s ability to act, they need to start laying out an alternative vision and strategy, and rebutting dubious propaganda, now.
Last week’s “Real Security” plan was good on nuts and bolts homeland security, but short on vision, particularly in regards to how we engage the Arab/Muslim world.
That’s a serious deficiency.
Unless there is a vision and strategy guiding Democrats as the Iran issue heats up, like with the run-up to Iraq, Dems will continually be reacting defensively to White House propaganda, and eventually get rolled again.
LiberalOasis offered an Iran strategy earlier this month.
A small part of that plan called for standing firm against Bush’s nuclear proliferation deal with India, because we need to remove incentives for Iran to go nuclear, not create more.
Momentum had been building against the deal, thanks to key Republicans and former Dem Senator Sam Nunn.
But Dem Senators John Kerry and Joe Biden gave the deal a shot in the arm yesterday, indicating that while they have reservations, they’ll probably vote for it anyway.
If Dems had an Iran plan, a strategy on nuclear proliferation, and a broader vision on how to best engage the Arab/Muslim, individual Senators would be far less likely to nonsensically cave on such matters.
Because they’d be reinforced by a party-wide effort to clearly articulate a Democratic foreign policy alternative, and do whatever a minority party can to hem in the reckless White House global agenda.
India’s just a piece of puzzle, but yesterday’s cave-in was an ominous sign of things to come.
If Dems don’t want to repeat the humiliation of 2002, and the following four years of contorted excuses and rationalizations, they best get over worrying about the short-term political risks, and start getting ahead of the curve.
April 5, 2006 PERMALINK
DeLay Creates a Plot Point
(posted April 5 2 AM ET)
Tom DeLay’s resignation media blitz had a purpose.
By filling up the media space with a videotaped statement, several TV and radio interviews, and staged images of cheering GOP staffers, he was able to exert considerable spin control.
More talk about his selflessness and “nasty” Democrats, less about his legal troubles.
But going high-profile has its downside for the GOP.
The Democratic challenge in pushing a “culture of corruption” narrative has been keeping the story going over a two-year period, and keeping the complex web of legal activity simple.
Any good story needs what writers call “plot points,” significant actions that keep the story moving.
Tom DeLay never quite reached household name status the way Newt Gingrich did, and not as many Americans followed the DeLay scandals as other recent scandals.
And he already lost his Majority Leader perch and became a mere backbencher. Stepping down now has less impact than if he currently held a leadership post.
His resignation would be news no matter what, but slinking away would have caused less commotion than yesterday’s media tour did.
By forcing himself above the fold, DeLay helped create a simple plot point -- corrupt Republican leader forced to quit House -- that the public can recall 7 months from now when Dems are summing up the narrative.
Further, staging images of GOPers applauding and high-fiving DeLay, helps Dems make the case that it’s not just about DeLay. (Hell, Dems can use them in ads.)
It’s about a party that is committed to DeLay’s corrupt brand of politics and needs to be thrown out.
GOPers were not embarrassed by DeLay when he was around, even after the scandals broke.
And with Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader John Boehner just as dirty as DeLay, you can be sure the GOP will continue to unethically let corporate lobbyists shape policy after DeLay leaves.
If this was going to be the final plot point, then DeLay’s move would be saavily taking one for the team, as Dems might have a hard time keeping the story going until November.
But no one expects that to be the case. As Dem Rep. Rahm Emanuel said yesterday, “Federal prosecutors don't care about Republican spin.”
April 3, 2006 PERMALINK
The Sunday Talkshow Breakdown
A weekly feature of LiberalOasis
(posted April 2 11 PM ET)
Corporatist and nativist Republicans remained deeply split on the Sunday shows, with no movement towards a congressional compromise.
The split is likely feeding resentment among nativists in the GOP base, while also damaging party efforts to attract Latino voters.
Most notable was corporate-wing Sen. Lindsey Graham’s appearance on Fox News Sunday.
Realizing he couldn’t successfully make a principled argument to keep his party together, he made a desperate plea based on raw politics, that “we will lose our majority” if the GOP Congress passes a harsh crackdown:
This is a defining moment for the Republican Party.
If our answer to the fastest growing demographic in this country is that we want to make felons of your grandparents and we want to put people in jail who are helping your neighbors and people related to you, then we're going to suffer mightily.
Of course, such an argument has zero resonance among the nativists, and only serves to make corporatists look political and not principled.
Will a bill even pass the Senate?
Corporate Sen. John McCain, on NBC’s Meet The Press, said, “I don't know if we have the votes” for the bill that cleared the Senate Judiciary Cmte.
Sen. Barack Obama – who, like most Dems, backs the bill -- said on ABC’s This Week that they likely had majority support, but “it is possible that opponents of the legislation mount a filibuster.”
And Graham begged for opponents not to filibuster, calling it “political suicide.”
Yet Sen. George Allen, who's angling for the nativist vote in ’08 and denouncing the Judiciary bill as “rewarding illegal behavior,” indicated on ABC's This Week he would not support a filibuster, saying “I don't like the concept of filibustering.”
If Allen speaks for other opponents (and that’s definitely an if), they may be trying to avoid magnifying this party split any further, realizing that the bill will probably die, less dramatically, in a House-Senate conference anyway, making a filibuster unnecessary.
QUICK HIT
Doubletalk Express Rolls On
We may have had a seminal moment in the mainstream media treatment of McCain.
On Meet The Press, Tim Russert pressed McCain on his recent pandering to the conservative activists that he had snubbed in 2000.
The starkest moment was when Russert asked if McCain still believed, as he said in 2000, that Jerry Falwell as an “agent of intolerance.”
“No I don’t” said McCain, flip-flopping without hesitation and without any explanation (as there is nothing Falwell has done differently since 2000).
The flip-flop was picked up by the AP.
Daily Kos’ georgia10 commented, “What we saw in that interview was the death of McCain the Maverick, and the birth of McCain the Chameleon.” And the DNC pounced, “McCain Takes the Doubletalk Express for A Spin.”
If the media stop fawning over McCain as a glorious maverick, and start treating him as a typical politician, McCain will have lost his main source of support.
