(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom)
There has been a lot of good stuff coming out from the Democratic side this week on the ‘debate’ in the Senate about Iraq. In particular, Paul Begala wrote his first worthwhile piece in some time on the issue of division with Democrats. In fact, the idea that the Democrats are putting out two ideas for changing our foreign policy is a sign that yes, we do have ideas that are different from the GOP. Nowadays, it’s the Republicans that are for the same old stale failed policies that have encompassed the past 5+ years. But once again, the Associated Press steps up to the plate to deliver the meme: Democrats can’t seem to agree on anything:
WASHINGTON – When two Democrats looking toward 2008 pushed hard for a firm date on withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, they crashed headlong into Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid’s effort to retake the Senate this year.
Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin want to pull out all combat forces over the next year, a proposal that delights the left wing of the Democratic Party but that failed overwhelmingly in the Senate on Thursday.
First, let’s examine the substance behind the notion that Kerry and Feingold are doing this for their 2008 prospects. If conventional wisdom holds, and that generally seems to hold a lot of water with the mainstream media, the fact that Kerry lost in 2004 means he’s unlikely to win in 2008 – after all, Americans don’t like their losers. Feingold is a twice-divorced Jewish man, something that probably won’t win him many points in the less culturally astute parts of the country. Also, isn’t it true that the ‘far left’, otherwise known as the grassroots of the Democratic Party, are trumped by the more moderate voters in the primaries who look at electability, whatever that means? All sarcasm aside, what it demonstrates is that the news media, even after seeing what we were about at Yearly Kos, still doesn’t understand that we are not a bunch of people on the fringe. In fact, we’re not even an ideological bunch; what we ask for is principled opposition to policies that have sent this country’s reputation into the sewers.
Next, since when has setting a firm date for pulling out of Iraq been contrary to our efforts to taking back the Senate? Polls have shown that a majority of Americans favor setting a timetable for leaving Iraq – something that went even further than the inherently meaningless Levin resolution. So to say that it’s something that ‘delights’ the left wing of our party is bullshit. It’s a view that most Americans support. Furthermore, it’s not something that we’re wetting ourselves over – having to lose more than 2,500 soldiers to come to this recognition is no laughing matter.
Reading further along, it even makes it seem as though Joe Lieberman is facing a tough challenge from outside the party:
That 86-13 vote forced Democrats in difficult midterm election campaigns, such as Sens.
Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Maria Cantwell of Washington, to go on record on the question of ending the military mission in Iraq — and risk the wrath of liberals in their states.
I wasn’t even aware that Cantwell had primary opposition, much less serious competition. The blogosphere, if it had a serious problem with her positions on Iraq, would probably have rallied around an alternative candidate, similar to the recognition Ned Lamont is getting. This brings me to my next point – Joe Lieberman is facing serious opposition within the Democratic Party. It’s not as if we are in any real danger of losing this seat; even if Lieberman decides to run as an independent and won, he would probably (much to the disdain of the blogosphere) caucus with the Democrats. The whole reason Joe is facing stiff primary opposition is because he has no vision for Iraq, and he continues to undercut our party at every chance he gets. Standing alone in the Senate, without a single Democratic senator behind him, and being praised by John Warner and Rick Santorum for his stance is a clear indication of just how alone Joe Lieberman is on this matter. Even Ben Nelson, Mary Landreiu, or some of the other more moderate Democrats didn’t even come to support him. The fact is, regardless of the outcome of this primary, Democrats will hold onto the CT-Sen seat. Cantwell will have a close general election, but it has nothing to do with liberals vs. moderates. It has everything to do with taking a stand versus willingly being a blind follower of the blind.
Aside from the fact that the debate in Iraq should not have been seen as any sort of arduous task for Democrats to speak about, it does seem like Harry Reid was not too fond of the idea of having two resolutions being introduced on the measure. While this story has a generally biased tone against the Democratic position, it speaks on two matters that did bother be some bit.
At one point, Republican officials said Reid told them he was trying to discourage Kerry from pushing for a vote on his proposal. After they heard this, Republicans brought up Kerry’s proposal and quickly dispatched it in what Democrats criticized as political gamesmanship.
[…]
Reid, officials said, was infuriated by Durbin’s defection as well as a presentation the Illinois senator made to the caucus Tuesday during Democrats’ weekly policy lunch.
The wide-ranging presentation on various issues included a poll that showed the American public leaning toward candidates who favor pulling out of Iraq in the next year — exactly the position of Kerry and Feingold.
Why on earth would Reid go to the GOP to inform them of our caucus’ predicament of settling on one resolution? We might as well just hand them a list of wedge issues on our side and tell them to hold a series of votes on them. To me, this reeks of the old politics of Washington, something one would have thought Reid would be against. Instead, he decides to abet the enemy simply because he’s not getting his way. The fact that he got upset over Durbin breaking with him is simply childish. Getting mad over the facts is something the Bush administration does. Furthermore, perhaps Durbin realized that the Levin’s statement – a nonbinding resolution pulling for an as-of-yet unknown ‘phased redeployment’ of our troops – was simply the same statement that Democrats have been making over and over the past couple of years. The fact that it’s different from the Republican’s stay-the-course non-plan does not make necessarily make it a better plan. It simply means that there is a little differentiation, and since it didn’t work in 2004, is it going to work again in 2006? I have my doubts.
Undoubtedly, the AP needs to improve its reporting and recognize that the Kerry/Feingold resolution was about standing on principle, not about politics. Harry Reid needs to recognize that America doesn’t want an opposition that plays semantics. They want a clear alternative to the current course, and what John Kerry, Russ Feingold, and John Murtha have offered is that clear differentiation that has been so elusive to Democrats of late when it comes to foreign policy.
